Byron Gilliam

Original translation: Saoirse, Foresight News

“No one goes out of their way to buy a Swiss Army Knife; it’s usually a Christmas gift.” — Jensen Huang

Great companies start out more like a scalpel than a Swiss Army knife. Companies that focus on a single field are more likely to achieve excellence in that area and leave their core values clearly in the minds of users.

Take the internet industry in 1999 as an example: Yahoo's homepage encompassed search, auctions, news, email, and instant messaging, yet its performance in each area was mediocre. Google's homepage, on the other hand, focused solely on search, making its positioning immediately clear to users and ultimately establishing Google as the undisputed leader in search. Today, "Google" has become synonymous with "search," while Yahoo's focus is limited to niche features like hosted fantasy baseball leagues—a testament to the business principle that "excellence in one thing is far superior to mediocrity in many."

So, does this logic also apply to blockchain?

Current situation: "Parallel development" of two blockchain models

Bitcoin is a single-purpose blockchain whose sole function is to transfer Bitcoins, and its simplicity is perhaps the main reason for its huge success.

But Ethereum and Solana are general-purpose blockchains, and they have also achieved some success.

Moreover, the two models do not seem to erode each other: Bitcoin has not yet made a breakthrough in the DeFi field, and Ethereum has never become a mainstream currency.

It seems that perhaps the two models can coexist peacefully?

It may be too early to tell, as general-purpose blockchains will soon face a new competitor focused on a single area .

New variable: Tempo

Last week, payments giant Stripe and investment firm Paradigm jointly announced the development of Tempo, a stablecoin-focused blockchain. Upon its unveiling, the new chain was hailed by the industry as a "potential winner in the crypto payments space," with its core advantages addressing the pain points of general-purpose blockchains:

• Predictable fees: settled in stablecoins, no need to hold native tokens
• Fast confirmation speed: Achieve "near-instant" transaction final confirmation
• Balancing privacy and compliance: Supporting "optional" privacy protection and compliance features
• Dedicated payment channel: Set up an independent "channel" to avoid congestion with other businesses
• High throughput: Optimized for payment scenarios, with processing efficiency far exceeding that of general chains

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

This "indirect challenge" to Ethereum makes people speculate that Tempo's ambition may go beyond "payment" .

More notably, Matt Huang mentioned, “Although Tempo started as a ‘permissioned validator node,’ it has been permissionless from day one and will gradually advance decentralization.”

A blockchain that's both decentralized and payments-savvy sounds like the ideal general-purpose blockchain. Will Tempo become a truly versatile rival to Ethereum and Solana?

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

Judging from business cases, the success of "focusing on one thing first and then expanding" is not uncommon: Microsoft started with the BASIC programming language and gradually expanded into operating systems, office software, and cloud computing; Amazon started as an online bookstore and grew into an e-commerce giant covering all categories; Apple started with personal computers and has now built an ecosystem of "mobile phones + computers + wearable devices." If Tempo can first gain a foothold in the payment field, it may be able to replicate this "horizontal expansion" path and become a more comprehensive blockchain than Ethereum.

But there are also counterexamples: In the past, specialized calculators far outperformed general-purpose computers in terms of computational speed. But who would buy a calculator these days? Far more people have Swiss Army knives in their drawers than Texas Instruments calculators. This suggests that if general-purpose technologies are continuously optimized, they may gradually render single-purpose technologies obsolete. So, will general-purpose blockchains also render specialized payment blockchains less valuable in the future?

There are also clear differences in industry views:

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

Mert Mumtaz questioned Tempo's positioning: " It's not even a blockchain, let alone a general-purpose blockchain —how can there be a blockchain that's 'only for payments'?" He believes that decentralization is a core attribute of blockchain, and a truly decentralized blockchain must possess general capabilities. If Tempo promotes decentralization, it will inevitably attract meaningless projects like "junk coins," leading to congestion in payment functions and degraded performance.

Mert Mumtaz further pointed out that there are only two viable paths for a "payment-only chain": either it be "non-Turing complete" like Bitcoin (supporting only transfers and unable to run complex code), or it adopts a "permissioned" system (with centralized control over nodes) . If this is the case, Ethereum and Solana won't have to worry about being replaced by Tempo—after all, Tempo is either "functionally limited" or "not decentralized enough."

But the crux of the matter 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 is a real blockchain?

Conclusion: A test of the value of decentralization

Rather than a competition between single-purpose and general-purpose blockchains, this is a test of the value of decentralization: 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 nature of blockchain? Or do they prefer efficient, low-cost services, even if they lack decentralization?

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