TL;DR
Our dual-track EIP strategy—pursuing EIP-RCP as an Informational EIP and ERC-TRUST as a Standards Track EIP—is not merely a tactical choice but a philosophical necessity. By separating the conceptual framework from its technical implementation, we create independent value streams that serve the Ethereum ecosystem regardless of individual approval outcomes. This approach, combined with our strategic partnership with Horizen Labs, positions regulatory compliance infrastructure as a foundational layer for blockchain’s institutional future. Understanding Ethereum’s governance philosophy reveals why this independence matters: each track can succeed on its own merits, creating resilient pathways toward our mission of bridging traditional finance and decentralized systems.
Introduction: Beyond Tactical Maneuvering
In previous research, we examined why enforceability demands its own standard and conducted a thorough code-level analysis of ERC-1400 and ERC-3643. These investigations revealed that existing security token standards, despite their contributions, cannot adequately address the 31 regulatory requirements identified in our RCP research. The technical case for a new standard became clear.
But technical necessity alone does not determine how we should engage with the Ethereum community. The question of how to propose these standards—through what governance pathways, with what strategic considerations—requires deeper reflection on our mission and what it means for the broader blockchain ecosystem.
Before proceeding, let us clarify the full nomenclature of our two EIP proposals. EIP-RCP stands for Regulatory Compliance Framework for Tokenized Assets—an Informational EIP that establishes the philosophical and conceptual foundation for regulatory compliance in tokenized capital markets. ERC-TRUST stands for Total Regulatory Unified Security Token—a Standards Track EIP that provides the concrete technical implementation, including smart contract interfaces and modular architecture for enforcing the principles defined in EIP-RCP.
This article explores why we chose a dual-track approach: pursuing EIP-RCP as an Informational EIP simultaneously with ERC-TRUST as a Standards Track EIP. More importantly, we examine what this strategy means—not as a tactic for approval, but as an expression of our commitment to creating lasting value for the Ethereum ecosystem.
Understanding Ethereum’s Governance Philosophy
Ethereum’s governance, codified in EIP-1, reflects a deeply considered philosophy about how decentralized systems should evolve. Understanding this philosophy is essential for anyone seeking to contribute meaningful standards to the ecosystem.
The EIP-1 Framework
EIP-1 defines three categories of Ethereum Improvement Proposals, each serving distinct purposes:
Standards Track EIPs propose changes that affect most or all Ethereum implementations—Core changes, Networking protocols, Interface standards (ERCs), and ERCs themselves. These require broad consensus and rigorous technical review because they directly impact how developers build on Ethereum.
Informational EIPs describe design issues, general guidelines, or information relevant to the Ethereum community. They do not propose new features but establish conceptual frameworks that guide ecosystem development. Crucially, Informational EIPs do not require community consensus for adoption—they succeed by the strength of their ideas.
Meta EIPs propose changes to processes surrounding Ethereum, such as decision-making procedures or development tools.
Independent Approval Pathways
A critical insight from EIP-1 is that each EIP category follows its own approval pathway. An Informational EIP’s acceptance does not depend on any Standards Track EIP, and vice versa. This independence is not a bureaucratic quirk—it reflects Ethereum’s recognition that conceptual contributions and technical implementations have different value propositions and should be evaluated on their own merits.
Approval of one does not affect the other.
For our dual-track strategy, this means:
- EIP-RCP will be evaluated as a conceptual framework—does it provide valuable guidance for regulatory compliance in tokenized assets?
- ERC-TRUST will be evaluated as a technical standard—does it provide well-designed, implementable interfaces that solve real problems?
Neither depends on the other for approval, yet both reinforce each other’s value when considered together.
Scenario Analysis: Four Possible Futures
By pursuing two independent tracks, we create a strategic landscape with four possible outcomes. Importantly, each scenario generates value—this is not about hedging bets but about maximizing our contribution to the ecosystem regardless of governance decisions.
Scenario A: Both EIPs Approved
The ideal outcome establishes EIP-RCP as the regulatory constitution of the Ethereum ecosystem while ERC-TRUST becomes the reference implementation. This creates a complete stack: philosophical foundation plus technical realization. Projects building regulatory-compliant tokens would have both conceptual guidance and concrete interfaces to implement.
In this scenario, Oraclizer’s Oracle State Machine becomes the natural infrastructure layer that brings these standards to life, connecting on-chain compliance with off-chain regulatory systems through our state synchronization technology.
Scenario B: Only EIP-RCP Approved
If the Informational EIP gains acceptance while ERC-TRUST faces technical objections, the conceptual framework still establishes lasting value. RCP’s five pillars—Traceability, Privacy, Enforceability, Finality, and Tokenizability—would become reference principles for any future security token standard.
Other projects could implement RCP principles using alternative technical approaches. The framework’s influence would extend beyond any single implementation, potentially inspiring multiple Standards Track EIPs that address different aspects of regulatory compliance. Our contribution to the ecosystem’s intellectual foundation would remain significant.
Scenario C: Only ERC-TRUST Approved
If the Standards Track EIP succeeds while EIP-RCP is deemed unnecessary as a formal Informational EIP, the technical standard speaks for itself. ERC-TRUST’s modular architecture—with its Diamond Pattern implementation and six specialized facets—provides immediate, practical value for developers building compliant tokenization systems.
The RCP principles, even without formal EIP status, would live on in the standard’s documentation and design rationale. Technical excellence, in this scenario, becomes the vehicle for philosophical influence.
Scenario D: Neither EIP Approved
Even if both proposals face rejection, the research and engagement process creates irreplaceable value. The detailed analysis of existing standards, the articulation of regulatory requirements, the architectural patterns developed—all of this becomes public knowledge that advances the ecosystem’s collective understanding.
Rejection would also provide crucial feedback. Understanding why the community declined these proposals would inform future approaches, either by us or by other teams tackling similar challenges. In open-source ecosystems, even failed proposals contribute to the evolutionary process.
Moreover, Oraclizer would continue implementing these standards within our own infrastructure. The Oracle State Machine’s regulatory compliance capabilities do not depend on EIP approval—they depend on technical soundness and market demand.
The Role of Community Engagement
Ethereum’s governance is not merely procedural—it is fundamentally dialogical. The Ethereum Magicians Forum serves as the primary venue for EIP discussions, where proposals are refined through community feedback before formal submission.
Iterative Improvement Through Dialogue
Our dual-track approach embraces this dialogical nature. By presenting both the conceptual framework (EIP-RCP) and its technical implementation (ERC-TRUST) simultaneously, we invite the community to engage at multiple levels:
- Philosophical discussions about whether RCP’s five pillars adequately capture regulatory requirements
- Technical debates about ERC-TRUST’s architectural choices, gas efficiency, and security considerations
- Practical feedback from projects that have attempted regulatory compliance and encountered limitations in existing standards
This multi-level engagement accelerates the refinement process. Philosophical objections might reveal gaps in RCP that require technical solutions in ERC-TRUST. Technical limitations might expose conceptual assumptions that need revisiting. The two tracks inform each other through community dialogue.
Building Ecosystem Relationships
Beyond formal governance, the EIP process creates opportunities for ecosystem relationship building. Security token projects, DeFi protocols seeking institutional adoption, regulatory technology providers—all share interest in standardized compliance infrastructure.
Our engagement in the EIP process signals commitment to open standards rather than proprietary solutions. This openness, even before formal approval, builds trust and invites collaboration. The dual-track strategy doubles our surface area for such connections.
The Horizen Labs Partnership: Convergent Visions
Our dual-track EIP strategy gains additional significance through our partnership with Horizen Labs. This collaboration is not merely tactical—it represents a convergence of complementary visions for blockchain’s institutional future.
Complementary Problem Domains
Horizen Labs has pioneered privacy-preserving compliance through their Horizen Confidential Computing Environment (HCCE)—a TEE-based infrastructure that enables confidential computation while maintaining regulatory accessibility. Their Authority Service Design allows dApps to define audit policies with on-chain verification of regulatory access.
Oraclizer addresses a different but equally critical challenge: state synchronization between on-chain and off-chain systems. Our Oracle State Machine enables the continuous, bidirectional flow of regulatory state that compliance requires.
Together, these capabilities address the full spectrum of institutional requirements:
- Horizen: Privacy for on-chain transactions with selective regulatory disclosure
- Oraclizer: State synchronization connecting blockchain systems with traditional financial infrastructure
Shared Infrastructure: zkVerify and Base L3
Our partnership extends beyond philosophical alignment to shared technical infrastructure. Both Oraclizer and Horizen leverage zkVerify for efficient zero-knowledge proof verification, reducing the cost of cryptographic operations that both privacy and compliance require.
Oraclizer’s Base L3 architecture—built on Polygon CDK with finality through Base L2 and Ethereum L1—provides a scalable foundation that can integrate Horizen’s privacy primitives. This shared infrastructure creates efficiencies that neither project could achieve independently.
Joint EIP Advocacy
The partnership strengthens our EIP proposals in several ways:
Credibility through collaboration: Joint proposals from two established projects demonstrate broader ecosystem support for regulatory compliance standards.
Comprehensive use cases: Horizen’s privacy expertise enriches our understanding of how compliance standards must accommodate confidentiality requirements—a critical consideration for institutional adoption.
Implementation diversity: Multiple teams implementing the same standards accelerates testing and reveals edge cases that single-team development might miss.
“Privacy flows with liquidity”—Horizen Labs’ insight captures a fundamental truth that our joint work embodies. Regulatory compliance without privacy protection serves neither institutions nor users. Privacy without regulatory accommodation limits adoption. The synthesis of both creates infrastructure worthy of the institutional capital waiting to enter blockchain ecosystems.
Risk Distribution and Strategic Resilience
The dual-track strategy also provides natural risk distribution. Governance processes involve uncertainty—community priorities shift, competing proposals emerge, and technical requirements evolve. By maintaining two independent pathways, we reduce dependence on any single governance outcome.
This resilience extends to timeline management. Informational EIPs and Standards Track EIPs follow different review processes with different durations. Progress on one track continues even if the other faces delays. This parallelism accelerates our overall contribution to the ecosystem.
Resource Allocation Efficiency
Interestingly, the dual-track approach does not require double the resources. The conceptual work supporting EIP-RCP directly informs ERC-TRUST’s design rationale. The technical development of ERC-TRUST validates and refines RCP’s abstract principles. Research and development efforts compound rather than duplicate.
Our collaboration with Horizen Labs further amplifies this efficiency. Shared infrastructure development, joint research initiatives, and coordinated community engagement create synergies that single-project approaches cannot match.
Conclusion: Mission Over Tactics
Our dual-track EIP strategy ultimately reflects a mission-driven approach to blockchain development. We are not merely seeking approval for our proposals—we are working to establish regulatory compliance as a foundational capability for the Ethereum ecosystem.
This mission requires both conceptual clarity (EIP-RCP’s philosophical framework) and technical excellence (ERC-TRUST’s implementation standard). It benefits from strategic partnerships (Horizen Labs) and community engagement (Ethereum Magicians Forum). And it succeeds across multiple scenarios, not just the ideal outcome.
The question is not whether our EIPs will be approved—though we work diligently toward that goal. The question is whether our work advances the blockchain ecosystem’s capacity to serve institutional needs while preserving decentralization’s core values. By that measure, the dual-track strategy has already begun generating value.
In our next publication, we will present the complete Informational EIP: “EIP-RCP: Regulatory Compliance Framework for Tokenized Assets.” This document represents the culmination of our research into regulatory requirements and their translation into blockchain-native principles. It will serve as the philosophical foundation for all subsequent technical work—and as our first formal contribution to Ethereum’s governance process.
The journey from philosophy to implementation continues. We invite the community to join us.
References
1. Hudson Jameson et al. (2015). EIP-1: EIP Purpose and Guidelines. https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1
2. Ethereum Magicians Forum. Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians. https://ethereum-magicians.org/
3. Horizen Labs. (2024). Horizen 2.0: Privacy-Preserving Blockchain Infrastructure. https://www.horizen.io/
4. Horizen Labs. zkVerify: Modular Blockchain for ZK Proof Verification. https://zkverify.io/
5. Adam Dossa et al. (2018). ERC-1400: Security Token Standard. https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/1411
6. Joachim Lebrun et al. (2021). ERC-3643: T-REX – Token for Regulated EXchanges. https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-3643
7. Nick Mudge. (2020). EIP-2535: Diamonds, Multi-Facet Proxy. https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2535
