Raw Hash Signing excels at simplicity and broad compatibility because it has been the foundational standard since Ethereum's inception. It generates a single, opaque hash of transaction data, making it universally supported by every wallet and smart contract. For example, protocols like Uniswap V2 and the majority of DeFi transactions still rely on this method due to its low computational overhead and predictable gas costs, often under 50k gas for a basic transfer.
LABS
Comparisons
EIP-712 Structured Signing vs Raw Hash Signing
A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects on the trade-offs between human-readable EIP-712 signatures and opaque raw hash signing, focusing on user experience, security, and implementation complexity.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Signing Paradigm Shift
A technical breakdown of EIP-712's human-readable signatures versus the raw efficiency of traditional hash signing.
EIP-712 Structured Signing takes a different approach by encoding semantic meaning into the signature payload. This results in a trade-off: increased front-end complexity for vastly improved user experience. Wallets like MetaMask and Rainbow can display a human-readable breakdown of the data being signed (e.g., "You are signing an order to swap 1 ETH for 3200 USDC"), dramatically reducing phishing risk. Adoption is growing in user-centric dApps like OpenSea and decentralized identity protocols.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum compatibility and minimal integration complexity for simple transactions, choose Raw Hash Signing. If you prioritize user security, transparency, and are building complex dApps with nested structs (like limit orders or DAO votes), choose EIP-712. The paradigm is shifting towards structured data as the default for any application where user trust is paramount.
tldr-summary
EIP-712 vs Raw Hash Signing
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for protocol architects and wallet developers.
01
EIP-712: Human-Readable Security
Structured Data Display: Presents a clear, formatted message to the user (e.g., 'Sign this order to sell 100 ETH for 200,000 DAI'). This drastically reduces phishing risk and is critical for DeFi dApps (Uniswap, OpenSea) and DAO governance (Snapshot) where transaction intent must be unambiguous.
02
EIP-712: Future-Proof & Verifiable
Off-Chain to On-Chain Consistency: The signed payload includes the domain separator (chain ID, contract address), preventing replay attacks across chains. This is essential for gasless meta-transactions (via Gelato, OpenZeppelin Defender) and permit functions (ERC-20 permit, ERC-721 permitForAll), enabling secure signature verification on-chain.
03
Raw Hash Signing: Maximum Compatibility
Universal Wallet Support: Every wallet (MetaMask, Ledger, Rainbow) and every chain (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum) supports signing a raw keccak256 hash. This is non-negotiable for broad user-base applications or when integrating with legacy systems and hardware wallets that lack EIP-712 parsing.
04
Raw Hash Signing: Simplicity & Speed
Lower Implementation Overhead: No need to define complex typeHash structures or manage domain separators. This reduces development time and is sufficient for simple, self-contained actions like proving ownership of a specific address or signing a one-time nonce for authentication.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
EIP-712 vs Raw Hash Signing: Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of structured data signing (EIP-712) and traditional raw hash signing for on-chain transactions and off-chain messages.
| Metric / Feature | EIP-712 Structured Signing | Raw Hash Signing |
|---|---|---|
Human-Readable Verification | ||
Typed Data Structure | JSON Schema (types, domain, message) | 0x-prefixed hex string |
Primary Use Case | Off-chain agreements (dApps, NFTs, DeFi) | Standard on-chain transactions |
Wallet UX (Signing Screen) | Shows structured data fields | Shows unintelligible hex hash |
Phishing Resistance | High (verifiable domain & data) | Low (hash is opaque) |
Gas Cost for On-Chain Verification | ~5-15% higher | Baseline (cheapest) |
EVM Compatibility | Full (EIP-712 standard) | Full (native opcode) |
Adoption by Major Wallets | MetaMask, WalletConnect, Rainbow | Universal |
pros-cons-a
EIP-712 vs Raw Hash Signing
EIP-712 Structured Signing: Pros and Cons
A technical breakdown of the trade-offs between human-readable structured signatures and traditional raw hash signing for on-chain transactions and off-chain messages.
01
EIP-712: Human-Readable Security
Specific advantage: Presents signers with a structured, readable JSON representation of the data they are signing, including domain, types, and values. This matters for delegated transactions (e.g., DEX limit orders, gasless meta-transactions via OpenZeppelin Defender or Gelato) and DAO governance votes (e.g., Snapshot, Tally), as it drastically reduces phishing risk by eliminating signature blindness.
02
EIP-712: Enhanced Developer Experience
Specific advantage: Provides a standardized schema (EIP712Domain, types) that enables type-safe signing across frontends (e.g., ethers.js signTypedData, viem signTypedData) and smart contracts (using ecrecover with structured hash). This matters for building complex dApps like multi-step NFT minting or subscription services, as it simplifies debugging and ensures consistency between off-chain signing and on-chain verification logic.
03
Raw Signing: Universal Simplicity & Compatibility
Specific advantage: Uses a simple keccak256 hash of arbitrary data, supported by every wallet and library since Ethereum's inception. This matters for broad protocol compatibility and legacy system integration, where supporting exotic or older wallets (e.g., some hardware wallet firmware) is a higher priority than user experience. It's the baseline for simple approvals and basic contract interactions.
04
Raw Signing: Lower Implementation Overhead
Specific advantage: Eliminates the need to define and manage EIP-712 domain separators, type hashes, and complex encoding logic. This matters for prototyping and gas-optimized contracts where every byte counts, as the verification logic (ecrecover(hash, v, r, s)) is more straightforward. However, this comes at the cost of user security and signer confusion for complex data.
pros-cons-b
EIP-712 vs Raw Hash
Raw Hash Signing: Pros and Cons
A technical breakdown of two dominant signing paradigms for EVM wallets. Choose based on user experience, security, and integration complexity.
02
EIP-712: Protocol & Wallet Compatibility
Specific advantage: Native support in MetaMask, WalletConnect, and 90%+ of major EVM wallets. This matters for mass-market dApps requiring trustless signatures for actions like off-chain orders (OpenSea), social recovery (Safe), or gasless transactions (Gelato). Enables a standardized developer experience.
03
Raw Hash: Maximum Flexibility & Speed
Specific advantage: Signs any arbitrary 32-byte keccak256 hash. This matters for custom cryptographic schemes (e.g., Schnorr aggregations, zero-knowledge proof inputs) or legacy systems where implementing EIP-712's type encoding is prohibitive. Offers lower initial integration overhead for simple schemes.
04
Raw Hash: Ubiquitous Fallback
Specific advantage: Universal support across all EVM wallets and clients, including older or minimalistic implementations. This matters for broad compatibility layers (e.g., multi-chain bridges, generic relayers) or auditing tools that must handle any signature format. It's the lowest common denominator.
05
EIP-712: Development Overhead
Specific disadvantage: Requires defining domainSeparator and typeHash for each contract and message type. This matters for rapid prototyping or simple dApps where the extra Solidity structs and off-chain type generation add complexity compared to a single keccak256 call.
06
Raw Hash: Opaque User Risk
Specific disadvantage: Users sign an unintelligible hex string, creating a major security vulnerability. This matters for any application handling user assets, as it enables phishing ("blind signing") and makes transaction intent verification impossible. Responsible for millions in annual losses.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which
EIP-712 for UX & Adoption
Verdict: Mandatory for user-facing dApps. Strengths: Human-readable signatures in wallet prompts (e.g., "Sign this order to trade 100 USDC") drastically reduce user anxiety and errors. This is the standard for major DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Aave) and marketplaces (OpenSea) because it builds trust. The structured data enables advanced meta-transactions via ERC-2771 and Gelato for gasless experiences.
Raw Hash Signing for UX & Adoption
Verdict: Avoid for mainstream products.
Weaknesses: Presenting a user with an opaque 0x4f2c... hash is a security red flag and a major adoption barrier. It's impossible for users to verify what they're signing, leading to abandonment or phishing risks. Only suitable for backend, automated systems where no human is in the loop.
EIP-712 VS RAW SIGNATURES
Technical Deep Dive: Implementation & Security
A technical comparison of EIP-712 structured signing and traditional raw hash signing, focusing on developer implementation, user experience, and security implications for modern dApps.
EIP-712 provides superior security for users by enabling human-readable verification. It prevents "blind signing" where users sign an opaque hex string, a major vector for phishing attacks. By presenting structured, type-checked data (like domain, message types, and values), users can verify exactly what they're signing in their wallet UI (e.g., MetaMask). Raw hash signing offers no such context, making it riskier for complex transactions common in DeFi (Uniswap swaps) or NFT marketplaces (OpenSea listings).
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between EIP-712 and raw hash signing is a strategic decision balancing user experience with broad compatibility.
EIP-712 Structured Signing excels at providing a superior user experience and enhanced security transparency. By presenting human-readable signing messages in wallets like MetaMask, it drastically reduces phishing risks and user confusion. For example, dApps like Uniswap and OpenSea leverage EIP-712 to show users clear details of the exact token, amount, and recipient they are authorizing, which is critical for high-value DeFi and NFT transactions. This structured data approach also enables advanced signature schemes like BLS or Schnorr for future scalability.
Raw Hash Signing takes a different approach by relying on a simple, opaque hexadecimal string. This results in universal compatibility across all EVM wallets and chains, including older networks and some Layer 2s that may not fully support EIP-712. The trade-off is a poor UX where users sign an unintelligible hash, increasing the risk of malicious transactions. However, its simplicity makes it the default fallback for maximal interoperability, as seen in foundational protocols like the original ERC-20 permit standard before widespread EIP-712 adoption.
The key trade-off: If your priority is user safety, complex transaction intent, and future-proofing for mainstream adoption, choose EIP-712. It is non-negotiable for any application handling valuable assets or complex logic. If you prioritize maximum chain/wallet compatibility, minimal implementation overhead, or interactions with legacy systems, raw hash signing remains a necessary tool. For most modern dApps, the strategic path is to implement EIP-712 as the primary method with a raw hash fallback, ensuring both optimal UX and broad reach.
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