Supply Chain Management Blockchain Architectures: Public, Private, and Hybrid

Short summary: A 2025 field guide for decision‑makers comparing public, private, and hybrid blockchain architectures for supply chains—grounded in current regulations, costs, and technical realities—with concrete patterns, case studies, and a 90‑day rollout plan.

Why architecture choice now determines ROI and compliance

Since 2024–2025, three forces have reshaped supply‑chain blockchain programs: (1) regulatory timelines (EU Digital Product Passport and EU Battery Regulation), (2) a steep drop in public‑chain Layer‑2 (L2) fees after Ethereum’s Dencun/EIP‑4844, and (3) clearer data‑protection guidance on what you may or may not put “on‑chain.” The net effect: architecture—not “blockchain” generically—decides whether your initiative ships on time, passes audits, and scales without budget creep. (single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu)

The EU launched its Digital Product Passport (DPP) implementation process under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) in 2025; sectoral rollouts follow via delegated acts. Battery “passports” become mandatory for LMT, industrial >2 kWh, and EV batteries placed on the market from February 18, 2027. (single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu)
In the U.S., FDA announced in March 2025 its intention to extend the Food Traceability Rule (FSMA 204) compliance date by 30 months; Congress directed FDA not to enforce prior to July 20, 2028, and FDA intends to comply—even as it continues issuing tools and FAQs. If you are designing traceability now, assume multi‑party data exchange (KDE/CTE) but a longer runway for full enforcement. (fda.gov)
Ethereum’s March 2024 Dencun upgrade (EIP‑4844 “blobs”) slashed L2 data costs, with measured 90–99% fee reductions on major L2s—moving public networks from “too expensive” to feasible for anchoring, proofs, and even selective transaction workflows. (eips.ethereum.org)

Below, 7Block Labs lays out a concrete, decision‑oriented comparison of public, private, and hybrid architectures for supply chains in 2025, with specific patterns you can adopt next quarter.

The options in 2025: crisp definitions

Public (permissionless): Shared settlement and consensus on open networks (e.g., Ethereum L1/L2). After Dencun, L2s provide sub‑cent to low‑cent fees for many operations; optimistic rollups still have withdrawal challenge windows (often ~7 days) unless mitigated. (thedefiant.io)
Private/permissioned: Consortium‑governed ledgers (e.g., Hyperledger Fabric; R3 Corda) with granular membership controls, private data features, and enterprise ops models. (hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io)
Hybrid: Business data stays in enterprise systems or permissioned ledgers; only commitments/attestations (or zero‑knowledge proofs) are anchored to public chains for global auditability and timestamping. FireFly‑style supernodes, Baseline Protocol, and zk rollups exemplify this pattern. (hyperledger.github.io)

Public blockchain for supply chains: when it fits (and how to do it safely)

What changed: EIP‑4844 added low‑cost “blobs” for rollups, cutting L2 fees dramatically. This makes public anchoring and even selective transaction flows viable for high‑volume traceability (e.g., daily Merkle roots of EPCIS 2.0 events). (eips.ethereum.org)

Key design points:

Choose the right rollup:
- Optimistic rollups (OP Mainnet, Base, Arbitrum) are mature with very low fees; plan for ~7‑day withdrawal challenge windows unless you adopt fast‑withdrawal patterns or bridge abstractions. For supply‑chain anchoring (not user withdrawals), this delay is usually acceptable. (docs.optimism.io)
- ZK rollups (Starknet, zkSync) offer faster finality for bridge exits; fees post‑Dencun also dropped substantially. (thedefiant.io)
Use zero‑knowledge for data minimization:
- EY’s Nightfall_4 (2025) converted to a ZK rollup model to enable private enterprise transactions on Ethereum with near‑instant L1 finality—illustrative of how to keep sensitive fields off‑chain while preserving public settlement assurances. (ey.com)
Anchor, don’t publish:
- Regulatory guidance in the EU now explicitly warns that even hashed or encrypted personal data may still be personal data; store PII off‑chain and anchor salted/commitment hashes or ZK proofs on L2. Design for data subject rights and DPIAs from day 0. (edpb.europa.eu)
Data availability choices:
- Default: L2 blob DA via EIP‑4844. Advanced: external DA like Celestia (data‑availability sampling) or EigenDA (restaked DA) to scale batch sizes and predict costs; both integrate with Ethereum settlement. Hybrid DA can further compress anchoring costs for high‑frequency events. (docs.celestia.org)

When public is a fit

You need independent auditability that crosses company and jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., origin claims), but you can keep regulated data off‑chain and prove facts with commitments/VCs/zk. (w3.org)
Your throughput is dominated by anchoring batched proofs (e.g., hourly item‑event Merkle roots) rather than one on‑chain transaction per physical event.

Common pitfalls to avoid

Putting certificates or IDs directly on‑chain. Use W3C Verifiable Credentials 2.0 + DIDs; store raw credentials off‑chain, present ZK/derived proofs on request. (w3.org)
Underestimating withdrawal latency. If you must move L2 funds frequently (e.g., trade finance), plan for 7‑day windows on optimistic systems or adopt ZK/fast‑finality patterns. For pure anchoring, this is moot. (docs.optimism.io)

Private/permissioned ledgers: control, privacy, and modular integration

Two dominant options remain:

Hyperledger Fabric (current LTS line 2.5; 3.x available): Channels and Private Data Collections let sub‑groups share data privately while committing only hashes to the channel ledger; Raft/BFT orderers provide CFT/BFT consensus; fine‑grained endorsement policies; CouchDB state; enterprise PKI/MSP. (lf-decentralized-trust.github.io)
R3 Corda (5.x): Not a broadcast blockchain—Corda uses point‑to‑point flows and a notary for uniqueness consensus (double‑spend prevention). This means transaction details are shared only with relevant parties, appealing for confidential commercial agreements and regulated observers. (docs.r3.com)

Private ledgers are a fit when

You need strict membership governance and data minimization by default (e.g., supplier quotes, batch‑level QC with sensitive fields).
You want deterministic integration to ERP/MES and clear legal/operational accountability (controller/processor roles are explicit).

Emerging best practices

Use Private Data Collections (Fabric) rather than many channels for per‑record confidentiality while retaining a shared audit hash on the main channel. (hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io)
In Corda, design flows so each counterparty only sees what it must; the notary validates uniqueness/time windows without seeing business content (non‑validating notaries). (docs.r3.com)
Run multiparty orchestration layers (e.g., Hyperledger FireFly) above your ledger to coordinate off‑chain payloads, private file exchange, and deterministic event sequencing across members. (hyperledger.github.io)

Cautionary tale

Maersk/IBM’s TradeLens shutdown (2022/2023) shows that governance and network incentives—not tech—sink platforms; cited reason: insufficient industry collaboration and interoperability with rival networks. Bake in neutral governance and standards–first data models from day one. (portnews.it)

Hybrid: the pragmatic default for 2025 supply chains

Most high‑performers now run hybrid:

Operate processes and sensitive data in permissioned systems (Fabric/Corda + cloud storage).
Represent item events using GS1 EPCIS 2.0 (JSON/JSON‑LD + REST) and issue role‑scoped credentials (W3C VC 2.0). (gs1.org)
Commit periodic proofs (Merkle roots) or ZK attestations to a low‑cost L2 for global auditability, regulatory attestations, and long‑lived time‑stamps—without leaking PII or trade secrets. After Dencun, anchoring costs are typically sub‑cent per batch. (eips.ethereum.org)

Why it works

EDPB’s 2025 guidance: avoid putting personal data on public chains; when needed, use cryptographic commitments and keep data off‑chain. Hybrid aligns by design. (edpb.europa.eu)
DA options (EIP‑4844 blobs today; Celestia/EigenDA where appropriate) let you scale anchoring frequency and payload size without runaway costs. (docs.celestia.org)

Concrete examples (what teams actually deploy)

Food safety at scale: IBM Food Trust with Carrefour demonstrates Fabric‑based traceability with GS1 alignment; newer offerings explicitly target FSMA 204 data capture and supplier onboarding—even as the U.S. timeline is extended. (newsroom.ibm.com)
Luxury DPP‑readiness: Aura Blockchain Consortium (LVMH, Prada Group, Richemont/Cartier, OTB) reports 50–70M+ items registered; member brands use private/consortium ledgering for authenticity, ownership transfer, and DPP alignment. (auraconsortium.com)
Item‑level sustainability metrics: Avery Dennison’s atma.io uses Hedera services to account for carbon at massive item scale (tens of billions of items managed). This is a classic hybrid: enterprise cloud + DLT attestations. (rfid.averydennison.com)
Lessons learned: TradeLens (IBM/Maersk) was technically solid but sunset due to insufficient cross‑ecosystem adoption—interoperability and neutral governance are non‑negotiable. (portnews.it)

Architecture patterns mapped to upcoming rules

EU DPP (ESPR) and Battery Passport (2027)
- Product identity: Assign a DID to the product line or batch; express evidence via W3C VC 2.0; store machine‑readable artifacts off‑chain; QR/NFC links resolve to the DPP registry. (w3.org)
- Anchoring: Hash/anchor “evidence packages” (e.g., conformance tests, chain‑of‑custody) to an L2 for tamper‑evidence. Batteries: ensure passport payloads meet Article 77 content and audience‑scoping. (eur-lex.europa.eu)
FSMA 204 (traceability for FTL foods)
- Model all Critical Tracking Events (CTEs) and Key Data Elements (KDEs) as EPCIS 2.0 events; publish between partners via REST/JSON‑LD; keep PII off‑chain; anchor daily batch proofs. Timeline reflects intended delay to July 20, 2028 for enforcement. (gs1.org)
Forced‑labor import controls (UFLPA and global analogues)
- Use Verifiable Credentials for supplier attestations; back claims with audit reports stored off‑chain; anchor proofs on L2; keep cross‑border data transfer compliant with China’s evolving CAC rules if China‑sourced data is in scope. (loc.gov)

Decision matrix: Public vs. Private vs. Hybrid

Choose PUBLIC (L2) when:

You need neutral, global verification and interoperability; no regulated personal data is written on‑chain; anchoring or ZK proofs suffice. Post‑Dencun, fees are low enough for frequent proofs. (eips.ethereum.org)

Choose PRIVATE when:

You must tightly control membership, confidentiality, and regulator access (e.g., price lists, supplier contracts, sensitive formulations). Fabric PDCs or Corda flows keep data scoped by default. (hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io)

Choose HYBRID when:

You want the best of both: private ops data + public audit proofs; almost all compliance‑focused deployments we see in 2025 end up here. Aligns cleanly with EDPB guidance. (edpb.europa.eu)

Cost, performance, and DA (data availability) in practice

Post‑Dencun L2 fees: Multiple analyses show 90–99% reductions; simple anchors are typically sub‑cent to low‑cent per batch depending on L2 and blob space. Budget anchoring at minute‑ or hour‑level cadence instead of daily. (thedefiant.io)
DA strategy:
- Start with L2 blobs (EIP‑4844); evaluate Celestia (DAS) or EigenDA (restaked DA) if you need larger batches or predictable costs under load. Both provide Ethereum‑aligned security models for rollups anchoring into L1. (docs.celestia.org)
Finality/withdrawals:
- For optimistic L2s, assume ~7‑day withdrawal windows for asset exits; not a blocker for anchoring but relevant for tokenized trade‑finance flows. ZK rollups or fast‑withdrawal committees/bridges shorten UX at additional trust tradeoffs. (docs.optimism.io)

Data protection, cross‑border flow, and identity

EU data protection: EDPB’s 2025 draft guidelines advise minimization, off‑chain storage, and the use of cryptographic commitments; even hashes can be personal data. This supports a hybrid model (VCs off‑chain; on‑chain proofs). (edpb.europa.eu)
China PIPL/data export: 2024 provisions relaxed some CAC filing thresholds but still mandate assessments/contracts/certifications above volume/sensitivity triggers; design with localized storage and selective disclosure. (loc.gov)
Identity and credentials: Standardize on W3C DIDs + VC 2.0 to represent certifications (organic, halal, labor audits) and roles (importer of record), independently of chain choice. (w3.org)

Standards you should adopt on day one

GS1 EPCIS/CBV 2.0: JSON‑LD syntax, REST capture/query, sensor events, and certifications as first‑class data—essential for interoperable traceability. (gs1.org)
W3C Verifiable Credentials 2.0 + DIDs: Portable, cryptographically verifiable attestations for suppliers, facilities, materials, and audits. (w3.org)
IETF SCITT (emerging): Architecture for registering signed statements to transparency services—think notarized “receipts” for attestations—compatible with diverse ledgers. Useful for audit chains without exposing payloads. (ietf.org)

Reference architecture blueprints

Public‑anchored hybrid (our default recommendation)

Event model: EPCIS 2.0 in your data lake.
Private layer: Fabric (channels + PDCs) or Corda (flows) for operational processes; store documents in secure object storage.
Identity: DIDs/VC 2.0 for certifications and role attestations.
Anchoring: Batch EPCIS events hourly into Merkle roots; submit to Ethereum L2 blob tx; retain inclusion proofs with the batch manifest.
Optional DA: Evaluate Celestia/EigenDA if batch sizes or cost predictability demand. (gs1.org)

Private‑only (regulated enclaves)

Use Fabric with BFT or Raft orderers across organizations; split sensitive fields into PDCs; expose regulator read‑only peers for supervision.
Or use Corda 5 with non‑validating notaries and observer nodes for regulators; flows restrict data to parties of interest. (hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io)

Public‑first (selective)

Use a privacy‑enabled L2 (e.g., Nightfall_4) for private transfers of tokens/claims; all sensitive product data remains off‑chain and is referenced via commitments/VCs. (ey.com)

90‑day rollout plan (what to do next quarter)

Days 0–30: Scope and standards

Map your top three product lines into EPCIS 2.0 (CTE/KDE), including sensor payloads.
Define your credential model: which attestations become VCs (e.g., facility certification, organic, lab tests).
Pick architecture: default to hybrid unless a clear constraint dictates otherwise.

Days 31–60: Build the rails

Stand up a Fabric or Corda sandbox; integrate EPCIS capture endpoints; issue first VCs via your IAM/KMS.
Implement hourly Merkle batching; anchor to a testnet L2 (simulate blob tx costs).
Add FireFly (optional) to orchestrate on/off‑chain messaging and deterministic sequencing across partners. (hyperledger.github.io)

Days 61–90: Prove and harden

Run a partner pilot: 2 suppliers, 1 logistics provider, 1 retailer. Share events via EPCIS; expose a regulator view.
Bake in DPIA and data‑mapping to meet EDPB guidance; validate that no PII hits chain; test cross‑border data flows vs. CAC thresholds if China is in scope. (edpb.europa.eu)
Cost out production: scale anchoring cadence; compare EIP‑4844 blobs vs. Celestia/EigenDA for your volumes. (docs.celestia.org)

Practical gotchas and how to avoid them

Governance beats code: Define who can add members, rotate keys, or upgrade chaincode/flows; avoid single‑sponsor optics that derailed TradeLens. (portnews.it)
Don’t reinvent identifiers: Use GS1 keys and Digital Link URIs in your EPCIS payloads; map them directly into QR/NFC and DPP schemas. (gs1.org)
Withdrawal ≠ finality: For public L2s, your business events can be “final” in seconds; withdrawal delays matter mostly for asset exits—don’t let this myth block anchoring designs. (docs.optimism.io)
Encrypting isn’t anonymizing: Encrypted or hashed data may still be “personal data” under GDPR—prefer commitments/zk and off‑chain storage. (edpb.europa.eu)

Bottom line for decision‑makers

Public L2s are now cheap enough post‑Dencun to use for high‑frequency audit proofs; privacy comes from what you don’t write on‑chain (commitments/zk), not from hoping no one looks. (eips.ethereum.org)
Private ledgers remain workhorses for sensitive operations and regulator collaboration.
Hybrid architectures—EPCIS 2.0 + VCs off‑chain, proofs on L2—align best with 2025’s regulatory and cost landscape and are the fastest path to compliant, scalable traceability.

If you want a concrete blueprint for your sector, 7Block Labs can run a two‑week architecture sprint to model EPCIS, VC schemas, DA options, and an anchoring cost curve tailored to your volumes and markets.

Sources and references

GS1 EPCIS/CBV 2.0 standard and features (JSON‑LD, REST API). (gs1.org)
Ethereum EIP‑4844 (blobs) and L2 fee reductions after Dencun. (eips.ethereum.org)
Optimistic rollup withdrawal windows and mitigation. (docs.optimism.io)
Hyperledger Fabric LTS 2.5, Raft/BFT orderers, and Private Data Collections. (lf-decentralized-trust.github.io)
R3 Corda 5 flows and non‑validating notaries (privacy by design). (docs.r3.com)
W3C Verifiable Credentials 2.0; DIDs v1.0. (w3.org)
EDPB 2025 guidance on blockchain and personal data (minimize; commitments). (edpb.europa.eu)
EU ESPR/DPP process (2025) and EU Battery Passport deadline (Feb 18, 2027). (single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu)
FDA FSMA 204 enforcement intention to extend; tools and FAQs. (fda.gov)
Celestia DA (DAS) and Blobstream; EigenDA overview and integration. (docs.celestia.org)
Case studies: IBM Food Trust with Carrefour; Aura; atma.io on Hedera; TradeLens sunset rationale. (newsroom.ibm.com)