KHOTEM — Cryptographic Witness vs Pulsenetwork

In-depth architectural comparison of the KHOTEM — Cryptographic Witness and Pulsenetwork MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

K

Choose KHOTEM — Cryptographic Witness when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Finance & Fintech domain.
• You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore KHOTEM — Cryptographic Witness Details

Choose Pulsenetwork when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Finance & Fintech domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Pulsenetwork Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	K KHOTEM — Cryptographic Witness Finance & Fintech	Pulsenetwork Finance & Fintech
Summary	Paid cryptographic witness for agents: seal, attest, receipts. x402 USDC/Base.	785+ paid intelligence endpoints in one MCP server — agents pay per query via x402 USDC on Base.
Category & Scope	Finance & Fintech	Finance & Fintech

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "khotem-cryptographic-witness": {
      "url": "https://khotem.com"
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pulsenetwork": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "mcp-pulsenetwork"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons