Original text: Barry, Co-CEO of Interchain Labs
Translated by: Yuliya, PANews
Recently, payment giant Stripe has officially entered the field, collaborating with renowned crypto venture capital firm Paradigm to create an L1 blockchain called 'Tempo'. This is a 'high-performance, payment-focused blockchain' designed to serve the clientele of fintech giants.
Stripe's entry is not an isolated case; it may reveal the onset of a significant trend—the quiet rise of enterprises building their own L1 blockchains. Why, after years of silence in enterprise blockchain, do large companies reignite their interest in building their own blockchains, and why do they prefer L1? The following is the original text, which PANews has translated.
This is not a one-time case, but the beginning of a huge trend of enterprises building their own L1 blockchain. Many companies (including some Fortune 500 companies) are currently considering launching their own L1 blockchains.
Years ago, enterprise-level blockchain faced failures and became a sensitive topic for a long time. So why are mature enterprises starting to rebuild blockchain now? And why are they opting for L1 blockchains?
There are two main reasons for the return of enterprise blockchain:
1. The Maturity of Stablecoins
The financial teams currently communicating with it are no longer unfamiliar or fearful of stablecoins. Thanks to Circle's IPO and the upcoming regulatory policies, stablecoins are seen as a safe and powerful technology that can help businesses lower costs, streamline processes, and earn more from cash reserves or customer deposits. Most large companies are building infrastructure to hold and circulate stablecoins. Several countries, including the United States and Japan, are actively promoting stablecoin regulation, and the overall environment is developing favorably.
2. Focus on payments, not traceability
In the previous enterprise blockchain boom, most application scenarios focused on traceability (i.e., tracking the origin and lifecycle of a cross-company process, such as the tracking of raw materials in the supply chain or the tracking of charitable fund usage). However, such scenarios can technically be implemented through databases; the only issue is trust.
Today, enterprises communicating with it, regardless of their industry, primarily focus on payments. Most B2B and B2C payment service providers and networks charge high fees to merchants and businesses, with settlement taking several days and real settlement risk involved. Once cross-border or foreign exchange issues arise, these problems become even more pronounced. For multinational companies (especially platform companies like Airbnb), building their own blockchain-based payment solutions can save billions and provide a better experience for customers, employees, and gig workers.
As for why choose to build L1 instead of L2 or smart contracts, there are three reasons:
1. L1 is mature and well-known among technical decision-makers
After more than a decade of development, L1 as a technical platform has been well understood and validated. Ethereum, Bitcoin, Solana, Sui, Aptos—almost all blockchains that non-crypto industry professionals can name are L1 (Base may be an exception). The Cosmos technology alone supports over 200 chains, covering various fields, with total asset values exceeding $70 billion; the largest newcomer project Hyperliquid in the past year further consolidates this landscape. In addition, the most successful enterprise-level blockchains like Canton are also L1.
In contrast, while L2 is exciting, it is still in the early stages and difficult to understand (imagine explaining the difference between 'Stage 1' and 'Stage 2 Rollup' to a CTO in a consumer goods market, or explaining how a verification bridge works; the difficulty is evident). Decision-makers in mature enterprises are often unwilling to take risks on emerging platforms. Entering the crypto space is itself a significant risk, so the most easily understandable method for stakeholders must be chosen.
2. Reducing platform risk
Most companies are unwilling to bet on ETH, SOL, TIA, or other public chains, but prefer to focus on their own. Building an L1 is the best way to achieve this goal. Large enterprises typically use multiple cloud service providers to mitigate risks from AWS or Microsoft, and in their view, the risks of Ethereum or Solana are much higher than those from these traditional partners.
3. Control and Connectivity
Open and transparent L1 provides enterprises the ability to maintain platform autonomy while enabling connectivity with a broader crypto enterprise ecosystem. L2 and other chains (like Solana) depend on third parties for interoperability, often constrained by fraud/zero-knowledge proof windows and Ethereum's slow finality confirmations, leading to settlement delays. L1 does not face this issue, allowing for immediate and certain settlements, maintaining consistency in interoperability. This feature, combined with the ability to build an enterprise's own 'walled garden' and implement necessary KYC/AML and application logic within it, will be highly attractive.