ERC-3643 vs ERC-1400: Which Permissioned Token Standard?

Why the comparison matters

Both ERC-1400 and ERC-3643 aim at regulated security tokens, but they differ in how strongly identity and claims are modelled on-chain.

Teams choosing a tokenization stack need a clear decision: partition and document-based controls (ERC-1400 family) versus an identity-registry and claim-topic model (ERC-3643 / T-REX).

ERC-1400 in brief

ERC-1400 introduced a modular security-token framework with partitions, document references, and operator controls familiar to capital-markets workflows.

It remains relevant where issuers want flexible tranche-like partitions and off-chain document linkage without a full on-chain identity registry pattern.

ERC-3643 in brief

ERC-3643 centres on an identity registry and claim topics so every transfer validates who the recipient is and which compliance claims they hold.

That model maps cleanly to KYC/KYB/AML programmes and continuous claim renewal — the pattern PazaLabs uses for institutional RWA issuance.

When to choose which

Choose ERC-3643 when transfer eligibility must be enforced on-chain from a living identity and claims set — typical for bank and asset-manager RWA programmes.

Evaluate ERC-1400 when partition semantics and document hooks are the primary requirement and identity can be enforced through operators or adjacent systems.

For PazaLabs deployments, ERC-3643 is the default issuance standard so permissioned transfers, forced recovery, and auditability stay inside the token logic.