Global Standards Mapping Initiative: An overview of blockchain technical standards

The document provides a comprehensive overview of the technical standardization efforts for blockchain and DLT, analyzing the roles of formal standard-setting organizations, industry groups, and decentralized proposal processes. It identifies significant inconsistencies in terminology and reference architectures, highlights critical gaps in performance testing and core technical elements, and notes a lack of geographic and expertise diversity in the creation process. The report recommends increased coordination among entities and a cautious, principles-based approach to avoid premature standardization that could stifle innovation.

• Terminology and reference architectures for blockchain remain inconsistent across different standard-setting bodies. For example, ISO defines blockchain as an "append-only, sequential chain", whereas ITU-T describes it as a "successively growing chain of blocks". Similarly, IEEE's reference architecture uses five "DLT architecture domains", while ITU-T identifies five "functional components".
• There are significant gaps in the blockchain standard-setting landscape, particularly regarding criteria for when to apply DLT, the formalization of core technical elements like consensus algorithms and interoperability, the absence of DLT performance test standards, and unexplored industry verticals such as education and land registries.
• High concentrations of activity and potential for overlap exist in five primary areas: security, the Internet of Things (IoT), digital identity, DLT requirements (hardware and software), and taxonomy/terminology. The report notes that ISO, IEEE, ITU-T, and Standards Australia have over a dozen initiatives related to blockchain security alone.
• Geographic representation in standard-setting is skewed toward Europe, North America, and China. For instance, only one of the 11 ISO working groups has a convener from outside Europe, North America, or Australia, and the principal authors of the ITU-T DLT reference architecture were all from China.
• The process of creating standards varies between formal bodies and decentralized protocol-specific processes. Protocol-oriented standards, such as Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) and Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs), are managed by developer communities via GitHub and allow for the possibility of forking the chain in case of disagreement.
• Intellectual property (IP) management presents a trade-off between openness and protection. Open processes like those for Bitcoin and Ethereum risk infringing on existing patents because they lack IP assignment, while more closed standards bodies may require participants to license their patent IP.

APA

World Economic Forum (2020). Global Standards Mapping Initiative: An overview of blockchain technical standards. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GSMI_Technical_Standards_2020.pdf

Chicago

World Economic Forum. Global Standards Mapping Initiative: An overview of blockchain technical standards. 2020. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GSMI_Technical_Standards_2020.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=World Economic Forum |title=Global Standards Mapping Initiative: An overview of blockchain technical standards |date=October 2020 |url=http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GSMI_Technical_Standards_2020.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{worldeconomicforum2020global, author = {{World Economic Forum}}, title = {{Global Standards Mapping Initiative: An overview of blockchain technical standards}}, institution = {World Economic Forum}, year = {2020}, month = oct, url = {http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GSMI_Technical_Standards_2020.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }