Stripe and Paradigm's collaboration on Tempo may ultimately test how much people are willing to pay for "decentralization."

Written by: Byron Gilliam

Translated by: Saoirse, Foresight News

"No one would specifically go to a store to buy a Swiss Army knife; it’s usually a gift received at Christmas." — Jensen Huang

Great companies often start more like "scalpel" rather than "Swiss Army knife." Companies that focus on a single area can excel in that field and make it easier for users to remember their core value.

Take the internet companies of 1999 as an example: Yahoo's homepage included search, auctions, news, email, instant messaging, and other functions, but performed mediocrely in each area; while Google's homepage focused solely on search, making its positioning clear to users and helping Google become the absolute leader in the search field. Today, "Google" has become synonymous with "search," while Yahoo is left with niche functions like hosting fantasy baseball leagues — this confirms the business logic that "mastering one thing far outweighs being mediocre at many."

So, does this logic also apply to blockchain?

Current Situation: "Parallel Development" of Two Blockchain Models

Bitcoin is a blockchain focused on a single purpose: transferring Bitcoin. Its simplicity may be the main reason for its tremendous success.

However, Ethereum and Solana are general-purpose blockchains that have also achieved a certain level of success.

Moreover, these two models do not seem to encroach on each other: Bitcoin has yet to make breakthroughs in the DeFi space, and Ethereum has never become a mainstream currency.

It seems that perhaps the two models can coexist peacefully?

It may be too early to draw conclusions, as general-purpose blockchains are about to face a new competitor focused on a single area.

New Variable: Tempo

Last week, payment giant Stripe and investment firm Paradigm jointly announced the development of a blockchain focused on stablecoins, called Tempo. Once this new chain was revealed, it was seen by the industry as a "potential winner in the crypto payment space," with its core advantages precisely addressing the pain points of general-purpose blockchains:

• Predictable fees: Settlements in stablecoins, no need to hold native tokens

• Fast confirmation speed: Achieving "almost instant" final confirmation of transactions

• Privacy and compliance: Supporting "optional" privacy protection and compliance features

• Dedicated payment channels: Setting up independent "channels" to avoid congestion with other businesses

• High throughput: Optimized specifically for payment scenarios, processing efficiency far exceeds general chains

Matt Huang, who is responsible for the development of Tempo, stated: "Focusing on a single area allows the chain to iterate faster. We urgently need to meet the upcoming market demand while reducing reliance on other ecosystems (like Ethereum L1)."

This "indirect challenge" to Ethereum raises speculation that Tempo's ambitions may extend beyond just "payments."

More notably, Matt Huang mentioned: "Tempo starts with 'permissioned validation nodes,' but from day one, it has 'permissionless' attributes and will gradually advance towards decentralization."

A blockchain that is "both decentralized and proficient in payments" sounds remarkably aligned with the "ideal general-purpose blockchain." Will Tempo become a "universal competitor" to Ethereum and Solana?

Controversy: The "Expansion Paradox" of Single-Purpose Chains

From a business case perspective, there are many successful examples of "starting with excellence in one area and then expanding to many": Microsoft started with the BASIC programming language and gradually expanded to operating systems, office software, and cloud computing; Amazon began as an online bookstore and grew into a comprehensive e-commerce giant; Apple started with personal computers and has now built an ecosystem empire of "phones + computers + wearables." If Tempo can first establish a foothold in the payment field, it may also replicate this "horizontal expansion" path and become a more comprehensive blockchain than Ethereum.

However, counterexamples also exist: In the past, specialized calculators far surpassed general computers in speed, but who would specifically buy a calculator today? There are far more people with Swiss Army knives in their drawers than those with Texas Instruments calculators. This suggests that if general-purpose technology can continue to optimize, it may gradually render single-purpose technology obsolete. So, will general-purpose blockchains in the future also render "payment-specific chains" worthless?

Industry opinions are also clearly divided:

Max Resnick is optimistic about general-purpose blockchains: "Decentralized blockchains will eventually surpass centralized systems in speed, scale, reliability, and even compliance, including single-purpose chains."

Mert Mumtaz, however, questions Tempo's positioning: "It hardly qualifies as a blockchain, let alone a general-purpose blockchain — what kind of blockchain 'only does payments'?" In his view, "decentralization" is the core attribute of blockchain, and a truly decentralized blockchain must possess "general capabilities." If Tempo pushes for decentralization, it will inevitably attract "junk coins" and other meaningless projects, leading to congestion in payment functions and performance degradation.

Mert Mumtaz further points out that "payment-specific chains" have only two viable paths: either they are "non-Turing complete" like Bitcoin (only supporting transfers, unable to run complex code), or they adopt a "permissioned" model (controlled by centralized entities)." If this is the case, Ethereum and Solana need not worry about being replaced by Tempo — after all, Tempo is either "functionally limited" or "not decentralized enough."

But the crux of the issue is: if Tempo can provide faster and cheaper payment services without being decentralized, and become the main circulation scenario for stablecoins, will users still care whether it "counts as a real blockchain?"

Conclusion: A Test of "Decentralization Value"

Rather than viewing this as a "competition between single-purpose chains and general chains," it is more of a test of "decentralization value": how much are users willing to pay for "decentralization?" Are they willing to accept slightly slower speeds and higher fees in exchange for the decentralized attributes of blockchain, or do they prefer efficient, low-cost services, even if they are not sufficiently decentralized?

The emergence of Tempo may very well be the "touchstone" for this test.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。