Gitcoin Passport Stamps (EAS) vs Standalone SBTs

Vendor Lock-in & Centralized Curation: Stamps and scoring algorithms are controlled by Gitcoin. Migrating your identity graph out of the EAS schema is non-trivial. This matters if you require protocol-level sovereignty or need attestations not in Gitcoin's approved list.

Full Design Sovereignty: Mint Soulbound Tokens (ERC-721, ERC-1155) with custom logic, on any EVM chain (Optimism, Arbitrum, Base). This matters for bespoke reputation systems (e.g., Uniswap's delegate badges) or when integrating with specific smart contracts like Aave Governance.

High Integration Overhead: You must bootstrap trust, manage issuance logic, and establish your own revocation mechanisms. Lacks a universal verification standard, leading to fragmentation. This matters for teams with limited dev resources wanting a turnkey solution.

Pre-built integration ecosystem: Plug-and-play with 100+ verifiers (BrightID, ENS, POAP) and major protocols like Optimism Grants and Arbitrum DAO. This matters for teams needing to launch a sybil-resistant system in weeks, not months, without building credential infrastructure.

Off-chain attestations with on-chain proofs: Uses Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) on Optimism/Base, storing only a hash on-chain. This reduces gas costs to < $0.01 per stamp and allows users to reveal selective credentials. This matters for scaling to millions of users without imposing prohibitive costs.

Native smart contract integration: SBTs are first-class assets that can be queried directly by DeFi protocols (e.g., Aave GHO), DAO governance (e.g., Moloch v3), or gaming ecosystems. This matters for building complex, on-chain reputation logic where token holdings trigger automated rights or conditions.

Single point of failure: The Passport score and stamp validity depend on Gitcoin's indexing and the EAS schema registry. If the aggregator goes down, integrated dApps may fail. This matters for mission-critical systems requiring 100% uptime and decentralized governance over attestation logic.

Wallet and chain sprawl: Users must manage SBTs across multiple wallets and chains, with no unified score. Protocols must build their own verification logic, leading to inconsistent standards. This matters for consumer applications needing a simple, aggregated trust score from diverse sources.

Complete control over the token contract: Enables custom burning mechanics, transfer restrictions, and complex governance hooks (e.g., SBT-gated voting with Snapshot). This matters for protocols requiring unique, non-standard behaviors that EAS schemas cannot easily encapsulate.

Native ERC-721/1155 compatibility: SBTs are directly queryable by any smart contract using standard interfaces, enabling seamless integration with DeFi pools, NFT marketplaces, and DAO tooling. This matters for building complex, interdependent on-chain systems where attestations may need to be used as collateral or access tokens.

Dependent on EAS and Gitcoin's schema decisions: Your attestation graph is tied to a specific registry. If the service changes fees, discontinues a schema, or suffers downtime, your application is affected. This matters for mission-critical systems requiring guaranteed uptime and control over the data layer.

Significant upfront development and maintenance: Requires auditing custom contracts (~$50K+), building indexers for efficient queries, and managing revocation/upgrade mechanisms. This matters for early-stage projects or MVPs where capital efficiency and speed are paramount.