An EVM address does not identify a blockchain by itself.

The same visible 20-byte address can exist on Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon and BNB Chain. The address bytes may match while the balances, approvals, contract code, administrators and transaction history remain completely different.

ERC-7930 proposes a machine-oriented Interoperable Address that can bind the target address to chain information in one versioned binary envelope. The structure includes a version, chain type, chain-reference length, chain reference, address length and the native address data.

The format is designed to extend beyond EVM chains. Namespace-specific CAIP-350 profiles define how the chain reference and address should be serialized for different ecosystems.

ERC-7828 handles the human-facing side. It defines an Interoperable Name with an address or ENS name, an explicit chain component and an optional checksum. A readable chain label can resolve through ENS, while a canonical chain identifier can be used directly.

The checksum can protect the integrity of a raw chain-specific destination. It should generally not be attached to an ENS name because the name’s resolved address can legitimately change over time.

Neither proposal makes cross-chain transfers automatically safe. Resolver integrity, address poisoning, shortened-address matching, unsupported wallet behavior and unsafe routes still require separate checks.

Software should never accept a chain-aware destination and silently reduce it to a plain legacy address while discarding the chain context.

Both ERCs remain in Review, so support should be verified in the exact wallet, bridge, protocol and library being used.

Full TokenToolHub breakdown:

https://tokentoolhub.com/erc-7930-erc-7828-interoperable-addresses/

#Ethereum #crypto #blockchain #Web3 #defi