Summary: Before you hire an enterprise blockchain consulting company, ask these 10 concrete, high‑impact questions. Use this checklist to validate architecture choices (L1/L2/permissioned), privacy design, compliance readiness (MiCA, UCC Article 12), security (PQC, SOC 2, ISO 27001:2022), interoperability (SWIFT/CCIP), data availability strategy (EigenDA, Celestia), observability (OpenTelemetry), and commercials—with real examples and red‑flag detectors.

Enterprise Blockchain Consulting Company Checklist: 10 Questions to Ask Before You Sign

Decision-makers don’t need another “blockchain will change everything” pitch. You need a partner who can commit to business outcomes, design choices you can defend with your board and regulators, and an execution plan with measurable milestones and clear exit options. Below is the exact question set 7Block Labs uses in RFPs and vendor due diligence—plus what good (and bad) answers look like, and real-world signals from 2024–2025 projects.

---

1) What business outcomes will you deliver in 90/180/365 days—and how will you measure them?

Why this matters
Blockchain projects stall when they lack milestone KPIs tied to revenue, cost, risk, or compliance. Make your vendor translate “innovation” into hard numbers.

Ask for

• A 90-day pilot with 1–3 measurable KPIs (e.g., cycle-time reduction, reconciliation cost savings, counterparty break rate).
• A 180-day expansion plan (data model, identity, integrations, ops runbooks).
• A 365-day production KPI commitment (e.g., weekly on-chain settlements, reduced capital lock, SLA SLOs).

Strong answers look like

• “We’ll replicate DTCC’s collateral/tokenization patterns on a permissioned EVM, targeting same-day mobilization across venues, with pilot metrics: T+0 collateral moves and <15-minute settlement windows.” (dtcc.com)
• “We’ll baseline pre- and post-Dencun L2 fees for your flows and show unit-economics improvements in cents per transaction.” (ethereum.org)

Red flags

• Vague “POCs” with no data model, no KPI baselines, or “we’ll know value when we see it.”

Example to probe

• “Our treasury team needs intraday collateral moves.” Ask how they would recreate the April 2025 DTCC demo approach (AppChain on Besu, privacy, auditability) and which metrics they’d port. (dtcc.com)

---

2) Which chain architecture do you recommend (public L1, L2 rollup, appchain, or permissioned)—and why for our workload?

Why this matters
Post‑Dencun (EIP‑4844), L2 rollups get orders‑of‑magnitude cheaper via data “blobs,” which can make L2s the default for many enterprise use cases—unless privacy, jurisdiction, or vendor tooling dictates permissioned. (blog.ethereum.org)

Ask for

• A written decision matrix comparing:
  • Ethereum L1 vs L2 (OP Stack/Orbit/CDK/zkStack)
  • Appchains (OP Stack / Cosmos SDK / Polygon CDK)
  • Permissioned (Hyperledger Fabric v3.x, GoQuorum/Besu)
• Fee, throughput, privacy, finality, and ops tradeoffs post‑Dencun. (ethereum.org)

Strong answers look like

• “Consumer payments or high‑fanout messaging → OP Stack chain, blob posting for DA, with option to switch to Alt‑DA (Celestia/EigenDA) later to control costs; DA challenge path documented.” (docs.optimism.io)
• “If you need bank‑grade privacy on Ethereum semantics → GoQuorum with Tessera; if you choose Besu ≥25.6.0, note Tessera privacy is removed—plan accordingly.” (github.com)

Red flags

• “We always use X.” One-size-fits-all is a risk.

Example to probe

• “Show us fees for our flow on L2 post‑Dencun and your fallback if blob fees spike.” Expect them to cite 4844’s impact and the Alt‑DA interface options. (ethereum.org)

---

3) How will you implement confidentiality and data minimization?

Why this matters
Data residency, trade secrecy, and customer privacy often rule out “public by default” writes.

Ask for

• Mechanisms: private transactions, off-chain storage with on-chain commitments, ZK proofs, or TEEs; and which SDKs/clients support them.
• Product realities: Hyperledger Besu 25.6.0 removed Tessera privacy; GoQuorum + Tessera remains the mainstream for private EVM; Fabric supports private data and channels. (github.com)
• How they’ll handle selective disclosure (e.g., PMTs in Quorum, privacy groups, and audit queries). (docs.goquorum.consensys.io)

Strong answers look like

• “For contract‑level privacy we’ll use GoQuorum + Tessera privacy groups or PMTs; for consortium analytics, we keep PII off‑chain with cryptographic commitments and produce ZK attestations.” (docs.goquorum.consensys.net)

Red flags

• Assuming Besu privacy still works with current releases without addressing the removal. (github.com)

Example to probe

• “Show a sequence where party A/B execute a private swap and party C cannot read state, using Tessera PMTs—step by step.” Expect them to walk the lifecycle. (docs.goquorum.consensys.io)

---

4) What’s your regulatory plan for the EU (MiCA) and US (UCC Article 12/CER), with concrete dates?

Why this matters
You need enforceable compliance timelines—not “we’ll monitor the landscape.”

Ask for

• MiCA dates: stablecoin titles (III/IV) apply from June 30, 2024; CASP rules from December 30, 2024; ESMA told NCAs to ensure stablecoin compliance by end‑Q1 2025. (finance.ec.europa.eu)
• Current prudential/RTS updates for ART/EMT reserves and liquidity; what that means for your token design and treasury ops. (eba.europa.eu)
• US commercial law: UCC 2022 amendments (Article 12 “controllable electronic records” and Article 9 updates) adoption; e.g., New York enacted Dec 5, 2025 (effective June 5, 2026). Build “control” into design now. (alston.com)

Strong answers look like

• “If issuing EUR/GBP‑denominated tokens in the EU, we’ll align with EBA reserve liquidity standards and MiCA ART/EMT whitepaper/authorization workflows; stablecoin promotion guardrails per ESMA Q1 2025 guidance.” (eba.europa.eu)

Red flags

• Conflating MiCA CASP licensing with stablecoin issuance requirements or ignoring ESMA’s end‑Q1 2025 enforcement tone. (esma.europa.eu)

Example to probe

• “Map our issuance plan to MiCA obligations and UCC Article 12 ‘control’ perfection steps—who will hold ‘control’ and how do we evidence it in court?” (alston.com)

---

5) What’s your security program: audits, PQC readiness, and certifications?

Why this matters
Enterprise trust hinges on formal security posture—not just a one‑time audit.

Ask for

• Code security: slither/echidna/foundry tests, differential fuzzing, and coverage tied to OWASP Smart Contract Top 10 (2025). (owasp.org)
• PQC roadmap (2024–2026): adoption of NIST‑approved FIPS 203 ML‑KEM, FIPS 204 ML‑DSA, and FIPS 205 SLH‑DSA; hybrid key exchanges; wallet/ledger implications. (nist.gov)
• Key management: FIPS 140‑3 validated HSM/KMS usage; examples include AWS KMS HSMs (FIPS validations) and emerging ML‑DSA key support. (csrc.nist.gov)
• Assurance: SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001:2022 (note the transition deadline was Oct 31, 2025). (schellman.com)

Strong answers look like

• “We sign release artifacts, require SLSA‑style provenance, and enforce policy to block unsigned deployments; we’ll offer a PQC pilot using ML‑DSA for internal artifact signing.” (nist.gov)

Red flags

• Single firm audit with no remediation plan; no mention of PQC or HSM boundaries.

Example to probe

• “Show your threat model for a permissioned EVM with private transactions: where are encryption keys stored, who can rotate, and what is the escrow/break‑glass process under FIPS controls?” (csrc.nist.gov)

---

6) How will you ensure interoperability across chains and with existing rails?

Why this matters
Tokenization and cross‑chain liquidity fail without robust interop and bank‑grade operations.

Ask for

• Approach to interop: standards (CCIP, IBC, messaging bridges), plus institutional precedents.
• Evidence: SWIFT + Chainlink CCIP experiments (2023) with banks and FMIs (ANZ, BNP Paribas, BNY Mellon, Citi, Clearstream, Euroclear, Lloyds, SDX, DTCC) successfully demonstrating transfers across public/private chains via existing Swift connectivity. (swift.com)
• How their design would integrate with tokenized fund or bond pilots under MAS Project Guardian. (citigroup.com)

Strong answers look like

• “We’ll keep custody and fund admin on your current rails and use CCIP‑style messaging to coordinate tokenized positions across L2s and permissioned networks; we’ll model the Swift/DTCC pattern.” (dtcc.com)

Red flags

• “Just bridge it” without controls, or dismissing interop risks and liability allocation.

Example to probe

• “Show how you’d orchestrate a cross‑chain redemption between a tokenized MMF and a bank account, SLOs included.” (citigroup.com)

---

7) What’s your data availability (DA) and scalability plan, and what happens if costs change?

Why this matters
Post‑4844, rollups rely on blobspace or alternative DA layers; costs and guarantees vary.

Ask for

• Default DA (Ethereum blobs) vs Alt‑DA options (Celestia, EigenDA, Avail), and the OP Stack Alt‑DA server/challenge design. (docs.optimism.io)
• Capacity, security, and operational risks for EigenDA V2 and who bears them (e.g., slashing status and operator sets). (l2beat.com)
• Concrete “switching plan” and SLOs if Ethereum blob fees spike; how they’d reconfigure DA endpoints without downtime. (docs.optimism.io)

Strong answers look like

• “We’ll start with blobs; if DA costs breach X, we failover to Alt‑DA via OP Stack’s DA server; we’ve validated Celestia/Avail/EigenDA integrations and documented the DA challenge path.” (github.com)

Red flags

• No DA plan; promising “infinite scalability” with no mention of DA guarantees.

Example to probe

• “Show DA failover runbook for OP Stack: config diffs, migration steps, and user impact.” (docs.optimism.io)

---

8) What’s your observability, SRE and incident response stack?

Why this matters
Production blockchain stacks need the same rigor as critical payments—plus protocol‑specific telemetry.

Ask for

• End‑to‑end OpenTelemetry (OTel) traces/metrics/logs across nodes, indexers, relayers, wallets, and bridges; CI/CD semantic conventions to trace releases to incidents. (cncf.io)
• Explorers and indexing: Blockscout (open‑source) with AA (ERC‑4337) support, DA indexing, and analytics; SLAs for explorer uptime. (docs.blockscout.com)
• On‑call SRE, incident runbooks, synthetic transactions, replay tooling, and chaos drills.

Strong answers look like

• “We’ll standardize on OTel, attach CI/CD attributes to deploys, and expose per‑component SLOs. Users get a dedicated Blockscout instance with DA‑aware indexing.” (cncf.io)

Red flags

• “We’ll check logs if something breaks.” No.

Example to probe

• “Show a Sev‑1: sequencer stalled, DA provider degraded. Where do we see it first, who’s paged, and what’s MTTR target?” (specs.optimism.io)

---

9) How will you prevent vendor lock‑in and ensure exit options?

Why this matters
You need the ability to migrate or unwind without operational paralysis.

Ask for

• IP, licensing, and escrow: customer ownership of contracts, schemas, and infrastructure as code.
• Data portability: off‑chain state exports + on‑chain proofs; for L2s, rollup state migration and bridge unwind paths.
• Privacy exit plans: if using Besu privacy (removed in 25.6.0), what’s the forward‑compatible path (e.g., to GoQuorum or ZK‑based selective disclosure)? (github.com)

Strong answers look like

• “We deliver migration runbooks and a signed commitment to provide export scripts and 90‑day transition support—no proprietary blockers.”

Red flags

• Proprietary rollup or explorer forks with no upstream plan or migration tooling.

Example to probe

• “Simulate a chain migration: OP‑based appchain to another OP chain or L2; what changes for DA, bridge, and user wallets?” (docs.optimism.io)

---

10) Show us the commercials: TCO, fee forecasts, and compliance budget—by quarter.

Why this matters
Without realistic cost curves, “cheap” pilots explode at scale.

Ask for

• A TCO model covering:
  • On‑chain fees (post‑4844 blob forecasts or Alt‑DA pricing bands) and throughput assumptions. (ethereum.org)
  • Node/infra (compute, storage, snapshots, RPC elasticity), explorers/indexers, monitoring, key management (HSM/KMS), and audit costs. (csrc.nist.gov)
  • Compliance line items: MiCA authorization/whitepaper, reserve operations for ART/EMT, SOC 2, ISO 27001 transition costs. (eba.europa.eu)

Strong answers look like

• “We’ll lock blob cost alerts at X gwei‑equivalent and pre‑approve DA failover; ISO 27001:2022 transition is complete and SOC 2 Type II covers applicable systems.” (schellman.com)

Red flags

• “Gas will be near zero forever.” Or no budget for audits and monitoring.

Example to probe

• “Model PYUSD‑like retail flows on a low‑fee network vs an OP Stack appchain.” Expect explicit fee assumptions and DA sensitivity. (investor.pypl.com)

---

Quick reference: what “great” looks like (print this)

• Outcome commitments with quarterly KPIs and artifact deliverables.
• Architecture rationale grounded in post‑Dencun economics, with a documented Alt‑DA plan and failover. (ethereum.org)
• Privacy approach aligned to current client realities (GoQuorum + Tessera) and explicit note of Besu privacy deprecation. (github.com)
• Regulatory timelines mapped: MiCA stablecoin/CASP dates and UCC Article 12 “control” design; board‑ready memos. (finance.ec.europa.eu)
• Security program: OWASP Smart Contract Top 10 coverage, PQC roadmap (FIPS 203/204/205), FIPS‑validated key management, SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001:2022. (owasp.org)
• Interop strategy validated with industry pilots (Swift/CCIP; Project Guardian). (dtcc.com)
• Observability with OTel semantic conventions (including CI/CD) and DA‑aware explorer/indexer SLAs. (cncf.io)
• Exit options: code/IP ownership, data export, migration runbooks.

---

Practical examples you can ask vendors to reproduce in your context

• Tokenized collateral mobility demo: mirror DTCC’s AppChain approach on a permissioned EVM; define privacy and audit trails; benchmark end‑to‑end latency. (dtcc.com)
• Fee sensitivity test: replay your daily transaction mix on an OP Stack devnet using blobs vs Alt‑DA; trigger a simulated blob‑fee spike and execute DA failover. (specs.optimism.io)
• Private swap workflow: implement GoQuorum + Tessera PMTs so only parties A/B see state, with verifiable audit evidence. (docs.goquorum.consensys.io)
• PQC signing pilot: sign deployment artifacts and critical messages with ML‑DSA (FIPS 204) via a FIPS‑validated KMS/HSM and document performance impact. (nist.gov)
• Interop flow: orchestrate a cross‑chain fund subscription/redemption using CCIP‑style messaging and show bank‑ops SLAs. (dtcc.com)

---

Emerging best practices (2025) we recommend building into contracts up front

• Blob‑aware SLOs and Alt‑DA fallback clauses (provider, switch thresholds, RTO/RPO, and customer approval workflow). (specs.optimism.io)
• MiCA readiness plan (ART/EMT reserve operations, liquidity stress testing, and whitepaper approvals) baked into the delivery timeline for EU‑facing products. (eba.europa.eu)
• Smart contract security acceptance criteria tied to OWASP’s 2025 Top 10 and mandatory fuzzing coverage targets. (owasp.org)
• PQC roadmap appendix: hybrid key exchange strategy, vendor KMS/HSM validation status, and migration windows. (csrc.nist.gov)
• Observability deliverables: OTel dashboards, SLOs per component, Blockscout analytics, and pager rotations. (cncf.io)
• Exit/migration schedule and escrowed documentation for rollup state migration or permissioned network portability.

---

Why this checklist works

• It anchors on verifiable milestones (e.g., Ethereum Dencun upgrade effects on L2 economics; Hyperledger Fabric 3.x BFT; GoQuorum/Tessera realities). (ethereum.org)
• It bakes in compliance timelines (MiCA 2024–2025; UCC Article 12 adoption waves) and modern cryptography standards (NIST PQC). (finance.ec.europa.eu)
• It prioritizes operability (OTel, DA failover, Blockscout) and lock‑in prevention.

If a vendor can’t answer these questions with specifics and references, don’t sign.

---

About 7Block Labs

We design, build, and operate production blockchain systems for regulated enterprises. If you want a rapid, board‑ready plan that maps your use case to the right chain, privacy model, compliance path, and SRE runbook—while protecting your exit options—we’re here to help.