We architect, build and integrate blockchain and DLT platforms for organizations that need shared, verifiable records — and we’ll tell you plainly when a database would serve you better.
Consortium channel
Platforms we build on
Start here
An honest, fixed-price evaluation of whether distributed-ledger technology fits your use case at all — with a documented recommendation, including “use a database” when that is the right answer.
What you receive
How it runs
Week 1
Workshops with business, architecture, security and compliance. We map participants, trust relationships, data flows and regulation.
Week 2
At least one conventional design compared with the relevant ledger options on the four questions, cost, operability and risk.
Week 3
A written recommendation, an architecture sketch and a three-year cost model, reviewed with your team.
If the answer is “no blockchain”, you also get the sketch and cost model for the conventional alternative.
Honest DLT counsel
We would rather lose a build than sell you the wrong one. If the four questions point away from a ledger, the requirement still needs a design — these are the substitutions we recommend most often.
Four questions we ask first
If one organization writes all the data, access controls and an audit log already do the job.
Tamper evidence inside one company is a solved problem. Verification across organizations is the harder need.
If participants would accept a neutral operator under contract and audit, that is usually the simpler design.
Someone still handles onboarding, disputes and compliance. A ledger moves that cost; it rarely removes it.
What we recommend instead
If you need… |
Reach for… |
Why |
|---|---|---|
| A tamper-evident audit trail | An append-only table with hash chaining, or a ledger database | Each entry commits to the one before it, so any edit breaks the chain. There is no consensus layer to run. |
| Multi-party data sharing | A shared API with signed events | Each party signs what it publishes and consumers verify it. You get attribution and non-repudiation with ordinary access control. |
| One version of the truth among partners | A neutral operator running a conventional database under contract and audit | Governance problems are best solved with governance. An accountable operator with SLAs and audit rights is simpler than a consortium. |
| Reconciliation between internal systems | Event sourcing and change data capture into a durable log such as Kafka | Inside one company the problem is data flow, not trust. A replayable event log removes most reconciliation work. |
| Proof a document existed and hasn’t changed | Cryptographic hashing with trusted timestamps (RFC 3161) | You prove integrity and time of existence without putting the document on a ledger or running nodes. |
| Automated multi-step business rules | A workflow engine or state machine behind idempotent APIs | Rules that change every quarter belong in code you can test and redeploy on your own schedule, not in an immutable contract. |
Services
Five services, each scoped from the architecture dossier and held to the same testing, documentation and handover standard as our conventional work.
02
Public, private or consortium, decided on evidence
Selection and architecture of the right ledger approach — public, private or consortium, from EVM chains to Hyperledger Fabric and Corda — with consensus, identity, privacy and scalability decisions documented in an architecture dossier.
Format & pricing
Fixed-price architecture engagement, then build.
03
Tested, upgradeable and ready for external audit
Design, development and testing of smart contracts and on-chain logic, with upgradeability patterns, gas optimization and coordination with external security auditors.
Format & pricing
Project, scoped per engagement.
04
Issuance, custody integration and admin tooling
End-to-end platforms for asset tokenization, loyalty or settlement: token design, issuance, custody integration and admin tooling.
Format & pricing
Project, typically multi-phase.
05
Ledgers inside real IT estates, not beside them
Connecting ledger components to existing enterprise systems — identity and access, ERP, data pipelines — so DLT works inside real IT estates, not beside them.
Format & pricing
Project, scoped per engagement.
06
dApps, wallets, indexers and protocol tooling
dApps, wallets, indexers and protocol tooling for blockchain-native companies, built to the same standard as our enterprise work.
Format & pricing
Project or dedicated team.
Smart contract assurance
On-chain code is hard to change and expensive to get wrong, so assurance is designed in from the first review.
01
Threat model, access control and upgradeability design documented and reviewed.
02
Unit and property-based tests, with coverage targets agreed before the build.
03
Automated fuzzing and static analysis run in every pipeline.
04
An external security auditor reviews the code; we fix and retest every finding.
05
Staged rollout, on-chain monitoring and a rehearsed upgrade runbook.
Every contract that reaches production has passed an independent external audit, and you receive the final report.
Work
A permissioned Hyperledger Fabric network gives six competing members a shared, verifiable batch history, fed directly from their ERPs, while commercially sensitive data stays in private data collections.
25 min
to trace a batch across all members
6
member ERPs integrated, none replaced
Asked to assess a blockchain registry, we found one accountable operator and no case for disintermediation. We recommended PostgreSQL with a hash-chained, append-only audit log, then delivered it.
3 weeks
to a written recommendation
45%
lower five-year cost than the ledger design
We built a permissioned tokenization platform on Hyperledger Besu using ERC-3643 tokens, integrated with the administrator’s transfer-agency system, investor onboarding and an MPC custody provider.
T+0
settlement for eligible unit transfers
60%
less manual transfer-agency work
FAQ
Still have a question? Ask an engineer directly — you’ll get a straight answer.
Contact an engineerIt runs for two to three weeks at a fixed price. We hold workshops with business, technology, security and compliance stakeholders, map the participants and trust relationships, and compare at least one conventional design with the relevant ledger options. You receive a written recommendation, an architecture sketch and a three-year cost model. If the answer is to proceed, we also outline a phased delivery plan.
It depends on who needs to write, who needs to read and who governs. Public networks suit open participation and asset portability, but privacy needs careful design. Private networks serve a single organization, where a database is often the better choice. Consortium networks on Hyperledger Fabric, Corda or a permissioned EVM such as Besu suit known participants who share governance. We record the choice and its trade-offs in the architecture dossier.
Our engineers build for audit, but we do not sign off our own code. Every contract goes through peer review, unit and property-based tests, fuzzing and static analysis, with upgradeability and access-control design documented. Before production deployment, an independent external security auditor reviews the code. We prepare the audit package, coordinate the engagement, fix and retest findings, and share the final report with you.
They depend on jurisdiction and use case, and nothing here is legal advice. Common topics include securities, e-money and crypto-asset rules such as MiCA in the EU; custody requirements; AML and KYC obligations; data protection law such as GDPR, which limits what belongs on an immutable ledger; and operational resilience rules such as DORA. We design so your counsel and compliance team can assess the system, and work alongside them throughout.
Keys are the most sensitive part of the system, so we design their lifecycle first: generation, storage, signing policy, rotation, recovery and revocation. Depending on the use case, we integrate regulated custodians, MPC wallets or HSM-backed signing services, with policy controls such as multi-party approval and transaction limits. Admin and upgrade keys get the same care as user keys, and recovery procedures are documented and rehearsed.
Then that is our written recommendation, with the reasoning set out. Because the assessment compares a conventional design alongside the ledger options, you also get a sketch and cost model for the alternative, often a database with a hash-chained, append-only audit log or a shared API with signed events. You own the report. Many clients then ask us to build the conventional system, but there is no obligation.
Book a DLT Feasibility Assessment: fixed price, two to three weeks, and a recommendation we stand behind whichever way it points.
