did:ethr excels at providing the highest security and decentralization guarantee because it anchors identity operations directly on Ethereum L1. For example, its DID documents are secured by the same consensus mechanism protecting over $500B in DeFi TVL, making it the gold standard for high-value, long-lived identities in protocols like uPort and Veramo. This comes at a cost, with typical DID creation or update transactions costing $5-$20+ during network congestion.
LABS
Comparisons
did:ethr vs did:polygon: Ethereum L1 vs Polygon L2 DIDs
A technical analysis comparing the security and decentralization of Ethereum mainnet DIDs against the cost-efficiency and speed of Polygon's L2 solution. This guide provides a decision framework for CTOs and architects selecting a DID method for Soulbound Tokens, Verifiable Credentials, and enterprise identity systems.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Trade-off for Decentralized Identity
Choosing between did:ethr and did:polygon is a foundational decision that balances ultimate security against cost and performance.
did:polygon takes a different approach by leveraging a high-throughput Ethereum L2. This results in dramatically lower costs—often less than $0.01 per transaction—and faster finality (2-3 seconds vs. Ethereum's ~12 seconds), enabling scalable applications like gaming credentials or high-frequency credential issuance. The trade-off is a dependency on Polygon's validator set and bridging security, which, while robust, is a step removed from Ethereum's base-layer security.
The key trade-off: If your priority is uncompromising security and censorship resistance for high-stake identities (e.g., institutional KYC, asset ownership proofs), choose did:ethr. If you prioritize low-cost, high-volume transactions for consumer-scale applications (e.g., event ticketing, community memberships, frequent credential updates), choose did:polygon.
tldr-summary
Ethereum L1 vs Polygon L2 DIDs
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the foundational security of Ethereum L1 versus the cost-efficiency and speed of Polygon L2 for decentralized identity management.
01
Choose did:ethr for Maximum Security & Finality
Unmatched Security: Inherits the full security of the Ethereum mainnet, with over $50B in staked ETH securing the network. This matters for high-value, long-term identity assertions like enterprise credentials or legal attestations where finality and censorship resistance are non-negotiable. Direct compatibility with ERC-725/735 and EIP-712 standards.
02
Choose did:ethr for Protocol-Level Integration
Native Ecosystem Integration: As the base layer, it is the default for major identity protocols like Veramo, SpruceID, and ENS. This matters for projects that require deep integration with DeFi protocols (AAVE, Compound), DAO tooling, or other L1-native applications where cross-contract calls are essential.
03
Choose did:polygon for Sub-Cent Transaction Costs
Radical Cost Efficiency: DID operations (create, update, revoke) cost <$0.01 on Polygon PoS vs. $5-$50+ on Ethereum L1. This matters for mass-market applications like gaming identities, community credentials, or supply chain tracking where issuing millions of verifiable credentials is cost-prohibitive on L1.
04
Choose did:polygon for High-Throughput Applications
Scalable Performance: Supports ~7,000 TPS with ~2 second block times, enabling real-time identity checks and updates. This matters for high-frequency use cases like event ticketing, IoT device attestations, or social media dApps that require instant, low-latency verification without congesting the mainnet.
DID:ETHR VS DID:POLYGON
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of Ethereum L1 and Polygon L2 Decentralized Identifiers for protocol architects.
| Metric | did:ethr (Ethereum L1) | did:polygon (Polygon L2) |
|---|---|---|
Avg. DID Operation Cost (Gas) | $2 - $15 | < $0.01 |
Transaction Finality Time | ~15 minutes | ~2 seconds |
Settlement Guarantee | Ethereum Mainnet Finality | Checkpoints to Ethereum |
Ecosystem Tooling Support | ||
Native Smart Contract Integration | Solidity/EVM | Solidity/EVM |
Primary Use Case | High-value, sovereign identity | High-frequency, low-cost identity |
DID:ETHR VS DID:POLYGON
Cost Analysis: Gas Fees and Operational Expenses
Direct comparison of operational costs for Decentralized Identifiers on Ethereum L1 versus Polygon L2.
| Metric | did:ethr (Ethereum L1) | did:ethr (Polygon L2) |
|---|---|---|
Avg. DID Creation Cost | $15 - $45 | $0.01 - $0.05 |
Avg. DID Update Cost | $8 - $25 | $0.005 - $0.02 |
Transaction Finality | ~15 minutes | ~2 seconds |
Base Security Model | Ethereum Mainnet | Ethereum + Plasma/PoS |
Ecosystem Tooling Support | ||
Native Cross-Chain Portability |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
did:ethr vs did:polygonid: Ethereum L1 vs Polygon L2 DIDs
Key strengths and trade-offs for choosing a Decentralized Identifier (DID) method on Ethereum Mainnet versus Polygon's zkEVM.
01
did:ethr: Maximum Security & Finality
Unmatched security and decentralization: Anchored to Ethereum's $500B+ base layer security with 1M+ validators. DID operations inherit the crypto-economic finality of L1. This is critical for high-value, long-term identity assertions like corporate credentials or property titles where the cost of a chain reorganization is unacceptable.
02
did:ethr: Native Ecosystem Integration
Deepest protocol compatibility: Seamlessly integrates with the Ethereum Name Service (ENS), Verifiable Credential standards (EIP-712, EIP-4361), and major wallets (MetaMask, Rainbow). This matters for dApps requiring direct on-chain verification without cross-chain bridges, such as token-gated access or Sybil-resistant governance.
03
did:polygonid: Ultra-Low Cost & High Throughput
Sub-cent transaction fees and high TPS: Leverages Polygon zkEVM's ~5,000 TPS and $0.001-$0.01 transaction costs. This enables mass-scale, frequent identity interactions like daily login attestations, micro-credential issuance, or IoT device pings, which are economically prohibitive on Ethereum L1.
04
did:polygonid: Built for Zero-Knowledge Proofs
Native zkProof infrastructure: The Polygon ID stack is optimized for selective disclosure and privacy-preserving verification. It supports ZK-powered credential proofs natively, making it the superior choice for applications demanding user privacy, such as proof-of-age or proof-of-salary without revealing underlying data.
05
did:ethr: Cost & Speed Trade-off
High and volatile gas fees: DID creation/updates can cost $5-$50+ during network congestion. Slower confirmation times (12-second blocks, ~15 min for full finality). This is a significant constraint for high-frequency or user-facing applications where cost predictability is required.
06
did:polygonid: Security & Liquidity Reliance
Security derived from Ethereum: While secure, it relies on the validity proofs and watchdogs of the Polygon zkEVM bridge. For ultra-high-asset DIDs, this introduces a theoretical bridge risk not present on L1. Also, some high-value DeFi/NFT ecosystems remain primarily on Ethereum L1.
pros-cons-b
Ethereum L1 vs Polygon L2 DIDs
did:polygon: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for Decentralized Identifiers on Ethereum's base layer versus its leading L2 scaling solution.
01
did:ethr: Maximum Security & Decentralization
Unmatched Security: Inherits the full security of the Ethereum mainnet, secured by ~$500B+ in staked ETH. This is critical for high-value, long-lived identity assertions in finance (DeFi KYC) or legal credentials.
Universal Interoperability: The W3C DID standard and Verifiable Credentials are natively supported by a vast ecosystem, including identity wallets (MetaMask, uPort) and verification services.
02
did:ethr: Cost & Speed Limitations
High Transaction Costs: Minting and updating DIDs can cost $5-$50+ during network congestion, making frequent attestations (like skill badges) prohibitively expensive.
Slower Finality: ~12-15 minute block time for full finality, which is suboptimal for real-time verification scenarios like event check-ins or instant credential issuance.
03
did:polygon: Ultra-Low Cost & High Throughput
Fractional Transaction Fees: DID operations cost < $0.01, enabling mass-scale applications like student credentials, employee onboarding, and IoT device identities.
High Speed: ~2 second block time with instant finality via Ethereum checkpoints. Ideal for high-frequency interactions in gaming identities or supply chain tracking.
04
did:polygon: L2 Security Trade-offs
Dependent Security: Relies on Ethereum for ultimate settlement, introducing a theoretical bridge risk and a 7-day withdrawal delay for forced exits.
Ecosystem Maturity: While growing rapidly, the tooling (wallets, libraries like ethr-did-resolver) and institutional recognition are not as battle-tested as Ethereum L1's.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which: A Use Case Breakdown
did:polygon for Cost & Scale
Verdict: The clear choice for high-volume, low-margin applications. Strengths: Transaction fees are ~0.001-0.01 USD, enabling mass issuance and management of DIDs for users, IoT devices, or gaming assets. The Polygon PoS sidechain offers ~7,000 TPS and ~2 second block times, ensuring responsive identity checks. This is critical for applications like supply chain tracking or event ticketing where millions of verifications are needed. Trade-off: You inherit the security assumptions of the Polygon PoS checkpoint system rather than Ethereum L1's full consensus. For many high-throughput B2B or consumer apps, this trade-off for 1000x cost reduction is justified.
did:ethr for Cost & Scale
Verdict: Prohibitively expensive for scaling. Use only if L1 settlement is non-negotiable. Weaknesses: Ethereum mainnet gas fees (~1-10 USD) make issuing and updating DIDs for a large user base economically unfeasible. The ~15 TPS limit creates bottlenecks. While rollups can help, the core did:ethr registry contract lives on L1, so key operations (e.g., adding/delegating keys) still incur high base-layer costs.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A direct comparison of the security, cost, and ecosystem trade-offs between Ethereum L1 and Polygon L2 for decentralized identity.
did:ethr excels at maximal security and decentralization because it inherits the full consensus and validator set of the Ethereum mainnet. For example, its root of trust is secured by over 1 million validators, making it the gold standard for high-value, long-lived identity assertions where Sybil resistance is paramount. This makes it the preferred choice for enterprise credentials, regulatory compliance (e.g., w3c Verifiable Credentials), and foundational identity layers that must be immutable for decades.
did:polygon takes a different approach by leveraging Polygon's zkEVM L2 for radical cost and speed optimization. This results in a trade-off: you accept the security assumptions of the Polygon PoS checkpoint or zk-rollup while gaining sub-cent transaction fees and ~2-second finality. This enables high-frequency, user-centric identity operations—like session keys for gaming, social logins, or micro-credential issuance—that would be economically prohibitive on L1.
The key trade-off is Security Budget vs. User Experience Cost. If your priority is uncompromising security, maximal decentralization, and serving as a canonical root of trust, choose did:ethr. It's the bedrock. If you prioritize scalability, low-cost transactions (<$0.01), and building seamless consumer-facing applications, choose did:polygon. For many architectures, the optimal path is a hybrid: anchoring high-stakes credentials on did:ethr while delegating high-volume, ephemeral interactions to did:polygon.
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