EVM Regulatory Token Standards: ERC-1450 for Issuance, ERC-3643 for Identity Compliance, ERC-7943 for Integration.

Written by: @JayLovesPotato, Four Pillars

Translated by: AididiaoJP, Foresight News

Key Points

The regulatory token standards on EVM have not moved towards a single unified specification, but have distinct divisions based on functionality. Thus, ERC-1450, ERC-3643, and ERC-7943 should not be seen as competing standards but rather as complementary components responsible for issuance, identity, execution, and integration respectively.

Note: The regulatory token standards can simply be described as: technical specifications designed specifically for "regulated tokens." Ordinary tokens (such as standard ERC-20s) can be transferred and held freely, with almost no restrictions. However, regulated tokens differ as they usually correspond to regulated assets such as securities, fund shares, bonds, and RWAs (real-world assets), transforming the token from "freely transferable by anyone" to "meeting financial regulatory requirements" through technical rules.

The key differences among chains lie not in the presence of regulatory functions, but in where these functions are implemented and executed. EVM retains a high degree of flexibility at the individual asset contract level; Solana and Move-based chains place more functionalities at the shared token framework level; Stellar and XRPL embed them directly into the ledger; while Canton and Avalanche L1 extend further into market and network operation layers.

The competitiveness of regulatory token standards is likely to depend more on their adaptability to regulatory changes in the future rather than the number of functionalities. A more pragmatic direction is to build a compliance stack: standardizing frequently occurring execution functions like freezing, mandatory transfers, and pre-transfer validation while breaking down product-specific policies such as identity providers, jurisdiction rules, and holding limits into interchangeable modules.

Even in the Ethereum EVM environment, which institutions are most familiar with, multiple ERCs address similar needs for regulated tokens. They commonly support transfer restrictions, investor qualification checks, freezing, mandatory transfers, and asset recovery. However, the legal structures and operational authorities assumed by each standard vary significantly.

Outside EVM, other chains have also introduced comparable functionalities at the token program, ledger, or network level, further broadening the pathways for implementing regulated assets.

This in part reflects that the regulatory token standards have yet to form a clear structure. A more fundamental reason is that the functionalities needed for regulatory assets are difficult to consolidate into a single specification. Who maintains the legal records for securities, which institution certifies investor qualifications, how much control the operator should retain in case of incidents—these issues vary by product and jurisdiction.

As a result, the market is moving towards a structure where these functionalities are distributed across multiple layers and combined on demand, rather than pursuing a completely self-sufficient single standard.

Regulatory Token Standards on EVM

Early standards largely tried to directly replicate the operational structures of traditional finance into token contracts. Under ERC-1450, the Registered Transfer Agent is not only responsible for issuance and redemption but also executes each transfer, prohibiting ordinary users from calling transfer and approve. This clarifies who maintains legal records, who is responsible for responding to court orders or lost keys. However, at the same time, it moves away from the permissionless asset flow assumed by traditional DEXs and lending protocols.

ERC-3643 distributes regulatory functions across token contracts, identity registries, trusted issuer registries, and independent compliance modules, instead of concentrating them under a single authority. Transfers are validated against statements issued by trusted entities, including KYC status, residence, and accredited investor qualifications; issuers can also add rules such as the number of investors and national holding limits. While retaining the basic ERC-20 structure, being able to replace individual rules is a meaningful advantage. The trade-off is the operational burden of coordinating multiple contracts, identity issuers, and privilege management roles.

The more recent ERC-7943 takes a different approach: it does not define the regulatory policy itself but exposes a set of universal interfaces, including canSend, canReceive, canTransfer, balance freeze queries, and mandatory transfer functions. This allows wallets, exchanges, custodians, and DeFi services to interact with different regulated assets in a consistent manner. In other words, ERC-3643 creates the stack for regulatory tokens, while ERC-7943 is closer to an integration layer connecting multiple stacks. Recently, CMTAT realized support for ERC-7943, further illustrating that this minimal interface can be layered on top of existing issuance standards.

ERC-7518 and ERC-8047 address more specialized needs. ERC-7518 applies different share classes, jurisdiction lists, and lock-up conditions to individual ERC-1155 partitions; ERC-8047 records ancestry during asset flows so that execution can target specific funding streams instead of entire accounts. The former clarifies the differentiation of rights within a single asset; the latter ensures more precise post-tracking and execution. They are more likely to serve as modules complementing a broader compliance stack rather than replacing ERC-3643 as an all-encompassing standard.

Where Other Chains Place Regulatory Functions

Solana's approach is characterized by placing recurring token functionalities at a lower shared layer. Functions such as Transfer Hook, Permanent Delegate, and Confidential Transfer are provided through a universal Token Extensions library, while the Solana Attestation Service allows applications to reuse off-chain information like KYC status, geographical location, and investor qualifications. This reduces the need for each issuer to independently rebuild and audit the same functionalities. However, integration may still break when wallets or protocols do not support a specific extension; furthermore, assets configured with strong issuing controls like Permanent Delegate must be regarded by DeFi applications as an additional layer of counterparty risk.

Stellar and XRPL expose authorization, freezing, and recovery as attributes of the ledger's native assets. These controls consistently take effect during transfers and native transaction functions, allowing applications to avoid reinterpreting custom logic for each token contract. Stellar is expanding the connection between ledger assets and smart contract environments through Stellar Asset Contracts; XRPL is building around MPT, progressing from permissioned holding, freezing, and recovery to privacy-related functionalities. However, the deeper the rules are embedded into the ledger, the more their evolution relies on network upgrades and consensus. Control settings may also directly constrain the liquidity and usage of assets.

Sui and Aptos occupy a space between the contract-centric model of EVMs and the native ledger model. Sui records the rejection list status and global pause permissions for regulated assets within the Currency Registry; Aptos may freeze accounts through the TransferRef of the Fungible Asset framework, or bypass these restrictions through privileged transfers when necessary. Recurring execution functions such as address blocking and emergency pauses are provided by the framework; more complex policies, such as investor classifications and country-specific holding limits, are left to independent Move modules. In this regard, their architecture is closest to the modular direction that the EVM ecosystem is trending towards.

Canton expands the regulatory scope from tokens to the operation of entire markets. CIP-56 standardizes not only balance transfers but also specific party disclosures, recipient approvals, and atomic delivery versus payment (DvP); Token Standard V2 is being tested on the independent DevNet set for 2026. This design offers stronger operational consistency and privacy but requires dedicated identity and development environments. Therefore, existing public chain liquidity and applications cannot be easily migrated.

Avalanche L1 is better understood as an option for building the regulatory market itself, not just issuing regulated tokens. Operators can restrict trading participants and contract deployers with whitelists while requiring validators to satisfy KYC, AML, or licensing conditions. The stack can also connect identity providers like Jumio and Keyring to txAllowlist, making it especially suitable for strictly institutional exchanges or payment networks. The trade-off is operationally: validators, upgrades, cross-chain bridges, and liquidity must all be managed independently, with costs and fragmentation levels vastly exceeding those of issuing a single token on existing EVM networks.

Separating General Execution Functions from Regulatory Policies

In summary, these pathways indicate that both extremes have clear limitations: whether embedding the entire regulatory stack into the network or leaving all functions to a single ERC. Most regulatory assets will benefit from the recurring general execution functions—pre-transfer validation, freezing, mandatory transfers, emergency pauses, and disclosing management authorities and their associated risks—being positioned close to the token framework, ledger, or at minimal interfaces like ERC-7943. This can reduce implementation discrepancies and audit costs between issuers while allowing wallets, exchanges, and custodians to uniformly recognize the asset's control structure.

In contrast, decisions such as which identity providers to trust, which jurisdictions to allow, how to calculate holding limits and lock-up periods for investor tiers, and who can execute legal orders—these decisions are more suitably left to asset-specific ERCs or independent modules. These rules vary by product and jurisdiction and must be updated in accordance with legal changes. If they are hard-coded into the network's foundational rules, it not only slows down upgrades but may also turn the policy choices of specific financial markets into the defaults for a general chain.

In other words, the regulatory token market is more likely to evolve in the form of compliance stacks rather than converging into a single standard. In this model, interchangeable identities, jurisdictions, and product-specific rules will be built on top of general execution functionalities. Ethereum and the broader EVM ecosystem still hold advantages in policy flexibility and access to existing liquidity; ledger-native chains excel in execution consistency and operational simplicity; while dedicated networks like Canton stand out most in privacy and institutional workflows.

Thus, adoption rates are unlikely to be determined by which standard has the longest functional list. More importantly, it will depend on whether regulatory policies can change without reissuing assets and without forcing wallets, exchanges, and custodians to rebuild integrations from scratch. Another critical test will be: can external participants clearly identify, assess, and manage the embedded powerful controls within assets.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。