Chain Development
Kit (CDK)

ZK validity proofs posted to Ethereum.
Anyone can verify chain state against Ethereum roots, permissionlessly, without relying on an operator. Raw tx data never touches L1. Sub-1-hour cryptographic finality, no challenge windows, and cross-chain liquidity via Agglayer. Solver layer targeting <5s settlement for common paths.

ZK validity proofs on Ethereum. Comparable settlement guarantees. Publicly verifiable state roots with selective disclosure for audits. Strong, but interop proofs stay within ecosystem, not across different clients and chain types (no access to Solana).

No validity proofs.
Trust-based networks rely entirely on operators. If keys are compromised, manipulation propagates silently. Optimistic L2s use fraud proofs (reactive, 7-day challenge windows).

Configurable spectrum designed in consultation. Private DA (Conduit), private RPC + mempool + block explorer (Gateway), ZK validity, FHE (Zama), role-based ACLs, and more. Mix and match per institution's regulatory environment.

Native compliance policy engine: real-time KYT, AML/CTF automation, OFAC/SDN screening, Travel Rule support. Sanctions blocking at the bridge, so that non-compliant activity is prevented before it enters the chain. On-prem ZK prover for zero data leakage.

Private by default. All tx data off-chain. Selective disclosure for auditors. SSO integration (Okta, Azure). Compliance demonstrable via ZK proofs. Strong model, but privacy is more binary than configurable and there's no native real-time KYT, sanctions screening, or protocol-level compliance engine built in. Institutions layer these on separately.

Trust-based: privacy enforced through proprietary smart contracts, rather than zero-knowledge cryptography. Granular visibility rules but no cryptographic backstop.

Optimistic: public by default; privacy requires bolting on additional infrastructure. In both cases, compliance lives at the application layer. Institutions build and maintain their own rules.

Sovereign, with access to global crypto liquidity. Natively linked to Agglayer, the most secure native bridge to Ethereum. Single tx on destination, no token wrapping, configurable origin privacy. Outpost expansion to major L1s, L2s such as Solana (forthcoming). Orchestration layer for end-to-end fund/bridge/swap/earn workflows across chains.

Native fiat gateways: stable sandwich flow from ACH/SEPA/PIX/UPI through stablecoins to destination chains and mobile wallets. The only architecture where an institution is simultaneously private, publicly verifiable, and plugged into global crypto liquidity.

Network-internal. Cross-chain transfers within the ecosystem are cryptographically verified. But interop stops at the network boundary so institutions can't natively reach DeFi on other L2s, L1s, or external chains. External connectivity and fiat gateways are not built in; institutions build their own or rely on third parties, taking on additional trust and risk.

Trust-based: atomic composability within the network's internal domains, but a walled garden. No native bridge to Ethereum DeFi or external L2s. A shared ledger that only reaches institutions already inside. The same silo problem that blockchain was supposed to solve. Optimistic: Ethereum bridging with 7-day finality; third-party bridges for wider reach. Neither offers protocol-level fiat on/offramp integration.

Full EVM (Solidity). 100% EVM-compatible, so existing Ethereum tools, contracts, and workflows work out-of-the-box. Largest developer ecosystem in crypto. Zero replatforming cost. Up to 20,000 TPS on Gateway + Conduit infrastructure. Multi-cloud deployment (AWS, Azure, GCP, on-prem), sequencer failover, sandbox environments, Prometheus/Grafana/Datadog monitoring. Documented zero-downtime migration from Besu and legacy chains.

Open source, non-rent-seeking. No fees to connect to Agglayer. Institution owns the chain and captures value from activity on it. Custom gas token or fully gasless via paymaster.

Full EVM (Solidity). Deploys without modification, same developer tooling. Comparable performance. But production deployments require a commercial license agreement. Enterprise chains share the platform's token governance and fee structures, bringing potential tension between platform growth and institutional sovereignty.

Trust-based: requires a proprietary smart contract language with a fraction of Solidity's developer base and security scrutiny. Vendor lock-in by design. Native token required for every transaction.

Optimistic: full EVM, but profit-sharing to the DAO and less enterprise-specific tooling.

Bespoke advisory. Polygon Labs + implementation partners (Gateway, Conduit) design the chain architecture with the institution: regulatory environment, privacy levers, data residency, node distribution, compliance integrations, counterparty structure. Advisory on ZK provers, rollup design, market makers, and full-stack optimization; CDK’s Chain as a Service is not a toolkit you figure out alone.

Product + partners. Licensed product with a partner ecosystem. Institutions configure via admin panel and work with implementation partners for deployment. Less bespoke architecture consulting, more self-serve with support. Some also operate their own L2 with a DeFi ecosystem, which can create tension with enterprise customers who want full independence.

Trust-based: build with foundation support from a consortium co-founded by major banks and financial infrastructure providers. Large ecosystem, but institutions navigate it independently. Some may hesitate to build on infrastructure co-owned by competitors.

Optimistic: RaaS model: deploy and go. Fast to spin up but limited enterprise consulting, compliance design, or bespoke architecture support.