With the evolution of blockchain technology usage, in 2026, no business questions whether to use this technology; the discussion centers on how to implement it. The initial stages of experimentation with blockchain technology—proof of concept, pilot projects, and consortium-based trials—are complete. What is left now is a more intricate and strategic decision on whether to go with Blockchain-as-a-Service (BaaS) solutions or create Custom Chain solutions.
This decision is also at the confluence of cost, governance, compliance, scalability, and strategic long-term business control. The scope of use cases involving blockchain is no longer limited to innovation theatres, but also encompasses supply chains, financial systems, identity, tokenization of the physical world, and more.
Major companies like BlackRock and HSBC are now not only exploring the use of blockchain, but they are also adopting it, indicating the mainstream use of decentralized technology in the near future. At the same time, in the space of emerging technology, Modular Architecture, restaking approaches like EigenLayer, and the Hybrid Cloud Advantage are changing the way the enterprise landscape views blockchain technology.
This article provides a comprehensive decision framework for enterprises evaluating BaaS vs. Custom Blockchain in 2026. It explores technical, operational, regulatory, and strategic dimensions—helping organizations move from experimentation to sustainable, production-grade systems.
What is Blockchain as a Service (BaaS)?
Blockchain as a Service is a model in which a cloud-based solution is utilized. BaaS provides a means for enterprises to deploy, manage, and run a blockchain-based system without needing to deal with underlying infrastructure. Much like Software as a Service abstracted software hosting complexity, BaaS abstracts node management, networking, and maintenance.
BaaS solutions are typically provided by major cloud providers or blockchain infrastructure firms. Examples include:
Kaleido (enterprise blockchain platform)
Microsoft Azure Blockchain solutions (often in partnership with Kaleido)
Amazon Managed Blockchain (AWS Blockchain)
These platforms allow enterprises to quickly deploy permissioned networks using frameworks such as:
Hyperledger Fabric
Quorum
Corda
Enterprise Ethereum
Typically provided by cloud providers or blockchain infrastructure companies, BaaS allows for fast implementation of a private or permissioned blockchain by pre-built frameworks.
Key Characteristics of BaaS Platforms
Managed infrastructure and node hosting
Pre-built templates for well-known blockchain frameworks
Integrated monitoring, logging, and security tooling
Cloud native scalability
Subscription-based or usage-based pricing
They may also support enterprise-grade technologies such as Hyperledger Fabric, Quorum, Corda, or enterprise Ethereum.
Understanding Custom Blockchain Development
What are Custom Chains?
Custom Chains are blockchain networks built, made, and managed particularly for an enterprise or a consortium of enterprises. As opposed to BaaS blockchains, a custom blockchain allows full management over consensus algorithms, governing principles, token economy, and upgrade and security models.
These systems may be created as a Layer 1 network or as application-specific chains (app-chains) utilizing modular blockchain stacks.
In 2026, popular frameworks for building custom blockchain networks include:
Avalanche Subnets
Polygon CDK (Chain Development Kit)
Cosmos SDK
These frameworks allow enterprises to launch highly customizable networks with tailored validator sets, performance configurations, and governance models.
Defining Features of Custom Blockchain Solutions
Tailored models for consensus and validation
Specific governance and permissioning models
Direct control over data availability and execution layers
Integration with proprietary enterprise systems
Models for flexible tokens and incentives
With custom blockchains now frequently referring to blockchains based on Modular Architectures, in which execution, settlement, data availability, and consensus are separated for scalability and adaptability.
Why Enterprises Are Re-evaluating Blockchain Architecture in 2026
The Shift from Experimentation to Production
The early blockchain pilots were focused on the feasibility and value of blockchain technology. However, for today's enterprise use cases, there are new and important requirements
High throughput and predictable latency
Regulatory compliance in different jurisdictions
Long- terms operational stability
Interoperability with legacy systems
Clear governance and upgrade paths
This movement highlights the failure of a one-size-fits-all concept, which makes enterprises design more purposefully.
Key Decision Factors: BaaS vs. Custom Blockchain
1. Speed of Deployment vs. Strategic Control
BaaS Advantage:
Platforms like AWS Blockchain and Kaleido allow deployment within weeks. For enterprises transitioning from proof-of-concept to early production, this speed can be decisive.
Custom Chain Advantage:
Frameworks such as Polygon CDK or Avalanche Subnets require longer development cycles but provide architectural sovereignty—crucial for mission-critical systems.
2. Cost Structure and Long-Term Economics
BaaS Cost Model:
Lower upfront investment
Predictable operating expenses
Vendor Pricing Dependencies
Custom Blockchain Cost Model:
Higher initial development costs
Lower marginal costs at scale
Internal ownership of infrastructure economics
Enterprises with high transactions, especially over a multi-year timeframe, can find in-house solutions more cost-effective.
3. Scalability and Performance Requirements
While BaaS platforms are designed for general enterprise workloads, throughput may be limited depending on the shared infrastructure.
Custom Chains allow:
Application-specific performance tuning
Dedicated Validator Sets
Optimized block times and finality
For a large number of use cases, such as financial settlements or asset tokenization, which are expected to be used at high frequencies, performance tuning becomes critical.
4. Governance, Compliance, and Risk Management
The enterprise governance needs for authoring are often not supported by standardized BaaS governance models.
With Custom Blockchains one can:
Granular permissioning
Jurisdiction-specific compliance rules
Custom audit and reporting logic
This is an increasingly important flexibility for regulators, now scrutinizing the blockchain-based systems being used in everything from financial to identity infrastructure.
The Role of Hybrid Cloud Advantage in Enterprise Blockchain
Why Hybrid Models Matter
Most enterprises do not operate in either a completely public or a completely private environment. Rather, they are already working in a combination of on-premises systems, private clouds, and public cloud technology. Therefore, it is against this backdrop that blockchain adoption should be assessed and not separately.
For enterprises, Hybrid Cloud Advantage allows them to design blockchain systems according to such operational realities. Hybrid blockchain models allow organizations to strategically deploy blockchain functionality in both public and private clouds rather than trying to execute all of it in one environment.
In practice, this approach enables enterprises to:
To execute sensitive workloads, which can involve identity information, financial information, or other business logic, on a private environment
Leverage public networks as settlement, timestamping, or interoperability tools
Maintaining regulatory compliance without compromising access to decentralized networks and liquidity.
Such a balance is particularly important in regulated industries, in which data residency, auditability, as well as access controls, are a hard requirement. Hybrid blockchain architectures help enterprises meet such demands while at the same time still allowing them to enjoy decentralized benefits.
From an implementation standpoint, BaaS platforms integrate seamlessly into cloud-heavy infrastructures. Meanwhile, custom chains built with frameworks like Cosmos SDK or Avalanche Subnets can be architected to operate across hybrid deployments with greater customization.
Modular Architectures and Their Impact on The Decision
As financial institutions evaluate blockchain infrastructure strategies, architectural design plays a crucial role in shaping long-term decisions. Beyond the debate of BaaS vs custom blockchain, the rise of modular architectures is emerging as a key factor influencing how enterprises design, scale, and future-proof their blockchain systems.
What are Modular Blockchains?
Modular blockchains indicate a paradigm shift from monolithic network architectures to modular ones. In monolithic architecture, there is a mix of execution, settlement, data availability, and consensus layers.
This design philosophy enables enterprises to individually optimize or replace each of these layers according to changing needs. For instance, an enterprise can enhance its execution layer without modifying its settlement and availability of data mechanisms.
For enterprises that plan to implement blockchain deployments over a long term, separation provides reduced architectural rigidity and reduction of cost.
Why Modular Architectures Prefer Custom Chains
Modular structures tend to be more suited to custom blockchain deployments since firms can utilize blockchain stacks based on exact operational requirements rather than standard templates.
Key advantages include:
Easier optimization of performance for application-specific workloads
Reduced vendor lock-in through interchangeable parts
Compatibility with restaking and shared security models
Greater resilience to changing technical and regulatory standards
Although BaaS providers are increasingly supporting modular frameworks, the ability to do so has limited scope due to the presence of abstractions at the platform level. With custom chains, there is a much greater level of flexibility that allows the selection of environments, data availability, and settlement.
As blockchain standards improve, modularity helps ensure future-proofing—a key area of interest and importance to enterprises in a “long-lived infrastructure setting.”
Institutional Use Cases: From Tokenization to Financial Infrastructure
Tokenizing the Real World
Enterprises are increasingly focused on tokenizing the real world-including real estate, commodities, bonds, carbon credits, and supply-chain instruments. Unlike purely digital assets, real-world tokenization introduces additional layers of legal, operational, and compliance complexity.
These use cases typically require:
Legal Enforceability linking on-chain tokens to off-chain rights
Reliability for integrity of on-chain and off-chain data
Fine-grained access controls and permissioning
Institutions such as BlackRock have been vocal about the need for scalable and compliant blockchain infrastructure that would house tokenized funds and institutional-grade digital assets. This will bring down architectural choices, especially on governance, data control, and interoperability to the forefront.
In many cases, hybrid or custom deployments of blockchain provide the flexibility needed to align the blockchain infrastructure with existing legal and financial frameworks.
Financing Institutions & Blockchain Infrastructure
Banks and financial establishments are looking for blockchain-based technologies for tokenized deposits, cross-border payments, and digital assets. Several financial establishments, like HSBC, have been actively participating in blockchain-based initiatives, including those that have gone beyond experimentation and entered production.
These applications may require:
Custom governance structures matching internal risk management processes
Deep integration with existing core banking and payment systems
Regulatory-grade auditability and reporting
For such an institution, blockchain infrastructure needs to function as an extension of an already established financial system and not as another form of experimental system in parallel. Both hybrid and custom blockchain types might be more suitable to such needs since they enable selective decentralization under a centralized system.
Security and Trust Models in 2026
BaaS Security Model
Typically, such platforms provide security as a managed service for the enterprise. Key features:
Managed security updates and patching
Vendor-provided monitoring and alerting
Shared responsibility frameworks for security roles
Such a model can prove efficient for organizations with a high emphasis on speed and simplification, especially in early production stages.
Custom Chain Security Model
Having custom blockchains means that enterprises have a larger responsibility but also gain insight into deeper assumptions about trusting each other. Security characteristics include:
Enterprise-controlled validator selection and permissions
Custom cryptographic policies that conform to internal standards
Integration with common security models like EigenLayer
Reasserting infrastructures such as EigenLayer help custom chains tap economic security from larger ecosystems while not denouncing their autonomy in governance. Therefore, it supports enterprises in improving security assurances while offering architectural independence.
Interoperability and Ecosystem Connectivity
Interoperability is now a necessity for enterprise blockchain. As decentralized networks grow, enterprises must communicate with public blockchains, as well as business and external data suppliers.
BaaS Strengths
BaaS solutions generally offer built-in APIs, standardized bridges, and integrations to facilitate connectivity to external networks.
Custom Chain Strengths:
Custom blockchains enable companies to create specific interoperability logic based on specific business processes, requirements, and constraints.
Interoperability plays a key role when deciding on the need for standardization or customization for multi-chain environments due to the increased participation by enterprises.
Operational Complexity and Talent Considerations
BaaS Operational Simplicity
One of the chief benefits associated with the use of Blockchain-as-a-Service technology is its potential in helping to minimize costs associated with business operations. This is often achieved by the use of abstraction technology by companies in the field.
Some of the main operational benefits include:
Minimal in-house blockchain expert knowledge needed except in app development
Vendor-managed upgrades, patches, and network monitoring
Built-in deployment, logging, and performance tracking tooling
This model appears particularly attractive for organizations wishing to utilize blockchain without necessarily developing specialized teams in-house or impacting their current IT operational models.
Custom Chain Operational Demands
Custom blockchains carry with them a higher level of operational complexity. In addition to developing the applications, enterprises must also manage the protocol and network itself.
Typical operational requirements:
Dedicated blockchain engineering teams with expertise at the protocol level
Ongoing maintenance of consensus, networking, and security components
Governance coordination among internal stakeholders or consortium members
Additionally, custom chains have upgrade processes, incident response, and validator management, among others, which further contribute to the operational burden.
Availability of Talent as a Strategic Constraint
An important factor in the sustainability of custom chains is the availability of skilled blockchain resources. Although the need for skilled engineers, cryptographers, and experts in distributing systems is still rising, their supply is limited at the regional and industrial levels.
Enterprises must evaluate if they can attract, retain, and continuously up-skill these resources or if the operations simplicity offered by BaaS is a better fit with their internal skillsets. In effect, the aforementioned element becomes a key deciding factor between standardized platforms and customer-tailored blockchain infrastructures.