Who Offers Consulting for Integrating Blockchain Into Legacy Systems? Evaluation Framework

Short description: This expert guide maps the current vendor landscape for blockchain/ledger integration, shows where the market has moved in 2024–2025, and gives you a concrete, scoreable framework—plus real examples—to shortlist the right consulting partner and de‑risk migration from your legacy stack. It includes up‑to‑date references to cloud services, standards, and institutional pilots that matter for decision‑makers today. (dtcc.com)

---

Why this matters now

• Cross‑border payments and data standards have shifted: SWIFT’s coexistence period ended on November 22, 2025—ISO 20022 is now the standard for FI‑to‑FI cross‑border payment messages. Your integration partner must map on‑chain workflows to ISO 20022 data structures. (swift.com)
• Identity and proof standards are stabilizing: W3C Verifiable Credentials 2.0 became a Recommendation on May 15, 2025; DIDs have been a W3C Recommendation since 2022—critical for KYC, supplier onboarding, and inter‑org workflows. (w3.org)
• Cloud ledgers and managed blockchain have evolved: Azure’s Managed CCF is deprecated with migration recommended to Azure Confidential Ledger; AWS AMB now supports Ethereum, Polygon, Bitcoin, and Hyperledger Fabric; Google Cloud’s Blockchain Node Engine offers SLA‑backed managed nodes with clear pricing. (learn.microsoft.com)
• Regulators are tightening disclosure: Basel’s cryptoasset disclosure framework becomes effective Jan 1, 2026—banks will need consultants who can map tokenized assets, stablecoins, and ledger exposures into Pillar 3 disclosures. (bis.org)

---

Who actually offers enterprise‑grade consulting for legacy integration?

Below is a pragmatic map you can use in RFPs. Names reflect live products, documented case work, or active institutional pilots as of December 2025.

1) Global systems integrators (SIs) with end‑to‑end programs

• IBM Consulting: Hyperledger Fabric specialists; long‑running assets (IBM Blockchain Platform legacy, Fabric support guidance) and Fabric education. Good for supply chain, identity, and regulated workloads. (ibm.com)
• Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG: Big Four with vertical blueprints, audit/readiness capabilities, and regulatory depth. EY ships OpsChain Contract Manager (OCM) using ZKPs on public Ethereum—useful where confidentiality over public rails is a must. KPMG has 2025 alliances for Hedera‑based enterprise projects. (ey.com)
• Accenture, Capgemini, TCS, Wipro, Cognizant, NTT DATA, Infosys: Broad integration benches; strong cloud partnerships, ISO 20022 programs, and managed services. Their blockchain units often lead on ERP/MES/CRM integration (SAP, Oracle, Dynamics) and runbooks for on‑prem to cloud migration. (Market capability signals include recent AI/cloud pivots and PS benches.) (reuters.com)

When you want: multi‑vendor orchestration, strict RTO/RPO, and cross‑functional delivery (security, risk, infra, data, DevOps) under one roof.

2) Protocol and network specialists (own the rails)

• R3 (Corda): Professional services for Corda 4.x and 5.x; Kubernetes‑native Corda 5 with explicit platform support matrices; active EOL schedules to plan upgrades. Ideal for privacy‑centric, bilateral workflows (capital markets, trade finance). (docs.r3.com)
• Digital Asset (Canton Network): Institutional tokenization/interoperability with regulated‑market focus; 2024–2025 pilots and funding include Euroclear collateral mobility and broad industry backing—consultants here help connect to Canton apps and TestNet. (blog.digitalasset.com)
• ConsenSys: Ethereum enterprise stack (Besu/Quorum, Orchestrate toolchain), audits (Diligence), and app integration patterns for public/permissioned networks. Good where you want public Ethereum alignment with enterprise Patterns. (consensys.io)

When you want: deep protocol choices, privacy models, SDKs, upgrade paths, and direct lines into roadmap teams.

3) Interoperability and Web3 gateway implementers

• Hyperledger Cacti: Open‑source interoperability framework (merged from Cactus + Weaver) with connectors for Fabric, Besu, Corda, and more—backed by Hyperledger. Consultants with Cacti expertise can design cross‑network asset exchanges without central settlement chains. (hyperledger-cacti.github.io)
• Hyperledger FireFly: Open‑source Web3 gateway for events, tokens, multi‑chain connectivity—useful for consistent enterprise plumbing across L1s/L2s and Fabric/Besu. (hyperledger.github.io)
• Chainlink (enterprise integrations): CCIP for cross‑chain token and message movement; 2024–2025 pilots with DTCC Smart NAV and SWIFT experiments make it relevant for capital markets data and interop. Skilled partners implement CCIP as an abstraction layer. (dtcc.com)

When you want: to avoid single‑chain lock‑in and design future‑proof, chain‑agnostic patterns.

4) Cloud providers and their service catalogs

• AWS: Amazon Managed Blockchain (AMB) Access/Query for Ethereum, Polygon, Bitcoin, and Hyperledger Fabric; AMB Query is a serverless API to standardized multi‑chain data; KMS‑backed identity components for Fabric CA. AWS PS and partners implement end‑to‑end. (aws.amazon.com)
• Google Cloud: Blockchain Node Engine offers SLA‑backed, managed Ethereum nodes with transparent pricing (e.g., $0.69/hr full node, $2.74/hr archive at time of writing). Good for compliance‑aware, VPC‑isolated infra footprints. (cloud.google.com)
• Microsoft Azure: With Azure Managed CCF deprecated, enterprises should use Azure Confidential Ledger and SQL Database ledger features for tamper‑evidence and WORM‑style digests—pair with AKS and Key Vault for ops. (learn.microsoft.com)

When you want: managed infra, enterprise IAM/VPC controls, native KMS/HSM, SOC reports, and predictable pricing.

---

What’s different in 2024–2025 (so your RFP doesn’t look 2019)

• Institutional tokenization moved beyond pilots: DTCC’s Smart NAV showed standardized, on‑chain fund data dissemination with industry participants—consultants should know how to wire fund data into on‑chain workflows and permissioned/public bridges. (dtcc.com)
• Fabric 2.5 is the LTS line; Fabric 3.x adds performance and BFT ordering: If your SI is still proposing Fabric 1.x/2.2, that’s a red flag. Require plans aligned to 2.5 LTS and awareness of 3.x feature paths. (lf-decentralized-trust.github.io)
• Identity stacks are standardizing: Demand W3C VC 2.0/DID alignment for supplier onboarding, eKYC, and workforce credentialing. Map verifications into your legacy IAM/IGA and audit systems. (w3.org)
• Data/ledger options on Azure shifted: Azure Confidential Ledger + SQL Database ledger are now the primary Microsoft choices for tamper‑evident records and cryptographic digests. (azure.microsoft.com)

---

A practical evaluation framework (scoreable)

Use this 10‑dimension rubric (weight to taste). We’ve included precise checks and examples you can drop into RFPs.

1. Reference architectures (15%)

• Evidence of at least two of:
  • Fabric 2.5 LTS deployments (with private data patterns and purge APIs)
  • Corda 5.x on Kubernetes with HA patterns
  • Public Ethereum integrations using ZKPs over public rails (e.g., EY OCM‑style)
• Ask for: diagrams showing event buses, key custody, HA ordering/consensus, and rollback. (hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io)

1. Interoperability strategy (12%)

• Can they implement Chainlink CCIP, Hyperledger Cacti, or FireFly to avoid vendor lock‑in?
• Ask for: a design that demonstrates atomic or near‑atomic settlement across two networks (e.g., Fabric ↔ Ethereum), including failure modes and rate‑limit controls. (hyperledger-cacti.github.io)

1. Legacy integration patterns (12%)

• Experience with CDC/Kafka, MuleSoft, SAP PI/PO, Dynamics/Dataverse, Oracle, mainframe adapters.
• Ask for: sample connector configs and idempotency patterns for at‑least‑once delivery.

1. Security and key management (10%)

• HSM/KMS integration (AWS KMS for Fabric CA, Azure Key Vault, HashiCorp Vault), SoD, rotation, quorum approvals.
• Ask for: concrete crypto boundary diagrams and signing flows. (aws.amazon.com)

1. Data governance and privacy (10%)

• PII/data residency kept off‑chain; use of ZKPs or TEEs where needed; Azure SQL ledger digests to immutable storage; audit‑ready evidence trails.
• Ask for: sample data classification matrix mapping on‑chain/off‑chain. (techcommunity.microsoft.com)

1. Compliance mapping (10%)

• ISO 20022 message mapping, Basel cryptoasset disclosure readiness, WORM retention for audit logs (e.g., Azure SQL immutable LTR backups).
• Ask for: control objectives and test scripts. (swift.com)

1. Operability/SRE (8%)

• SLOs for node uptime, block finality monitoring, chain reorg handling, DR (RPO/RTO), blue/green chaincode or contract deploys.
• Ask for: runbooks and canary strategies.

1. Costing and TCO modeling (8%)

• Cloud primitives called out (e.g., AMB Query vs custom ETL; Node Engine node hours); clear capex/opex split for nodes, storage, bandwidth.
• Ask for: a line‑item cost model with sensitivity analysis for TPS and data retention. (docs.aws.amazon.com)

1. Delivery readiness and change management (8%)

• Training plans (developers, ops, auditors), secure SDLC for smart contracts, red team/adversarial testing.
• Ask for: curriculum outlines and a gated SDLC with SAST/DAST and audit artifacts.

1. Proof of value and references (7%)

• Show two relevant references (industry + tech stack). Bonus: identity/onboarding at scale (e.g., Trust Your Supplier outcomes).
• Ask for: measurable KPIs (onboarding cycle time, reconciliation errors, settlement windows). (lfdecentralizedtrust.org)

You can convert the above to a 100‑point scorecard. Shortlist partners scoring 80+.

---

Integration patterns that actually work (with current stack options)

1. Event‑driven bridge (typical for core apps)

• Pattern: Legacy DB → CDC (Debezium/SQL Change Tracking) → Kafka → Chaincode or smart contract call → On‑chain receipt ID → Back to legacy via event bus.
• Where to run it:
  • Fabric on AWS AMB (private channels + private data collections); AMB Query for analytics; KMS for CA. (aws.amazon.com)
  • Or public Ethereum node via Google Cloud Node Engine for deterministic gas‑budgeted calls (private tx routing via dedicated RPC). (cloud.google.com)
• What to ask from the consultant: back‑pressure strategy, exactly‑once semantics, and replay protection.

1. Tokenization + market data interop (finance)

• Pattern: Off‑chain fund/NAV systems → ISO 20022 enrichment → On‑chain publish (permissioned/public) → Smart contracts consume reference data; cross‑chain distribution via CCIP.
• Why it’s real: DTCC Smart NAV pilot operationalized on‑chain dissemination for fund data with major FIs. (dtcc.com)

1. Digital identity for supplier/partner onboarding

• Pattern: Issue W3C VCs; keep PII off‑chain; store proofs/hashes on chain or ledger; enable revocation flows.
• Why it’s real: DIDs and VC 2.0 are stable standards; IBM/Chainyard showed cycle‑time compression with Fabric‑based onboarding. (w3.org)

1. Audit‑ready tamper‑evidence without moving workloads

• Pattern: Use Azure SQL ledger for cryptographic attestation of existing transactional tables; publish digests to Azure Confidential Ledger or immutable storage for WORM retention.
• When to use: If you need immutability and attestation without a full blockchain migration. (techcommunity.microsoft.com)

---

Emerging best practices we recommend (and why)

• Architect for interop on Day 1
  Use Cacti/FireFly/CCIP to avoid re‑platforming when a new chain, L2, or RWA marketplace appears. Mandate connector abstraction layers in your codebase. (hyperledger-cacti.github.io)

• Keep sensitive data off‑chain; push proofs on‑chain
  Combine ZKPs (e.g., EY OCM approach) with off‑chain encrypted storage and granular disclosure. This satisfies privacy while preserving verifiability. (ey.com)

• Align with payments and identity standards now
  ISO 20022 and VC 2.0 reduce custom mapping and audit effort later. Build canonical data models that map to these specs. (swift.com)

• Use managed services for non‑differentiating infrastructure
  Prefer AMB Access/Query, Node Engine, Confidential Ledger, and SQL ledger where appropriate. You’ll get SLAs, KMS, and predictable costs. (aws.amazon.com)

• Plan the upgrade path—not just MVP
  For Fabric, target 2.5 LTS with a view to 3.x; for Corda, know supported matrix and EOL dates; for Ethereum, pin client versions and RPC layers under change control. (lf-decentralized-trust.github.io)

• Bake in disclosure/audit from the start
  Banks and insurers should blueprint how ledger exposures roll into Basel cryptoasset disclosures (2026) and how WORM policies are enforced in backups/ledgers. (bis.org)

---

Pitfalls and reality checks (learned from the field)

• “Build it and they will come” networks rarely survive without neutral governance. TradeLens’ shutdown is a governance/commercial lesson—demand a clear consortium model or choose neutral rails. (maersk.com)
• Don’t fork outdated stacks: proposals on Fabric 1.x/2.2 or private Ethereum clients with abandoned support will cost you more in year two than you save in month one. Audit vendor bills of materials against current LTS matrices. (lf-decentralized-trust.github.io)
• Ignore ISO 20022/VC 2.0 at your peril: retrofitting standards later is costlier than mapping early in the design. (swift.com)

---

What an excellent SOW looks like (timeline and deliverables)

• Weeks 0–4: Discovery and target architecture
  • Current‑state inventory, data classification, control objectives (SOX/PCI/GLBA/HIPAA as relevant).
  • Draft target architecture with interop strategy (Cacti/FireFly/CCIP) and cloud landing zone (KMS/HSM, VPC, IAM).
• Weeks 5–10: Proof of Value
  • One golden path (e.g., supplier onboarding VC issuance + chain notarization) and one stress path (partial failure, chain reorg, backpressure).
  • Cost and SLO baselines using managed services (e.g., AMB Query vs custom ETL; Node Engine node hour profiles). (docs.aws.amazon.com)
• Weeks 11–20: Pilot integration
  • Connect legacy systems (CDC/Kafka/MuleSoft) and deliver IaC (Terraform) with observability (metrics for block finality, mempool latency, chaincode gas/CPU).
  • Security hardening: key custody runbooks, rotation, HSM policies.
• Weeks 21–28: Production hardening
  • DR (RPO/RTO), threat modeling, red team on smart contracts/chaincode, ISO 20022 message conformance tests, VC/DID trust registry design.
  • Operational handover: SRE playbooks, SLAs, pager rotations, cost guardrails.

---

Concrete RFP questions you can copy‑paste

• Show how you map our payment/settlement events to ISO 20022 message schemas and how you would validate conformance at the boundary. (swift.com)
• Propose an interop design using either Chainlink CCIP, Hyperledger Cacti, or FireFly for [two named chains], including rate‑limiters, retries, and failure isolation. (blog.chain.link)
• Provide your plan to keep PII off‑chain while enabling third‑party verification via ZKPs or ledger digests (e.g., SQL ledger + Confidential Ledger). (techcommunity.microsoft.com)
• List three production references on Fabric 2.5 LTS or Corda 5.x that include DR drills and audited key management with KMS/HSM. (lf-decentralized-trust.github.io)
• Provide a cost model contrasting AMB Query and custom ETL for multi‑chain analytics over 12 months at [X TPS, Y GB storage]. (docs.aws.amazon.com)

---

Real‑world mini‑examples (with current tech)

• Supplier onboarding: VC/DID‑based onboarding where the ERP only stores VC IDs; verification via ledger proofs; onboarding cycle time reduced (see Chainyard/IBM case for outcomes to target). (lfdecentralizedtrust.org)
• Fund data to multiple chains: NAV published once on permissioned rail, propagated via CCIP to public chains for composability and analytics—pattern validated by the DTCC Smart NAV pilot. (dtcc.com)
• Tamper‑evident logs without app rewrite: Enable Azure SQL ledger on audit tables; push digests to Confidential Ledger; integrate with SIEM for independent attestation. (techcommunity.microsoft.com)
• Private workflows + public liquidity: Asset lifecycle on Fabric/Corda; bridge via interop for settlement/visibility using CCIP or Cacti; place analytics into AMB Query or BigQuery. (docs.aws.amazon.com)

---

How 7Block Labs works with you

We specialize in “pragmatic blockchain”—solving a business bottleneck first, then layering interop. Our typical engagements include:

• A 4‑week Discovery sprint producing a target architecture aligned to ISO 20022, VC/DID, and your cloud landing zone;
• A 6‑ to 8‑week Proof of Value on one golden workflow with measurable KPIs;
• A production plan that bakes in interop (Cacti/FireFly/CCIP), tamper‑evidence (SQL ledger/ACL where appropriate), managed infra (AMB/Node Engine), and audit/disclosure readiness.

We’re tool‑agnostic: Fabric/Corda/Canton/Ethereum where each fits best, with a strong bias to managed cloud primitives to reduce TCO and accelerate compliance sign‑off. If you want an evaluation call or a workshop tailored to your stack, we’ll bring a scorecard draft and example runbooks.

---

Quick checklist to finalize your shortlist

• Do they propose Fabric 2.5 LTS (or newer) and understand 3.x changes? Do Corda plans align to supported matrices and EOL? (lf-decentralized-trust.github.io)
• Can they demonstrate interop using CCIP/Cacti/FireFly with failure handling? (blog.chain.link)
• Are they fluent in ISO 20022 mapping and Basel 2026 disclosure impacts? (swift.com)
• Do they keep PII off‑chain and provide ZKP/ledger‑digest strategies? (ey.com)
• Is their cost model using managed services (AMB/Node Engine/ACL/SQL ledger) with transparent assumptions? (aws.amazon.com)

If you can answer “yes” across that list, you’re likely speaking to the right partner.

---

Sources and further reading (selected)

• DTCC Smart NAV pilot (fund data on‑chain with Chainlink). (dtcc.com)
• AWS AMB (Access/Query) supported chains, features; AMB Query. (aws.amazon.com)
• Google Cloud Blockchain Node Engine pricing and SLAs. (cloud.google.com)
• Azure Confidential Ledger; Managed CCF deprecation; SQL Database ledger GA details. (azure.microsoft.com)
• Hyperledger Fabric 2.5 LTS status and 3.x releases. (lf-decentralized-trust.github.io)
• Hyperledger Cacti docs (interoperability). (hyperledger-cacti.github.io)
• Hyperledger FireFly Web3 gateway features. (hyperledger.github.io)
• EY OpsChain Contract Manager (ZKP on public Ethereum for private agreements). (ey.com)
• R3 Corda 5.x platform support. (docs.r3.com)
• Digital Asset/Canton Network pilots and funding. (blog.digitalasset.com)
• W3C VC 2.0 Recommendation; DIDs Recommendation. (w3.org)
• ISO 20022: SWIFT cutover (Nov 22, 2025). (swift.com)

---

7Block Labs can facilitate a 90‑minute “architecture sanity check” on your current proposals and deliver a gap analysis against this framework within five business days.