Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) excels at providing cryptographic, on-chain verifiability and censorship resistance because it leverages the Ethereum blockchain as a public, immutable ledger. For example, attestations are anchored to a decentralized network with 99.9%+ historical uptime, making them globally verifiable without relying on a single entity. This model is foundational for trust-minimized applications like decentralized identity (DID), Sybil resistance for airdrops, and on-chain reputation systems.
LABS
Comparisons
Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) vs Centralized Attestation Services
A technical comparison of decentralized, public-good infrastructure versus proprietary, closed APIs for building on-chain reputation and social systems.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A foundational comparison of decentralized and centralized attestation models, focusing on trust, control, and operational trade-offs.
Centralized Attestation Services (e.g., proprietary KYC providers, corporate certificate authorities) take a different approach by operating within a permissioned, controlled environment. This results in a trade-off: they offer higher throughput (10,000+ TPS) and negligible gas fees, but introduce a single point of failure and control. Their strength lies in regulatory compliance (e.g., GDPR, KYC/AML) and rapid iteration for enterprise workflows where finality and auditability are managed internally.
The key trade-off: If your priority is sovereignty, interoperability with DeFi protocols like Optimism or Base, and building credibly neutral infrastructure, choose EAS. If you prioritize low-cost, high-volume processing, strict legal liability frameworks, and have no need for on-chain verification, a Centralized Attestation Service may be more suitable. The decision fundamentally hinges on whether your use case values decentralized trust over operational efficiency and control.
tldr-summary
Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) vs Centralized Attestation Services
TL;DR Summary: Key Differentiators
A high-level comparison of decentralized and centralized attestation models, highlighting core architectural trade-offs for decision-makers.
02
EAS: Interoperable & Composable
Open schema registry: Any application can create, read, and build upon attestations using a universal standard. This matters for ecosystem growth and modular design, enabling projects like Gitcoin Passport, Optimism's AttestationStation, and World ID to share verifiable data seamlessly.
10M+
Attestations Created
03
Centralized Service: High Throughput & Low Latency
Optimized performance: Centralized databases (e.g., AWS DynamoDB, Firebase) can handle 10k+ TPS with sub-100ms latency. This matters for high-frequency applications like real-time KYC checks, gaming leaderboards, or high-volume event logging where blockchain finality is a bottleneck.
04
Centralized Service: Cost-Effective & Simple
Predictable, low operational cost: No gas fees. Infrastructure costs scale linearly with usage, often cents per thousand operations. This matters for MVP development, internal enterprise systems, or applications where on-chain trust guarantees are an unnecessary expense.
05
EAS: Verifiable Trust & Provenance
Cryptographic proof of origin: Each attestation is signed by an Ethereum account, providing a cryptographically verifiable chain of custody. This matters for supply chain tracking, academic credential verification, and audit trails where the authenticity of the issuer is as critical as the data itself.
06
Centralized Service: Full Control & Privacy
Complete data sovereignty: The service operator controls access, can implement complex privacy models (e.g., differential privacy), and easily comply with data residency laws (GDPR, CCPA). This matters for regulated industries (healthcare, finance) or applications requiring private, off-chain data graphs.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: EAS vs Centralized Services
Direct comparison of decentralized attestation on Ethereum vs. traditional centralized providers.
| Metric | Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) | Centralized Attestation Services |
|---|---|---|
Data Immutability & Censorship Resistance | ||
On-Chain Verifiability | ||
Infrastructure Cost (per 1M attestations) | $500-$2,000 (gas fees) | $10,000-$50,000 (vendor fees) |
Attestation Throughput (TPS) | ~30 (Ethereum L1 bound) | 10,000+ |
Schema Flexibility & Composability | ||
Integration with DeFi / On-Chain Apps | ||
Data Privacy (Zero-Knowledge Proofs) | Via EIP-712 / ZK rollups | Via proprietary APIs |
pros-cons-a
Decentralized vs. Centralized Trade-offs
Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS): Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison for CTOs and architects choosing an attestation infrastructure. Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance.
01
Decentralized Trust & Censorship Resistance
On-chain verification: Attestations are stored on Ethereum L2s (Optimism, Base) or other EVM chains, inheriting their security and uptime. This matters for reputation systems (like Gitcoin Passport) or KYC credentials where user control and auditability are non-negotiable.
10+
Supported Chains
03
Operational Control & Predictable Cost
Fixed, off-chain pricing: No gas fee volatility. This matters for high-volume B2B operations (like corporate credentialing) where budgeting and cost predictability are critical for scaling to thousands of attestations.
04
Performance & Simplified Integration
High throughput API: Centralized services can handle millions of requests per second without blockchain confirmation delays. This matters for real-time verification (like event ticketing or gaming achievements) where sub-second latency is required.
05
Schema Flexibility & Privacy Options
Private attestations: EAS supports off-chain, encrypted attestations via EIP-712 signatures, enabling use cases like private employment verifications or medical records that don't require public blockchain storage.
06
Regulatory & Legal Clarity
Clear data jurisdiction: Centralized providers operate under specific legal frameworks (e.g., GDPR, SOC 2), offering defined liability and data handling procedures. This matters for enterprise adoption in regulated industries like finance or healthcare.
pros-cons-b
Ethereum Attestation Service vs. Centralized Providers
Centralized Attestation Services: Pros and Cons
Key architectural trade-offs and operational strengths for CTOs evaluating attestation infrastructure. Focus on decentralization, cost, and control.
02
Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS): Key Trade-off
Higher Latency & Variable Cost: On-chain transactions mean attestation speed is bound by block times (e.g., ~12 seconds on L2s) and costs fluctuate with network gas fees. This matters for high-frequency, low-value attestations where sub-second finality and predictable micro-costs are critical.
03
Centralized Service (e.g., OAuth, Proprietary API): Key Strength
High Performance & Predictable Cost: Centralized databases enable sub-100ms attestation issuance/verification with fixed, often volume-based, SaaS pricing. This matters for traditional enterprise integrations, high-TPS gaming credentials, or mobile-first apps where user experience and operational budgeting are paramount.
04
Centralized Service (e.g., OAuth, Proprietary API): Key Trade-off
Single Point of Failure & Vendor Lock-in: The service provider controls the data and API availability. A provider's policy change, outage, or decision can invalidate your entire attestation graph. This matters for long-lived decentralized identity (DID) systems or cross-protocol integrations where longevity and neutrality are non-negotiable.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Guide: When to Choose Which
EAS for Developers
Verdict: The default for composable, trust-minimized applications.
Strengths: Schema Registry and Attestation Graph create an open, permissionless data layer. Developers can define custom schemas (e.g., KYCStatus, GameAchievement) and build on attestations from any other app, enabling powerful cross-protocol integrations. Native support for Off-Chain Attestations (IPFS/HTTP) via EAS SDK allows for gasless use cases. Ideal for building Soulbound Tokens (SBTs), reputation systems, and on-chain resumes that require verifiable, non-transferable claims.
Centralized Service for Developers
Verdict: Best for rapid prototyping with controlled environments. Strengths: Managed APIs (e.g., from traditional identity providers) drastically reduce development time. No need to manage wallet connectivity or gas fees for end-users during testing. Useful for private beta networks, enterprise PoCs, or applications where all issuers are known and trusted (e.g., internal credentialing). Lacks the censorship resistance and interoperability of a public good like EAS.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A clear breakdown of the decentralization vs. control trade-off to guide your attestation infrastructure choice.
Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) excels at providing cryptographic, censorship-resistant verifiability because attestations are anchored on-chain (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base). For example, a project like Gitcoin Passport uses EAS to create immutable, user-owned attestations for Sybil resistance, leveraging the security of the underlying L2's consensus (e.g., Arbitrum's ~$2.5B TVL). This creates a trustless, interoperable standard where data integrity is guaranteed by the blockchain's state, not a single entity.
Centralized Attestation Services (e.g., proprietary KYC providers, internal corporate systems) take a different approach by maintaining full administrative control and high-throughput processing. This results in a trade-off: you gain superior operational speed (thousands of TPS, negligible latency) and the ability to revoke or edit data for compliance, but you introduce a single point of failure and require users to trust your organization's governance and data integrity policies.
The key architectural divergence is trust model versus performance. EAS shifts the trust from an institution to cryptographic proofs and decentralized consensus, enabling novel composability with other on-chain protocols like ERC-20 tokens, DAOs, and DeFi. Centralized services prioritize customizable workflows, regulatory compliance (GDPR right-to-erasure), and predictable, low-cost operations without blockchain gas fees, which can be volatile (Ethereum mainnet attestation fees can range from $2 to $50+).
Consider EAS if your priority is building user-centric, permissionless applications where data portability, anti-censorship, and on-chain composability are critical. This is ideal for decentralized identity (DID), credentialing, and reputation systems that must interact across the Web3 stack. Choose a centralized service when your primary needs are cost predictability, high transaction volume, strict regulatory requirements, or complete control over the data lifecycle, such as for internal enterprise compliance or traditional fintech applications.
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