Summary: Enterprise AI programs are stalling at procurement because “black‑box” models can’t pass audit, compliance, and ROI scrutiny. Here’s a concrete playbook we deploy at 7Block Labs to make AI verifiable, governable, and cost‑predictable on Ethereum/L2s—without breaking delivery timelines or SOC 2 controls.

7Block Labs on the Convergence of AI and Blockchain

Target audience: Enterprise (Procurement, CIO, CISO, Data/AI leadership). Keywords intentionally included: SOC 2, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act, data residency, vendor risk, ROI, SLA.

Pain — “Black‑box AI” is failing enterprise gates

• You finally have a working model, but Legal/Procurement won’t sign because there’s no cryptographic evidence that the output came from the approved weights, dataset, and compute environment.
• Your CISO flags “model drift + shadow data” as audit gaps; Internal Audit wants immutable provenance for predictions used in high‑impact workflows.
• CFO can’t model ongoing L2/infra costs because blob fees on Ethereum have become volatile post‑EIP‑4844; one spike can blow up your monthly budget and delay launches. (blocknative.com)
• EU AI Act obligations phase in across 2025–2027 with heavy penalties (up to 7% of global revenue) and GPAI transparency, high‑risk controls, and sandboxes—Procurement wants a plan now. (eur-lex.europa.eu)

Agitation — The real risks (not theory)

• Missed deadlines: Without verifiable provenance and controls mapped to NIST AI RMF and ISO/IEC 42001, your AI RFPs will recycle endlessly between Security, Legal, and the business, pushing launch to “next quarter” (again). (nist.gov)
• Compliance exposure: EU AI Act enforcement stages started Feb 2, 2025 (prohibitions), with GPAI obligations Aug 2, 2025 and high‑risk systems Aug 2, 2026. Slipping on documentation, monitoring, or conformity assessment can translate into regulatory findings. (ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu)
• Cost unpredictability: Blob gas is usually cheaper than calldata, but usage surges (e.g., blob inscriptions) have spiked blob base fees by orders of magnitude for short windows—wrecking naive fee forecasts and SLOs. (blocknative.com)
• Vendor lock‑in to “trust me” AI: TEEs and ZK stacks are moving fast; picking the wrong approach (or a single proprietary vendor) can trap you in poor performance, unverifiable inference, and higher per‑prediction costs.
• Reputational risk: An adverse audit or opaque AI decision in a regulated workflow is a board‑level incident, not an engineering ticket.

Solution — 7Block’s “Proof‑First AI Architecture” for Enterprises We combine zero‑knowledge proofs, ledgered provenance, and confidential compute into a pragmatic delivery plan that Procurement can approve and Operations can run.

1. Instrument provenance at the data and model layer

• Immutable commits for datasets and weights: Every approved training dataset, feature set, and model artifact is hashed and committed onchain. We use EIP‑4844’s KZG commitments to anchor large artifacts without storing raw data, yielding a verifiable lineage trail while keeping costs low. The EVM stores only versioned hashes and verifies point evaluations via the EIP‑4844 precompile. (eip.directory)
• Practical build: We integrate the official c‑kzg‑4844 library in your CI to compute commitments and proofs deterministically (with documented precompute trade‑offs for speed/memory). (github.com)
• Governance fit: Hash‑anchored SBOMs and model cards map neatly to SOC 2 evidence (change control, integrity) and ISO/IEC 42001 (AIMS lifecycle documentation).

1. Verifiable inference you can take to Audit (two tracks, selected per use case)

• zkML for compact proofs of correct inference:
  • For small/medium models or policy‑sensitive compute, we compile ONNX graphs to ZK circuits and verify proofs onchain. Tooling options include ezkl (Halo2 backend) for ONNX graphs—with GPU acceleration and on‑chain EVM verifiers—and zkVMs for general programs. (github.com)
  • For general logic, zkVMs like Succinct SP1 now deliver 4–28× speedups vs prior zkVMs, with GPU acceleration and precompiles for crypto operations—drastically reducing proof latency and cost. (blog.succinct.xyz)
  • Soundness matters: we incorporate zkVM fuzz/soundness testing (e.g., Arguzz findings across real zkVMs) into security testing gates. (arxiv.org)
• Confidential compute attestation (when models are large or latency‑critical):
  • We attest Intel SGX/DCAP quotes (ECDSA) and/or Intel Trust Authority for SGX/TDX; for GPU, NVIDIA H100 supports device attestation (NRAS) and composite CPU+GPU attestation via Intel Trust Authority. We write the attestation result as a signed, time‑bound claim, referencing the same model/data KZG commitments. (intel.com)
• Identity and compliance gating without PII:
  • For age/region/KYC gates, we integrate verifiable credentials with ZK proofs (Privado ID/Polygon ID), so your dApp/back‑office checks “over‑18” or “EU resident” without ever storing sensitive attributes. (docs.privado.id)

1. Predictable on‑chain verification costs (and why it matters to CFOs)

• Groth16 on BN254 (post‑EIP‑1108) is still the “money case” for cost: pairing precompile ≈ 45,000 + 34,000·k gas (k pairings); typical verifiers use 4 pairings ≈ 181k gas, plus ~6,150 gas per public input for MSM via ECADD/ECMUL. At 8 inputs, total verification often lands ≈ 260k–270k gas—budgetable and auditable. (eips.ethereum.org)
• Post‑Pectra, BLS12‑381 (EIP‑2537) offers stronger security and cheaper pairings per pair, but larger calldata. We model both paths per workflow (security posture vs calldata costs) before committing. (blog.ethereum.org)
• Blob fee guardrails: We set blob budget caps with circuit breakers that defer to calldata or queue proofs if blob base fees spike (observed 13.3× spikes during inscription events). This keeps SLAs and spend predictable. (blocknative.com)

1. Rollup economics tuned for Enterprise SLAs

• EIP‑4844 slashed L2 DA costs for rollups, but fees vary across L2s and time; we deploy “blob‑aware” posting strategies and L2 selection based on your geography, data residency, and TPS envelope. We monitor blob markets and L2 fee telemetry to keep median verification costs within thresholds. (thehemera.com)
• We leverage account abstraction (EIP‑7702) for user experience and ops: sponsor transactions, batch ops, and apply scoped permissions; your app can absorb gas via paymasters while keeping audit trails clean. (eips.ethereum.org)

1. Compliance mapping that satisfies Procurement

• We align artifacts to NIST AI RMF + Generative AI Profile (July 26, 2024) and ISO/IEC 42001 AIMS. Our evidence package covers model lineage, change control, risk registers, and monitoring. (nist.gov)
• EU AI Act: we stage readiness to the timeline—prohibitions (Feb 2, 2025), GPAI (Aug 2, 2025), high‑risk (Aug 2, 2026) and embedded products (Aug 2, 2027)—and track Digital Omnibus adjustments as they evolve. (ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu)

How we deliver (and what you get in 90 days)

• Weeks 0–2: Discovery + Governance
  • Map high‑impact AI use cases to risk classes; define KPI tree (P50 proof latency, on‑chain verify cost, % attestations passing, SLA ≥99.9%).
  • Proc‑ready architecture with SOC 2 control mapping; data residency constraints captured.
• Weeks 2–4: Provenance & Identity
  • KZG pipeline in CI for datasets/models; VC/ZK identity gating integrated in a staging environment (no PII stored). (github.com)
• Weeks 3–6: Inference Strategy
  • zkML (ezkl) pilot for one model and a zkVM path (SP1) for general logic; TEE attestation prototype for large models. (github.com)
• Weeks 6–10: On‑chain Verification + Fee Guardrails
  • Solidity verifier on your target L2; Groth16 cost modeling with blob fee circuit breaker; account‑abstraction paymaster for sponsored gas. (eips.ethereum.org)
• Weeks 10–12: Audit Pack + GTM Runbook
  • NIST/ISO/AI‑Act alignment report, red‑team test, runbook for FinOps and Security.

Practical examples you can ship now

Example A — “Verifiable credit decision note” (regulated lending)

• Problem: Underwriting uses a model; auditors require immutable proof of (a) approved weights, (b) input features, (c) inference integrity.
• Implementation:
  • Anchor model weights and feature set with KZG commitments at release time; include commit IDs in the decision record. (eip.directory)
  • Run inference through ezkl for a compact Groth16 proof; verify onchain (≈ 220k–270k gas for typical public inputs). (github.com)
  • Gate access with ZK credentials (e.g., “EU resident,” “age > 18”) without storing PII. (docs.privado.id)
• Business impact: Immutable, audit‑ready explanation; reduces adverse audit findings and accelerates Procurement sign‑off.

Example B — “EU AI Act‑ready model operations”

• Problem: GPAI transparency and high‑risk obligations trigger new documentation and monitoring requirements.
• Implementation:
  • Model cards and lineage signed and committed; provenance and monitoring events posted as blobs (cheap, ephemeral DA) instead of calldata. (eip.directory)
  • Regulatory sandbox participation tied to proof artifacts; conformance checkpoints laid out per EU timeline. (ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu)
• Business impact: “Green” responses to Legal; shorter RFP cycles; avoids last‑minute “compliance blockers.”

Example C — “Cost‑predictable inference at scale”

• Problem: Blob fee spikes derail budgets.
• Implementation:
  • Deploy a blob fee circuit breaker with a rolling window; fallback to calldata if blob discount evaporates; queue non‑urgent proofs. (Blob base fee has spiked ~650 Gwei during inscription events; our guardrails preserve SLAs.) (blocknative.com)
  • L2 selection based on post‑Dencun fee profiles and your geography. (thehemera.com)
• Business impact: Predictable OPEX and stable SLOs for inference.

Technical blueprint (condensed)

A. Provenance in CI/CD

• Compute and publish KZG commitments for datasets/weights (c‑kzg‑4844).
• Persist versioned hashes onchain; off‑chain store artifacts in your region (data residency). (github.com)

B. zkML path (small/medium models, sensitive logic)

• Prepare ONNX and sample inputs; compile with ezkl; deploy EVM verifier.
• Example commands (illustrative; adjust logrows to your graph):
  • ezkl gen-settings -M model.onnx --logrows 18
  • ezkl compile-circuit -M model.onnx -S settings.json -O model.ezkl
  • ezkl gen-witness -M model.ezkl -D input.json
  • ezkl setup -M model.ezkl -S settings.json
  • ezkl prove -M model.ezkl --witness witness.json --proof model.proof
  • ezkl verify -M model.ezkl --proof model.proof
  • ezkl deploy-verifier --rpc <L2 RPC> --pk <key> (github.com)
• Cost modeling: Verify gas ≈ 181k base (pairings) + inputs·~6.1k (+ calldata); tune public inputs carefully. (eips.ethereum.org)

C. zkVM path (general programs, multi‑step workflows)

• SP1 Turbo for GPU‑accelerated proving; target “proof‑in‑minutes” latency and sub‑$ proof cost for realistic workloads. Build/measure with your binaries and precompiles. (blog.succinct.xyz)

D. TEE attestation (large model, strict latency)

• SGX/DCAP or TDX on CPU; NRAS/Intel Trust Authority for H100 GPU; emit JWTs with enclave/GPU measurements and pin to KZG commits of the model. (intel.com)

E. Identity & gating

• Integrate VC/ZK flows (Privado ID/Polygon ID). Smart contracts verify proofs (age/country/KYC) without PII. (docs.privado.id)

F. Account abstraction & UX

• Use EIP‑7702 to sponsor gas and batch operations; combine with 4337 tooling where appropriate. (eips.ethereum.org)

Emerging best practices (2025–2026) you should adopt now

• Prefer BLS12‑381 (EIP‑2537) for new verifiers where security margin matters; watch calldata growth and use MSM precompiles where available. (blog.ethereum.org)
• Treat blob gas as a variable market: design guardrails, not assumptions. Target blobs for DA, but retain calldata fallback for resilience. (blocknative.com)
• Prover diversity: test zkVM soundness with fuzz/metamorphic tools; avoid single‑vendor dependence. (arxiv.org)
• Governance alignment: Stand up an AIMS (ISO/IEC 42001) and map artifacts to NIST AI RMF and the EU schedule; keep an internal “evidence catalog” tied to onchain commitments. (iso.org)
• Identity minimalism: Use VC/ZK gating to minimize PII footprint, reducing breach impact and simplifying DPAs. (docs.privado.id)

How we measure ROI (what we show your CFO and CISO)

• Trust‑per‑dollar: % of in‑scope AI decisions with verifiable lineage and proofs.
• FinOps stability: Median verification gas and P95 blob fee per proof; % of requests auto‑deferred to protect budget during spikes. (blocknative.com)
• Compliance readiness: Evidence completeness vs. NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001; EU AI Act controls aligned to the 2025–2027 milestones. (nist.gov)
• SLA: Attested inference availability ≥99.9% with composite CPU/GPU attestation where applicable. (docs.trustauthority.intel.com)
• Cycle time: Reduction in RFP/legal review rounds due to cryptographic artifacts and mapped controls.

Where 7Block fits into your stack (and links to deliverables)

• Architecture and build:
  • Our custom blockchain development services implement provenance, verifiers, paymasters, and blob guardrails.
  • End‑to‑end web3 development services for dApp UX with account abstraction.
  • Standards‑aligned security audit services covering smart contracts, ZK circuits, and TEE attestation flows.
  • Enterprise‑grade blockchain integration into your data platforms (feature stores, MLOps, SIEM).
• Solution accelerators:
  • Productionized verifiers via smart contract development.
  • Data and model lineage across chains with cross‑chain solutions.
  • DeFi‑adjacent workflows (treasury, onchain settlement) with DeFi development services when relevant to your finance ops.
  • For digital assets tied to AI IP/licensing, we also deliver asset tokenization and asset management platforms.

Appendix — Implementation notes we care about (so you don’t have to)

• Gas math for planning: With EIP‑1108, BN254’s pairing check cost formula is 45,000 + 34,000·k; for k=4, ~181k gas, then add MSM costs per public input. We keep proofs small and public input counts low to hold line on gas. (eips.ethereum.org)
• Pectra implications: EIP‑7702 for better UX and fleet control; EIP‑7691/7623 adjust blob/call‑data dynamics; EIP‑2537 offers a modern curve option. We model your exact workload and L2 before committing. (blog.ethereum.org)
• Blobspace reality: Blobs are cheap, but not always; variance is real. A “circuit breaker + queue + fallback” prevents fee shocks from turning into outage minutes. (blocknative.com)
• Identity: Favor verifiable credentials with ZK proofs (Privado/Polygon ID). You meet access rules without storing what you don’t want to protect. (docs.privado.id)

The bottom line

• The convergence of AI and blockchain is not about buzzwords; it’s about replacing “trust me” with proofs that pass audit and reduce cost volatility. The architecture above gets you there in one quarter, with verifiable lineage, measurable cost controls, and compliance‑ready evidence packages.
• If you’re blocked in Procurement today, the fastest path through is to give them what they’re actually asking for: immutable provenance, verifiable inference, and an EU‑AI‑Act‑aligned operating model. We’ll deliver that with a build you can run.

Call to action Book a 90-Day Pilot Strategy Call