Web2 firms are betting on their own blockchains, but many web3 industry leaders are questioning the move away from Satoshi Nakamoto\u2019s vision and ethos.\n<\/p>\n
A wave of corporate blockchain networks is gathering on the horizon, promising faster stablecoin payments and smoother adoption. The long-awaited vision of companies embracing blockchain tech seems to be finally taking shape, but not in the way many crypto veterans expected.<\/p>\n
Payments giant Stripe, backed by crypto VC firm Paradigm, is building its own Layer 1 chain, Tempo<\/a>, for global payments, choosing to build the network from scratch instead of making another Layer 2 on Ethereum.<\/p>\n Circle, one of the largest stablecoin issuers, is also developing<\/a> its own L1 for its stablecoin, while Google is working<\/a> on its own chain, though it won\u2019t be targeting retail users like the other two.<\/p>\n Yet, despite big names behind the initiatives, the decisions have drawn wide criticism from some in the crypto community, who say corporate chains move away from the open, decentralized vision Bitcoin\u2019s creator Satoshi Nakamoto<\/a> had in mind.<\/p>\n Stripe and Paradigm\u2019s Tempo stands out among corporate L1s in that the team behind it has made an effort to present the protocol as a more open, public-focused network, compared to product-specific chains like Circle\u2019s Arc or Google\u2019s GCUL. Unlike competitors, Tempo is positioning itself as a \u201cneutral platform with respect to stablecoins, allowing users to make transfers and pay gas fees in any stablecoin,\u201d according to a post<\/a> from Tempo\u2019s official X account.<\/p>\n Matt Huang, co-founder and managing partner at Paradigm, said in an X post<\/a> on Sept. 6 that the plan is to have \u201cpermissionless validation and permissionless smart contract deployment,\u201d drawing comparison with Bitcoin<\/a>, Ethereum<\/a> and Solana<\/a>.<\/p>\n Anurag Arjun, co-founder of modular blockchain infrastructure project Avail, and former co-founder of Polygon, told The Defiant that Tempo shouldn\u2019t be viewed purely through the usual L1 versus L2 debate.<\/p>\n \u201cTempo is both positive and controversial. Positive because it brings real transaction flow, potentially billions in payments, into crypto rails. Controversial because it reflects a very corporate path: a purpose-built chain, bootstrapped by a validator set of major institutions, which raises questions about decentralization and neutrality. But these aspects are still early to comment on and we would need to see more operational details as they emerge,\u201d he explained.<\/p>\n According to Arjun, by moving fiat into stablecoins and sending it across Tempo\u2019s rails, Stripe could offer faster, cheaper settlement globally while remaining fully compliant. Avail\u2019s co-founder also noted that while there is public posturing around being \u201cpermissionless,\u201d the chain will first serve enterprise customers and backend needs, making it different from most crypto-native projects.<\/p>\n Arjun told The Defiant:<\/p>\n \u201cOf course, there\u2019s public posturing around being \u2018permissionless,\u2019 but in practice this will first serve an enterprise\u2019s own customers and backend needs. That makes it very different from most crypto-native projects. It\u2019s less about chasing token economies or DeFi ecosystems, and more about embedding compliance and speed into payment infrastructure.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Paradigm\u2019s Huang acknowledged that the network will start with a permissioned validator set, but said it will gradually decentralize, framing it as a bridge between corporate adoption and open crypto rails.<\/p>\n But even that bridge still has critics lining up. Michael Nadeau of The DeFi Report called<\/a> the move \u201cantithetical to crypto,\u201d warning that Stripe wants to \u201cown the network\u201d and displace Mastercard and Visa, which are also dipping<\/a> their toes into the crypto space.<\/p>\n \u201cStripe is looking you right in the eye. And telling you they want to \u2018own the network.\u2019 They want to displace Mastercard and Visa. That’s literally what they are doing. This couldn’t be any more opposed to what crypto stands for,\u201d Nadeau wrote in a post on X this weekend, responding to Huang\u2019s post.<\/p>\n Omid Malekan, an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School who lectures on crypto, agreed with that sentiment, writing in an X post<\/a> on Sept. 5 that, unlike Bitcoin or Ethereum, validators on corporate chains are known and legally accountable. Malekan explained:<\/p>\n \u201cIn a permissioned chain, the protocol is more of a \u2018best practice set of recommendations\u2019 than it is something inviolable. This is a problem because it returns us back to the ass-covering hell Satoshi identified. Both the participating validators and the gatekeepers can be held liable because they have the power to violate liveness, safety and CR whenever they feel it.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n The gatekeeper can alter the protocol, roll back transactions, or halt the chain under regulatory pressure, a scenario impossible on permissionless networks, he further implied.<\/p>\n Speaking with The Defiant, Eneko Kn\u00f6rr, co-founder of yield-bearing stablecoin project Stabolut, said that Stripe\u2019s move clearly shows the company\u2019s desire for total control over a blockchain built specifically for its payment purposes.<\/p>\n \u201cIt’s clear Stripe wanted total control over a blockchain designed specifically for their payment purposes, and while their entry is a massive validation for the crypto industry, the \u2018walled garden\u2019 approach is concerning,\u201d Kn\u00f6rr said.<\/p>\n While this move validates the crypto industry, the current approach centralizes power and runs counter to the ethos of decentralization, Kn\u00f6rr argued, adding that that choosing to build a new L1 instead of an L2 on a public blockchain can be seen \u201cas a vote of no confidence in the current state of Ethereum’s scaling solutions.\u201d<\/p>\n Crypto history is littered with corporate L1 failures. Christian Catalini, who co-created Meta\u2019s Libra<\/a>, sees striking parallels, saying the price for this grand bargain is \u201cjust handing the fintech giant the keys to global payments.\u201d He framed corporate L1 launches as a high-stakes experiment in combining corporate control with the rhetoric of neutrality.<\/p>\n \u201cIf corporate chains like Tempo and Arc succeed, it will mean the crypto experiment was not a revolution, but a failed coup. The backend technology would be different, yes, but the market structure would be eerily familiar,\u201d Catalini said in an X thread<\/a> last Friday.<\/p>\n Paradigm\u2019s co-founder admitted that some of Tempo\u2019s features are technically possible on an L2, but could be \u201ccomplex, slow to implement, and\/or introduce many external dependencies.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe aren\u2019t Bitcoin, Ethereum, or Tempo maximalists. We\u2019re maximalists for permissionless crypto. We want Ethereum L1 to scale, and we want L2s to thrive,\u201d Huang added.<\/p>\n Commenting on the legal motivations behind corporations building their own L1s, Jake Chervinsky, former counsel at crypto lending protocol Compound, pointed out that regulators haven\u2019t even required permissioned validators.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you have a great commercial reason to build (or build on) a product-specific L1, have at it. If not, and you\u2019re just vaguely worried about compliance issues, decentralized public blockchains remain the standard,\u201d he wrote in a Sept. 5 X post<\/a>.<\/p>\n That tension between corporate utility and crypto principles defines the debate. Sandeep Nailwal, co-founder and CEO of Polygon Labs, proposed connecting corporate chains into multichain frameworks, letting companies remain sovereign while sharing interoperability.<\/p>\nL1 vs L2 Debate<\/h2>\n
\u2018Antithetical to Crypto\u2019<\/h2>\n
Failed Attempts<\/h2>\n
\u2018Public Blockchains Remain the Standard\u2019<\/h2>\n