Onchain Attestations evaluated across revocation and expiry semantics, issuer permissioning and identity, verifiable chain deployments, and cost per attestation.
Sign Protocol
#1 of 7 · published ranking
Sign Protocol
81ChainChoice Score
4199
Why it leads
Best in the pool on revocation and expiry (10/10; next 9/10)
Cost
Not priced· No comparable price is published
No provider can pay for a position in this table. The code that computes this order cannot read which links earn us a commission, and every build proves it. Every score below rebuilds from the published criteria.Ranking 2026.08 · 4 criteria · 7 products · same inputs, same order
Personal comparison
Onchain Attestations ranked comparison
No comparable price is published; ranking still uses verified product evidence.
Ranked on 4 published criteria weighted 32/26/24/18, which set goal alignment — 30 of the 86 points. The rest: regional access 20, evidence depth 18, ease of use 10, institutional trust 8. Profile match is shown in breakdowns but carries no weight.
Audit
Infrastructure
Methodology
2026.09.15
published 2026-09-16
Providers tracked
980+
across 119 categories
Last verified
2026-09-27
newest dated pricing or sentiment read
Named on the roster
2 people
managing directors · 6 automated processes
Decision guide
What matters most before choosing in this category
Weighted on revocation and expiry semantics (32), issuer permissioning and identity (26), verifiable chain deployments (24), and cost per attestation (18). Revocation carries the most weight because it is where the category breaks quietly: Solana Attestation Service revokes by DELETING - close_attestation.rs calls attestation_info.close(), and the string "revok" appears zero times in the Attestation struct source, so after revocation the record does not exist and a consumer cannot tell a withdrawn credential from one that was never issued. The rent refund flows to whoever closes it, which means the economics reward erasing the evidence.
What matters most before choosing in this category
Weighted on revocation and expiry semantics (32), issuer permissioning and identity (26), verifiable chain deployments (24), and cost per attestation (18). Revocation carries the most weight because it is where the category breaks quietly: Solana Attestation Service revokes by DELETING - close_attestation.rs calls attestation_info.close(), and the string "revok" appears zero times in the Attestation struct source, so after revocation the record does not exist and a consumer cannot tell a withdrawn credential from one that was never issued. The rent refund flows to whoever closes it, which means the economics reward erasing the evidence.
When a claim is withdrawn, can a consumer still see that it existed?
Who is permitted to issue, and can you establish who signed?
Are the deployments real - contract addresses you can check on an explorer?
Default starting point
Expert review and scoring weights
Sign Protocol
Sign ProtocolData checked Sep 2026
Permissionless omnichain attestation protocol with schema-enforced validity caps and reasoned revocation, deployed as upgradeable proxies on nine maintained EVM mainnets.
Permissionless omnichain attestation protocol with schema-enforced validity caps and reasoned revocation, deployed as upgradeable proxies on nine maintained EVM mainnets. Strongest on revocation and expiry semantics (10/10): Sign Protocol keeps a revoked attestation onchain with a revoked flag and revocation timestamp, emits the revocation reason, and enforces expiry through validUntil capped by the schema's maxValidFor. Revocability is set per schema, and offchain attestations can be revoked onchain with a reason. Weakest on issuer permissioning and identity (6/10): Sign Protocol records the attester, who must be the caller of attest() and the only party able to revoke, but issuance is open to any address and the protocol stores no issuer name or allowlist; gating is left to optional schema hooks. Published price: "To fund the account balance to pay for API key usage, you can purchase credits with USDC (1 USDC = 100 Credits)." — this priced service pays for decentralized storage uploads (a base fee of "0.01" Credits per upload on Arweave, BNB Greenfield and IPFS plus a…
Best forRevocation and expiry semantics — 10/10
Main tradeoffEvery maintained mainnet deployment is an upgradeable proxy owned by one address, 0xAE45849165E17Dc555B8264dD4Ae01a3F42344e2, and eth_getCode for that address returned exactly "0x" on both Ethereum and Base on 2026-08-07 — it is an externally-owned account, not a multisig. One private key can therefore replace the attestation logic on nine mainnets at once. Separately, the documentation has been reframed around S.I.G.N.: the docs index at docs.sign.global/llms.txt is titled "# Sovereign Infrastructure for Global Nations" and describes "S.I.G.N. is sovereign-grade digital infrastructure for national systems of money, identity, and capital. Sign Protocol provides the shared evidence layer used across deployments.", so a buyer integrating the developer stack is now a secondary audience.
Verify before signup"To fund the account balance to pay for API key usage, you can purchase credits with USDC (1 USDC = 100 Credits)." — this priced service pays for decentralized storage uploads (a base fee of "0.01" Credits per upload on Arweave, BNB Greenfield and IPFS plus a per-byte size fee, with the caveat "Please note the above fees may be adjusted without notice. All fee units are in Credits."). No protocol fee is documented for onchain attest() or revoke(); the ISP reference only offers payable variants for when a schema hook the schema owner attached expects payment, and offchain attestation via attestOffchain carries no documented charge. (Sign Developer Platform page, docs.sign.global/for-builders/sdp.md, fetched 2026-09-27)
Methodology
How this category is reviewed
Reviewed on revocation and expiry semantics, issuer permissioning and identity, verifiable chain deployments, and cost per attestation.
The order on this page is the published ranking for this category. Every criterion, weight and source behind it is on the methodology page.
Frequently asked
Questions people ask before choosing onchain attestations
What happens when an attestation is revoked?
It depends on the system, and the difference is the most consequential thing in this category. EAS records a revocationTime, so a consumer reading the record sees a claim that was made and later withdrawn. Solana Attestation Service instead closes the account: close_attestation.rs calls attestation_info.close(), the Attestation struct source contains no occurrence of "revok", and the rent refund goes to whoever performs the closure. After revocation there is nothing to read, so a withdrawn credential and one that was never issued are indistinguishable - and the party who erases it is paid to do so. This is the finding most likely to break a compliance integration silently, because nothing errors; the claim simply stops being there.
Can I rely on a big-name attestation for compliance?
Read the issuer's own terms first. Coinbase Verifications is the closest thing to institutional KYC in this pool and its integration README says the attestation "is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon by you or any third party for any legal, compliance, or contractual purpose", adding that Coinbase "does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the information contained in any attestation or represented thereby is complete, accurate, or current." The schemas are revocable onchain - verified by eth_call to the Base SchemaRegistry predeploy, returning revocable true for all three - yet the words "revoke", "revocation", "expiry" and "expiration" appear zero times in that 10,341-byte README. The capability exists and the documentation never tells an integrator how it behaves.
Are these deployments as decentralised as they look?
Not always, and the check is cheap. Sign Protocol's maintained deployments across nine mainnets are upgradeable proxies owned by a single address: eth_getCode for that owner returned exactly "0x" on both Ethereum and Base, meaning an externally owned account rather than a multisig. All nine proxies return identical bytecode, so one key can replace attestation logic on nine chains at once. Separately, cost is worth checking against the chain rather than the price list: Human Passport charges $2 to write an attestation whose measured onchain cost the same day on the same L2 was $0.004319, a 463x markup, for a score that carries no expiry field - "Onchain scores do not have an explicit expiry date associated with them."
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
//Analytics consent·GDPR · ePrivacy · TTDSG
ChainChoice measures page views and conversions with two cookieless, EU-hosted services: Plausible and Cloudflare Web Analytics. Nothing loads until you accept, and rankings are identical either way.ChainChoice measures how the engine is used — page views, conversions, referrer — through two cookieless, EU-hosted services: Plausible and Cloudflare Web Analytics. No advertising cookies, no cross-site profile, no data resale. Neither script loads until you accept, and rankings are identical whether you accept or decline.
