Skip to content

LibraryScaling2021Design paperCorpus record

Abstract Storage Bonds

ERC 3475. Yu Liu , Varun Deshpande , Cedric Ngakam , Dhruv Malik , Samuel Gwlanold Edoumou , Toufic Batrice.

ERC 3475, Abstract Storage Bonds. The creation of tokenized obligations with abstract on-chain metadata storage.

Status in the source: Final. A reading of the public specification, not a copy of it and not a certification.

Abstract Storage Bonds is worth reading for the rule it actually adds: The creation of tokenized obligations with abstract on-chain metadata storage.

The five-minute read

The rule

The creation of tokenized obligations with abstract on-chain metadata storage.

What was already failing

An underpriced or ambiguous EVM rule is not a feature. It is a block that takes longer than the gas limit claimed, or a client that disagrees about the result.

What the number does not mean

The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

What a builder should be able to point at

An implementation either constrains Abstract Storage Bonds or it is a different design.

One action, walked through

  1. Open ERC 3475 and read the status line before the examples.
  2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: The creation of tokenized obligations with abstract on-chain metadata storage.
  3. Name the object that changes: Abstract Storage Bonds.
  4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What the text is allowed to settle

Ethereum Request for Comment 3475 can settle the shape of Abstract Storage Bonds. It cannot settle whether a later client, a later fork, or a later wallet still does this.

What this page will not pretend

There is no benchmark, no adoption number, and no claim that the mechanism is safe outside the assumptions written in the source.

What has to be true

  • You are implementing ERC 3475 at the status the text itself states: Final.
  • The object that has to change is Abstract Storage Bonds. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
  • Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork. Cite the EIP number and the fork you mean.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

  • What does Abstract Storage Bonds charge, reject, or redefine on the first touch versus a later one?
  • Does a reverted subcall roll the change back?
  • Can you point at the object in a client: Abstract Storage Bonds?

Terms

ERC 3475
The public text titled Abstract Storage Bonds.
Final
The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

An underpriced or ambiguous EVM rule is not a feature. It is a block that takes longer than the gas limit claimed, or a client that disagrees about the result.

What the design proposes

  • The creation of tokenized obligations with abstract on-chain metadata storage.
  • Issuing bonds with multiple redemption data cannot be achieved with existing token standards.
  • This EIP enables each bond class ID to represent a new configurable token type and corresponding to each class, corresponding bond nonces to represent an issuing condition or any other form of data in uint256.

How the mechanism is specified

  • Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: Issuing bonds with multiple redemption data cannot be achieved with existing token standards.
  • Locate Abstract Storage Bonds in ERC 3475 and apply it to one transaction or call.
  • Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

  • A gas or opcode change is not a throughput benchmark. It is a relative price and a validity rule.
  • Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork. Cite the EIP number and the fork you mean.
  • The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use ERC 3475 when a pitch says 'Abstract Storage Bonds' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.