ERC-3664 (CORE) excels at interoperability and developer onboarding by providing a standardized, composable interface for on-chain metadata. This reduces integration friction, as wallets like MetaMask and marketplaces like OpenSea can build unified support for all CORE-based assets. For example, protocols like Unlock Protocol leverage this standard to create dynamic membership passes, benefiting from a shared ecosystem of tools and indexers without bespoke engineering.
LABS
Comparisons
Dynamic Metadata Standards (ERC-3664) vs Custom Implementations
A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects evaluating the trade-offs between adopting the emerging ERC-3664 standard for composable dynamic metadata versus building and maintaining a proprietary system.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Dilemma for Dynamic NFT Infrastructure
Choosing the right foundation for dynamic NFTs forces a critical decision between standardization and customization.
Custom Implementations take a different approach by offering complete architectural freedom. This results in optimized performance and unique functionality tailored to a specific use case, such as a high-frequency gaming asset or a complex DeFi derivative NFT. Projects like Aavegotchi, which pre-dates ERC-3664, demonstrate this by deeply integrating their dynamic traits within their own smart contract logic and subgraph, achieving sub-second state updates at the cost of ecosystem portability.
The key trade-off: If your priority is ecosystem integration, faster time-to-market, and composability with existing DeFi and NFT tooling, choose ERC-3664. If you prioritize maximum performance, unique logic that cannot be standardized, or have already built significant custom infrastructure, a Custom Implementation may be justified despite the higher long-term maintenance burden.
tldr-summary
ERC-3664 vs Custom Implementations
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the standardized approach versus building your own metadata layer.
01
ERC-3664: Interoperability & Network Effects
Standardized composability: Enables seamless integration with wallets (Rainbow, MetaMask), marketplaces (OpenSea, Blur), and indexers (The Graph). This matters for projects requiring broad ecosystem adoption without custom integrations for each platform.
02
ERC-3664: Reduced Development Overhead
Pre-audited, reusable logic: Leverages battle-tested reference implementations (like those from 0xsequence) and avoids the security cost of designing a novel system. This matters for teams with limited protocol-level engineering resources.
03
Custom Implementation: Ultimate Flexibility
Tailored gas optimization & logic: Design gas-efficient storage (e.g., using SSTORE2 for on-chain art) and complex update permissions (multi-sig, DAO-governed) specific to your protocol's needs. This matters for high-frequency or cost-sensitive applications like on-chain games.
04
Custom Implementation: No Protocol Dependency
Avoids external risk: Your metadata layer's functionality and security are not contingent on the adoption or potential flaws in the ERC-3664 standard itself. This matters for mission-critical financial protocols where control is paramount.
DYNAMIC METADATA IMPLEMENTATION
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison: ERC-3664 vs Custom
Direct comparison of standardization, cost, and flexibility for on-chain metadata.
| Metric | ERC-3664 (CCIP-Read) | Custom Implementation |
|---|---|---|
Standardization & Interoperability | ||
Avg. Gas Cost for Update | $10-50 | $100-500+ |
Client-Side Resolution Support | Varies | |
Off-Chain Data Dependency | ||
Protocols Using Standard | ENS, L2s | Project-Specific |
Time to Integrate 3rd-Party Tool | < 1 week | 1-4 weeks |
Requires Custom Indexer |
pros-cons-a
DYNAMIC METADATA STANDARDS
ERC-3664 vs Custom Implementations
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs deciding on a metadata strategy.
01
ERC-3664: Standardized Interoperability
Universal Client Support: Wallets (Rainbow, MetaMask) and marketplaces (OpenSea, Blur) build support once for all ERC-3664 tokens. This eliminates the need for custom integrator work, reducing your GTM time from months to weeks.
Example: An NFT with off-chain traits can update its image in all marketplaces simultaneously without requiring new smart contract deployments or platform-specific partnerships.
02
ERC-3664: Reduced Protocol Risk
Audited & Battle-Tested: The standard's core mechanics (CCIP-Read) are used by Chainlink and ENS, securing billions in value. Your custom logic is isolated in your gateway, not the token contract.
Security Model: The token contract only holds a reference URI; the dynamic logic and data reside off-chain. This limits the attack surface on your main contract, a critical consideration for protocols with high TVL.
03
Custom Implementation: Ultimate Flexibility
Tailored Gas & Logic: Design the entire data flow, caching, and update mechanisms. Need sub-second metadata changes based on on-chain events? You can build it without the overhead of a generalized standard.
Use Case Fit: Perfect for complex game assets (e.g., dynamic Axie Infinity stats) or financial NFTs where metadata updates must be atomic with specific treasury actions, requiring a tightly coupled, proprietary system.
04
Custom Implementation: No Dependency Tax
Avoid Gateway Bottlenecks: ERC-3664 relies on your off-chain gateway's uptime. A custom solution lets you choose any infrastructure (subgraph, centralized API, P2P network) or bake logic directly on-chain.
Cost Control: You own the entire stack. There's no need to conform to a standard's data format or resolution process, which can reduce long-term operational complexity and cost for highly specific, high-volume applications.
pros-cons-b
ERC-3664 vs Custom Solutions
Custom Implementation: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for dynamic metadata strategies.
01
ERC-3664: Interoperability & Network Effects
Standardized Interface: A universal getMetadata function ensures any wallet, marketplace, or tool (like OpenSea or Blur) can read your NFT's dynamic state without custom integration. This unlocks immediate composability with the entire EVM ecosystem's tooling.
02
ERC-3664: Reduced Development Overhead
Battle-Tested Foundation: Leverage existing, audited reference implementations from projects like 0xEssential. Avoids reinventing core logic for on-chain resolution, caching, and update authorization, cutting development time by weeks and reducing security audit surface.
03
Custom Implementation: Absolute Flexibility
Tailored Logic & Gas Optimization: Design a system perfectly aligned with your protocol's needs. For example, a high-frequency trading NFT game can implement ultra-efficient, bespoke update mechanisms that bypass ERC-3664's generic overhead, saving significant gas for users.
04
Custom Implementation: Protocol-Specific Control
Own the Full Stack: Maintain complete control over upgrade paths, data storage (e.g., using a Merkle tree for proofs), and dependency management. This is critical for protocols where metadata logic is a core competitive moat and cannot be subject to external standard constraints.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
ERC-3664 for Architects
Verdict: The strategic default for long-term composability and ecosystem integration.
Strengths: Standardization is the core value. Using ERC-3664 ensures your protocol's metadata is instantly compatible with a growing ecosystem of wallets (Rainbow, Zerion), indexers (The Graph, Covalent), and other dApps without custom integrations. It future-proofs your project against fragmentation and reduces integration overhead for partners. The modular, on-chain resolution via resolve() allows for dynamic, trust-minimized updates.
Trade-off: Requires adopting the standard's structure, which may not fit every exotic data model without adaptation layers.
Custom Implementation for Architects
Verdict: Necessary for niche, high-performance, or tightly controlled environments where standardization is a constraint. Strengths: Complete control over gas optimization, data schema, update permissions, and resolution logic. Ideal for closed-loop systems (e.g., a proprietary gaming engine) or when metadata logic is deeply coupled with core contract functions and requires maximal efficiency. You avoid any potential overhead from generic resolver patterns. Trade-off: You forfeit network effects. Every new integrator must write custom code, creating a maintenance and adoption bottleneck. You become responsible for all tooling and client SDKs.
DYNAMIC METADATA
Technical Deep Dive: Implementation & Cost Analysis
Choosing between a standard like ERC-3664 and a custom smart contract for dynamic metadata involves critical trade-offs in cost, security, and future-proofing. This analysis breaks down the key technical and economic differences for protocol architects.
A custom contract is typically cheaper for a single, simple use case. You only pay for the specific logic you need. ERC-3664 has higher initial gas costs due to its generalized architecture and on-chain registry, but this cost is amortized across all projects using the standard. For a one-off feature, custom wins. For a protocol planning multiple dynamic attributes or ecosystem tooling, ERC-3664's shared infrastructure becomes more cost-effective long-term.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between a standard and a custom build is a strategic decision that balances interoperability against specialized control.
ERC-3664 (CCIP Read) excels at composability and ecosystem integration because it provides a universal interface for off-chain data. For example, protocols like ENS and Lens Protocol leverage it to enable dynamic, updatable metadata without fragmenting the user experience across wallets and explorers. Adopting the standard grants immediate access to a growing tooling stack, including indexers and oracles already configured for CCIP Read, reducing your integration surface and developer onboarding time significantly.
Custom Implementations take a different approach by prioritizing absolute control and optimization for a specific use case. This results in a trade-off: you gain the ability to design gas-efficient, bespoke data structures and security models (like a custom multi-sig or DAO-controlled update mechanism), but you sacrifice broad interoperability. Your metadata becomes a siloed feature, requiring custom frontends and increasing the long-term maintenance burden as you rebuild tooling that standards provide for free.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid development, future-proof composability, and leveraging existing infrastructure, choose ERC-3664. This is ideal for social graphs, upgradable NFTs, or any application where data needs to be consumed by third-party platforms. If you prioritize maximizing performance for a closed system, enforcing unique governance logic, or handling data volumes incompatible with current L1 gas economics, a Custom Implementation may be justified. The decision ultimately hinges on whether the value of ecosystem alignment outweighs the benefits of a perfectly tailored solution.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall