A wave of corporate blockchain networks gathers on the horizon, promising faster stubcoin payments and smoother adoption. The much-anticipated vision of companies adopting blockchain technology appears to be in shape in the end, but not in the way many crypto veterans were hoping for.
Backed by Crypto VC Firm Paradigm, Payments Giant Stripe has built its own Layer 1 chain, Tempo, for global payments, and opts to network from scratch rather than creating another Layer 2 in Ethereum.
One of the biggest Stablecoin publishers, Circle, also develops its own L1 for Stablecoin, but Google is working on its own chain, but it doesn't target retailers like the other two.
However, despite the well-known name behind the initiative, the decision drew widespread criticism from some people in the crypto community. They are separated from what the company chains have in mind by creators of open, decentralized vision Bitcoin.
L1 vs L2 discussion
The tempo of Stripe and Paradigm stand out among the L1s of companies in that the teams behind it have made efforts to present the protocol as a more open, public-focused network compared to product-specific chains such as Circle's Arc and Google's GCUL. Unlike its competitors, Tempo stands as “a neutral platform for Stablecoins, allowing users to transfer and pay gas fees on any stubcoin,” according to a post on Tempo's official X account.
Matt Huang, co-founder and managing partner of Paradigm, said in a September 6th X post that he is eliciting comparisons with Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana by “unauthorized verification and unauthorized smart contract deployment.”
Anurag Arjun, co-founder of the Modular Blockchain Infrastructure Project, and Anurag Arjun, co-founder of Polygon, told Defiant that Tempo should not be viewed purely through the usual L1-to-L2 discussions.
“The tempo is positive and controversial. It's positive, because it brings real transaction flow, potentially billions of dollars of payments to the crypto rail. It's controversial because it reflects the company's path. It reflects a dedicated chain. I explained.
According to Arjun, by moving Fiat to Stablecoins and sending it across the Tempo rails, Stripe can provide faster, cheaper settlements globally while fully compliant. The Aveafy co-founder also said that while there is a public attitude about being “not allowed”, the chain first responds to the needs of corporate customers and backends, which is different from most cryptographic native projects.
Arjun said to the rebels:
“Of course there's a general attitude about “not being allowed,” but in reality, this first serves the needs of the company's own customers and backend. This is very different from most cryptographic native projects. It's not that much to chase the token economy or the defi ecosystem.
“Conflicts with cryptography”
Paradigm's Huang acknowledged that the network starts with a set of allowed Validators, but said it will gradually decentralize and framble as a bridge between company recruitment and open crypto rails.
But even that bridge is still lined with critics. Michael Nadeau of Defi Report called the move “opposed to Crypto,” warning Stripe “owns the network” and wants to replace MasterCard and Visa.
“The stripes are watching you, and they say they want to own a network.” They want to replace Mastercard and Visa.
Omid Malekan, an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School, lectures at Crypto, agreed with the sentiment and wrote in a post on X on September 5th, and unlike Bitcoin and Etherum, corporate chain verification officers are known and legally accountable. Malecan explained:
“In a permitted chain, protocols are more of a “recommended set of best practices” than an inexplicable one. This is a problem as both participating verifyers and gatekeepers may be responsible for feeling the power, safety, CR that violates the snare, safety, and CR, as they return to the cooperative Satoshi.
Gatekeepers can change protocols, roll back transactions, and stop the chain under adjustable pressure.
Speaking to Defiant, Eneko Knörr, co-founder of the yield-heavy Stablecoin Project Stabolut, said Stripe's move clearly shows the company's desire for full control over a blockchain specifically built for payment purposes.
“Stripe wanted to have full control over a blockchain specifically designed for payment purposes. That entry is a massive verification of the crypto industry, but the “walled garden” approach is a concern,” Knörr said.
The move examines the crypto industry, but argued that the current approach is centralising electricity and against the spirit of decentralization, adding that choosing to build a new L1 instead of the L2 in public blockchains would be seen as “a vote of trust in the current state of Ethereum's scaling solution.”
Failed attempt
The history of code is littered with corporate L1 obstacles. Christian Katarini, who co-created Meta Libra, sees impressive similarities, saying the price of this epic bargain would “give the key to global payments to the fintech giant.” He launched the company L1 as a high-stakes experiment in combining corporate control with neutrality rhetoric.
“If a successful corporate chain like Tempo or Ark is a success, it means that crypto experiments are not revolutionary, but a failed coup. The back-end technology is different, but the market structure is creepy and familiar.”
Paradigm's co-founder acknowledged that while some of Tempo's functionality is technically possible in L2, it could be “complex, slow to implement, and introduce many external dependencies.”
“We are not Bitcoin, Ethereum or tempo maximalists. We are not permitted crypto maximalists. We want to expand our Ethereum L1.
“Public blockchain remains standard.”
Commenting on the legal motivation behind the companies building their own L1, Jake Chervinsky, a former lawyer for Crypto Lending Protocol Compount, noted that regulators don't even need a licensed verification device.
“If you have a big commercial reason to build (or build) a product-specific L1.
The tension between corporate utilities and cryptographic principles defines the argument. Sandeep Nailwal, co-founder and CEO of Polygon Labs, proposed connecting the company chain to a multichine framework, allowing businesses to remain sovereign while sharing interoperability.
“According to Stripe, the tempo is open to everyone, and PayPal can use it if desired, but in reality PayPal will rather launch its own chain,” Nailwal pointed out on the X-Post on Monday.
Tempo's advocates argue that adoption pressure justifies some kind of centralization at the launch. Huang emphasized that real-world partners may need networks that can trust validators and finality. But introducing gatekeepers refute critics that it erodes the neutrality and resistance to censorship that makes cryptography unique.
In response to Defiant's request for comment, a paradigm spokesman redirected Defiant to the above X-post in Huang. Stripe did not reply to Defiant's request for comment on each reporting time.
The controversy reflects a broader pattern. Whenever a company tries to control its blockchain infrastructure, the community responds. Stripe, Paradigm, Circle, Google and others bet that predictable infrastructure will bring scale, but the crypto community is worried about it bringing regulation and responsibility.
Malekan of Columbia Business School says that corporate chains will inevitably fall into intense control. They are run by careful experts along with lawyers, and “they censor. They roll back the chain when something bad enough happens.
