ERC-1400 vs ERC-1155: Compliance vs Utility Multi-Token

Built-in compliance: Enforces on-chain transfer restrictions, investor whitelists (via verifyTransfer), and document attachments. This matters for security tokens (STOs), private equity, and real-world assets (RWA) where legal jurisdiction is paramount. Integrates with Polymath, Securitize, and Tokeny platforms.

Massive gas efficiency: Batch transfers of multiple token types in a single transaction, reducing gas costs by up to 90% for minting and trading. This matters for game item ecosystems, NFT collections with multiple traits, and metaverse platforms like Enjin, The Sandbox, and OpenSea's bundled listings.

Higher complexity & cost: Requires a sophisticated on-chain permissioning system and often an off-chain validator. This leads to higher gas overhead per transfer and more complex integration than fungible tokens. Not suitable for public, permissionless trading of common NFTs.

No native compliance: Lacks built-in mechanisms for transfer restrictions or investor accreditation. All logic must be built at the application layer. This matters if you're tokenizing financial instruments or assets with legal constraints; you must layer on additional standards or off-chain checks.

Built-in transfer restrictions: Enforces KYC/AML checks, investor accreditation, and jurisdiction rules at the smart contract level. This is mandatory for security tokens (STOs) and compliant fundraising. Protocols like Polymath and Securitize use it to tokenize real-world assets like equity and debt.

Partitioned ownership and complex logic: Allows tokens to be segmented (e.g., Class A vs. Class B shares) with unique rules per partition. Supports dividend distributions, voting rights, and corporate actions natively. Essential for mirroring traditional financial instruments on-chain.

Steep development overhead: Implementing the full spec requires complex logic for document management and validation hooks. This leads to higher gas costs for transfers and a smaller pool of experienced developers compared to more common standards like ERC-20.

Massive gas savings: Transfer multiple token types (fungible, non-fungible, semi-fungible) in a single transaction. Projects like Enjin and OpenSea use this for minting and trading thousands of gaming items, reducing gas fees by up to 90% for bulk actions.

Single contract for infinite tokens: Manage an entire ecosystem of assets (currency, skins, deeds) from one address. Simplifies deployment, auditing, and upgrades. This is the backbone of metaverse economies and blockchain games like The Sandbox.

No native regulatory framework: The standard lacks built-in mechanisms for investor validation or transfer restrictions. Adding compliance requires custom, off-standard modifications that can break compatibility with major marketplaces and wallets expecting the vanilla ERC-1155 interface.

Built-in investor controls: Enforces transfer restrictions (e.g., KYC/AML, jurisdiction locks) at the smart contract level. This is critical for security token offerings (STOs) and compliant digital assets like those from Polymath and Securitize.

Mandatory legal attestation: Requires attaching prospectus-like documents (prospectus, terms) to partitions. This provides a clear audit trail for regulators, essential for projects in regulated DeFi (rDeFi) or representing real-world assets (RWA).

Massive gas savings: A single transaction can mint, transfer, or burn multiple token types (fungible, non-fungible, semi-fungible). This reduces gas costs by up to 90% for gaming projects like Enjin or marketplaces bundling assets, directly impacting user experience.

Unified contract for complex systems: Manages entire in-game economies (currencies, items, skins) or digital collectible sets in one contract. This simplifies development for metaverse platforms and NFT-gated utilities, enabling dynamic interactions between different asset classes.

High development overhead: Implementing partition logic, document storage, and controller systems requires specialized legal-tech expertise, increasing initial cost and time-to-market. Less suitable for fast-moving consumer dApps or pure utility tokens.

No built-in transfer rules: Lacks native hooks for enforcing investor accreditation or jurisdictional compliance. Requires additional, often complex, off-chain or modular solutions (like ERC-3643), making it a weaker fit for primary securities issuance.