ERC-7943 and ERC-3643: What the Standards Leave Open
ERC-7943 went Final on 5 May 2026. Does it, or any other token standard, close the Cosmos gap?
IN 30 SECONDS
ERC-7943 is an Ethereum standard, Final since 5 May 2026, that gives several token types a shared family of compliance interfaces. Neither it nor ERC-3643 defines how a Cosmos bank module or an IBC path keeps the token’s policy.
KEY TAKEAWAYS · 3
- ERC-7943, Final since May 2026, standardizes eligibility questions on the token. Neither it nor ERC-3643 defines how Cosmos bank or IBC paths keep the policy.
- ERC-3643’s canTransfer asks the compliance contract. ERC-7943’s canTransfer, on the token, must include the listed permission checks. Same name, different checks.
- None of the specs compared here, by itself, supplies the Cosmos bank and IBC enforcement path.
On this page
What ERC-7943 changed
IN SHORT ERC-7943 gives several token types a shared family of compliance interfaces. It doesn’t replace a full compliance design.
WORDS TO KNOW
- ERC-7943
- An Ethereum standard, also called uRWA, that gives several token types a shared family of interfaces for compliance questions.
- Interface
- A fixed set of functions other code can call, with the same names and inputs on every token that implements it.
- Final
- The last status of an Ethereum standard: the text should only change to fix errors or add non-normative clarifications.
ERC-7943 An Ethereum standard, also called uRWA, that gives several token types a shared family of interfaces for compliance questions. See the glossary is Final The last status of an Ethereum standard: the text should only change to fix errors or add non-normative clarifications. See the glossary. Its authors are Dario Lo Buglio, Tino Martinez Molina and Mihai Colceriu, not me.
STEP BY STEP
Step 1. Added. June 2025: ERC-7943 (uRWA) lands in the ERC repository as a draft. It moves to Review the following month.
- Added June 2025: ERC-7943 (uRWA) lands in the ERC repository as a draft. It moves to Review the following month.
- Aligned September 2025: a commit aligns its names with ERC-3643’s naming conventions, then the text is split into separate interfaces. The naming alignment is deliberate and dated.
- Last Call January 2026: the final comment window opens.
- Final 5 May 2026: commit 46745bdc flips the status to Final and deletes the last-call deadline. Quote that commit, not the press release three weeks later: the ERC’s header has no finalisation date.
ERC-7943 puts standard questions on the token itself, through a shared Interface A fixed set of functions other code can call, with the same names and inputs on every token that implements it. See the glossary. Its canSend and canReceive ask whether an account may send, and whether it may receive. Its canTransfer joins those checks with the permission rules and frozen amounts.
IN PLAIN WORDS
ERC-7943 standardizes the compliance questions, such as “may this account receive?”, and the behavior they require. Each implementation supplies its own asset-specific policy behind the answers.
ERC-3643 already splits two checks: its identity registry checks the investor, and ICompliance.canTransfer checks the offering rules. A custom module can also treat sender and recipient apart. What’s new is a standard interface on the token: one-way rules were never impossible in ERC-3643.
WATCH OUT
Watch the shared name. ERC-3643’s canTransfer asks the compliance contract, and it isn’t a full dry run of token.transfer. ERC-7943 says its canTransfer, on the token, must include the listed permission checks.
Coming up next: So does either standard cover the Cosmos bank path?
What neither standard fixes, including the one I co-wrote
IN SHORT Neither ERC-7943 nor ERC-3643 says how a Cosmos bank module or an IBC destination must keep the token’s policy.
A token interface alone doesn’t build that link. That’s true of ERC-3643 too, and I’m one of its authors.
The research used the ethereum/ERCs repo at commit 2b5baad9, from 4 August 2026. The table is a bounded sample from that snapshot, not a full claim about the registry today.
611
files in the ERCS folder of that snapshot
Source: ethereum/ERCs at commit 2b5baad9, 4 August 2026.
Each of these specs covers a piece of identity, transfers or attestations. None of the interfaces compared here, by itself, supplies the Cosmos bank and IBC enforcement path.
ITEM GET
The bank path needs its own design
Sources: ERC-3643 specification; ERC-7943 specification; ERC-7943 Final status change, 5 May 2026; ERC repository snapshot, 4 August 2026.
FAQ
No. ERC-7943 defines token-level interfaces for eligibility, transfers and enforcement. It doesn’t build the Cosmos bank or IBC path described in this episode, and it never claims to.
STAGE CLEAR
What you now know
- What ERC-7943 standardizes, and why its canTransfer is not the same check as ERC-3643’s.
- Why no spec compared here supplies the Cosmos bank and IBC enforcement path on its own.
Check yourself
Tap or click a question to see the answer.
Your token implements ERC-7943, and canTransfer returns true for a given transfer. Does that mean a Cosmos bank send of the matching coins will be checked?
No. canTransfer answers a question on the token, and in the module reviewed here a bank send doesn’t automatically call the token. ERC-7943 doesn’t define the bank or IBC path.
You finished every stage published so far in this series. Back to the series map
Former CTO of Integra. Named author (1 of 5) of ERC-3643, first author of ERC-6960, co-author of ERC-7410, and co-author of ERC-8203, which is still a draft. Building production AI and regulated Web3 systems.
Have a project to ship or a role to fill?
Discuss your project or roleFollow the engineering notes
Get new articles on production AI and smart contracts by email.