ERC-1400 excels at interoperability and developer adoption because it is an open standard on Ethereum. This grants immediate access to a vast ecosystem of wallets (MetaMask), DeFi protocols (Aave, Uniswap), and custodians, with over $50B in Total Value Locked (TVL). For example, token issuers can leverage existing infrastructure like OpenZeppelin's reference implementation to accelerate development.
LABS
Comparisons
ERC-1400 vs ST-20 (Polymath): ERC Standard vs Proprietary Protocol
A technical analysis comparing the community-driven ERC-1400 standard with Polymath's proprietary ST-20 protocol. This guide focuses on ecosystem lock-in, developer tooling, compliance integration, and long-term strategic trade-offs for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for Security Token Infrastructure
A foundational comparison between the open Ethereum standard and a purpose-built blockchain for regulated assets.
ST-20 (Polymath) takes a different approach by operating on a dedicated, permissioned blockchain (Polymesh). This results in a trade-off: sacrificing broad Ethereum composability for native regulatory features like built-in KYC/AML, investor whitelists, and governance controls. The protocol is optimized for security, boasting 99.9% uptime and handling the compliance logic on-chain.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum liquidity and ecosystem integration within DeFi, choose ERC-1400. If you prioritize out-of-the-box regulatory compliance, identity, and governance for institutional-grade securities, choose ST-20 on Polymesh.
tldr-summary
ERC-1400 vs ST-20 (Polymath)
TLDR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the open standard for security tokens versus a purpose-built, proprietary protocol.
01
ERC-1400: Ecosystem Interoperability
Specific advantage: Native compatibility with the entire Ethereum DeFi stack. Tokens can be listed on DEXs like Uniswap, used as collateral in Aave, and managed by wallets like MetaMask. This matters for projects seeking liquidity and integration with existing infrastructure without vendor lock-in.
02
ERC-1400: Developer Familiarity
Specific advantage: Builds on the ERC-20 standard, leveraging a massive pool of over 200,000 Solidity developers. Tools like OpenZeppelin provide audited implementations. This matters for teams that want to accelerate development and reduce audit costs using a well-understood pattern.
03
ST-20: Built-in Compliance Engine
Specific advantage: Polymath's protocol embeds a rules engine for KYC/AML, transfer restrictions, and investor accreditation at the protocol layer. This matters for issuers who require enforceable, automated compliance to meet regulatory obligations (e.g., SEC Reg D/S) without building it themselves.
04
ST-20: Tailored Issuance Suite
Specific advantage: Offers a full-stack solution including the Polymath Token Studio, investor onboarding (Polymath KYC), and a dedicated security token marketplace. This matters for traditional finance entities seeking a turnkey, opinionated platform to tokenize assets with minimal blockchain expertise.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: ERC-1400 vs Polymath ST-20
Direct comparison of the Ethereum token standard and the proprietary Polymath protocol for security tokens.
| Metric / Feature | ERC-1400 (Ethereum) | ST-20 (Polymath) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Architecture | Ethereum Standard | Proprietary Protocol |
Built-in Compliance Engine | ||
Native KYC/AML Integration | ||
Primary Network | Ethereum Mainnet | Polymesh Blockchain |
Transaction Finality | ~15 minutes | ~6 seconds |
Avg. Transaction Fee (USD) | $5 - $50 | < $0.01 |
Token Standard Interoperability | ERC-20, ERC-777 | Bridged via ERC-1400 |
Primary Use Case | Generalized Security Tokens | Regulated Security Offerings |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS ANALYSIS
ERC-1400 vs ST-20 (Polymath): ERC Standard vs Proprietary Protocol
A technical breakdown of the leading standards for security tokens, focusing on interoperability, ecosystem support, and compliance tooling.
02
ERC-1400: Modular Flexibility
Composable Design: The standard is modular, allowing developers to implement only the needed components (like ERC-1594 for core functionality, ERC-1644 for controller logic). This reduces gas costs and complexity for simpler use cases. This matters for teams building custom compliance logic or migrating from simpler token standards.
04
ST-20: Specialized Blockchain (Polymesh)
Purpose-Built Infrastructure: ST-20 tokens are optimized for the Polymesh blockchain, which offers native features like identity, confidential transactions, and governance designed for securities. This matters for institutional issuers requiring regulatory-grade identity primitives and settlement finality not native to Ethereum.
05
ERC-1400 Limitation: Compliance Overhead
Self-Service Complexity: While flexible, ERC-1400 places the burden of integrating KYC providers, legal agreement enforcement, and transfer restrictions entirely on the developer. This increases development time and audit requirements compared to an integrated stack.
06
ST-20 Limitation: Vendor Lock-in
Proprietary Ecosystem: Choosing ST-20 ties your token to Polymath's tools and the Polymesh blockchain. This limits portability, reduces wallet compatibility (vs. ERC-20), and creates dependency on a single vendor's roadmap and fee structure.
pros-cons-b
ERC-1400 vs ST-20
Polymath ST-20: Advantages and Limitations
A direct comparison of the open standard for security tokens versus Polymath's proprietary protocol. Evaluate based on ecosystem, compliance, and development trade-offs.
01
ERC-1400: Ecosystem & Interoperability
Key Advantage: Native integration with the Ethereum ecosystem. This standard is supported by major wallets (MetaMask), DEXs, and DeFi protocols like Aave. It ensures your token is a first-class citizen across thousands of dApps.
Why it matters: For projects prioritizing liquidity across DeFi pools or requiring seamless interaction with existing infrastructure like Gnosis Safe for multi-sig custody.
4,000+
Active DeFi Protocols
03
ST-20: Built-in Compliance Engine
Key Advantage: Polymath's protocol bakes in transfer restrictions, KYC/AML verification, and investor accreditation checks at the protocol level via their Security Token Offerings (STO) module.
Why it matters: For issuers who need a turnkey, audited solution for regulatory compliance without building it themselves. Reduces legal and technical risk for regulated assets.
200+
Token Launches
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
ERC-1400 for Developers
Verdict: The pragmatic choice for interoperability and existing tooling. Strengths:
- Ecosystem Integration: Seamlessly works with the vast Ethereum ecosystem (MetaMask, OpenZeppelin, Hardhat).
- Standardization: Being an EIP, it benefits from community review and established patterns, reducing audit risk.
- Flexible Implementation: The standard defines an interface; you can implement the logic (e.g., transfer restrictions) to suit your security token's specific compliance needs using modules. Key Consideration: You are responsible for building or integrating the compliance/restriction logic, which adds development overhead but offers customization.
ST-20 (Polymath) for Developers
Verdict: The turnkey solution for rapid deployment with baked-in compliance. Strengths:
- All-in-One Protocol: Polymath provides a full-stack solution including the ST-20 token standard, a security token offering (STO) launchpad, and integrated KYC/AML providers via their Polymesh blockchain.
- Reduced Development Time: Compliance features like investor whitelisting, transfer restrictions, and dividend distributions are built into the protocol.
- Specialized Chain: On Polymesh, ST-20 tokens operate on a purpose-built blockchain designed for regulatory compliance, with identity at the protocol level. Key Consideration: You are buying into the Polymath ecosystem, which may limit flexibility and create vendor lock-in compared to the open ERC-1400 standard.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A decisive comparison of the open standard versus the purpose-built platform for security tokens.
ERC-1400 excels at interoperability and developer adoption because it is a non-proprietary Ethereum standard. This grants access to the vast ecosystem of tools like OpenZeppelin libraries, wallets like MetaMask, and DeFi protocols. For example, projects can leverage the existing $45B+ DeFi TVL on Ethereum for composability, and the standard's modular design allows for integration with other ERCs like ERC-20 for dividends.
ST-20 (Polymath) takes a different approach by providing a vertically integrated, compliance-first platform. This results in a trade-off: you gain a streamlined, opinionated stack with built-in KYC/AML through Polymath's Identity Module and a dedicated security token marketplace, but you are locked into Polymath's proprietary protocol and its associated ecosystem, which has a significantly smaller developer footprint than Ethereum's mainnet.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum ecosystem leverage, developer flexibility, and long-term protocol agnosticism, choose ERC-1400. If you prioritize a turnkey, compliance-by-design solution for a regulated security offering and are willing to accept vendor lock-in for that simplicity, choose ST-20 on Polymath.
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