Every day, it seems like news about a "new blockchain" sweeps through the crypto market. Payment giant Stripe partnered with Paradigm to launch Tempo, followed by stablecoin issuer Circle announcing Arc. Earlier, Plasma and Stable secured funding to develop chains specifically for USDT. Meanwhile, players in the tokenization space, from Securitize to Ondo Finance, have also revealed plans to build their own blockchains.

Behind this frenzy is not just technological showmanship but strategic necessity. Stablecoins and tokenized assets are increasingly seen as the two most promising growth areas in the crypto economy. They directly bridge real-world capital flows and traditional financial markets, with the potential to evolve into multi-trillion-dollar asset classes. Cross-border payments, 24/7 settlement, tokenized trading of bonds and stocks—these scenarios are reshaping financial infrastructure, and controlling the "chain" means controlling the new financial rails.

Martin Burgherr, an executive at crypto bank Sygnum, hit the nail on the head: "Building your own L1 is about control and strategic positioning, not just technology." In his view, the competition in stablecoins and tokenization isn’t just about market share but a comprehensive battle over settlement speed, compliance, fee structures, and dominance.

For these giants, the real competition is no longer about "whether it can run" but "who controls the rails."

The Giants' "Mandatory Course" on Blockchains

Companies building their own blockchains aren’t reinventing the wheel but are driven by the core need for blockchains as a "settlement layer." Their requirements for a chain often focus on several key aspects.

First is performance and predictability. A proprietary chain allows giants to isolate irrelevant transactions, ensuring performance always meets their business standards. Whether it’s stablecoin payments or tokenized bond trading, high-frequency, low-latency settlement is critical. Relying on public chains means competing for bandwidth with thousands of other assets and applications—network congestion immediately degrades the payment experience.

Second is cost and revenue rebalancing. On Ethereum or Tron, every transaction means fees flow to miners or validators. For payment giants like Stripe or Circle, this is handing potential profits to others. Controlling the underlying chain not only internalizes fee revenue but also allows the issuance of their own gas tokens, creating a new economic loop. As Alchemy’s CTO Guillaume Poncin bluntly put it, "The revenue opportunities from owning the settlement layer far exceed the margins of traditional payment processing."

Third is compliance and embedded regulation. One of the biggest challenges for traditional financial institutions entering crypto is meeting regulatory requirements. KYC, AML, and transaction monitoring are typically patched together at the application layer, but a proprietary chain can embed these directly at the protocol level. In other words, regulation is no longer an external shackle but internalized as the chain’s rules. This gives giants stronger leverage when engaging with regulators.

Finally, there’s strategy and security. Relying on Ethereum or Tron means bearing the risks of their governance decisions, technical upgrades, and even security vulnerabilities. For a network handling potentially hundreds of billions in annual settlements, such external dependence is unacceptable. A proprietary chain offers greater control and resilience, ensuring stable capital flows even in extreme scenarios.

As Morgan Krupetsky of Ava Labs noted, the value of a custom chain lies not just in technology but in enabling companies to treat blockchain as a "middle and back office," fully integrating it into their operations. This shift means blockchain is evolving from a playground for crypto enthusiasts into infrastructure for multinational corporations.

Why Not Just Use Existing Public Chains?

Given that Ethereum and Solana already have vast user bases and mature ecosystems, why are giants building their own?

One obvious reason is control. Ethereum is a globally neutral public network governed by its foundation, developers, and community. For payment companies or financial giants accustomed to total control, tying their fate to external community votes and upgrade cycles is too risky. Solana, while known for high throughput and low fees, also means sharing network resources with NFTs, DeFi, and other applications—uncertainties that payment and settlement scenarios cannot tolerate.

Another key factor is differentiation. Issuing stablecoins on public chains quickly gains liquidity but makes it hard to build moats. USDT and USDC now circulate on Ethereum, Tron, and others, but this also means users have little loyalty to the underlying chain—they care only about the tokens. Building their own chains offers a way to stand out: it’s not just a settlement tool but an independent ecosystem around the token, allowing issuers to upgrade from mere "asset providers" to "infrastructure providers."

This isn’t to say public chains will be marginalized. Coinbase analysts note that Circle’s Arc and Stripe’s Tempo may challenge Solana in performance, but Ethereum’s institutional user base and proven security make it unlikely to be displaced soon.

Burgherr of Sygnum emphasizes that migrating liquidity and trust takes years. Even if giants launch their own chains, attracting truly massive transaction volumes won’t happen overnight.

This explains why many new chains choose to remain EVM-compatible. Compatibility with the Ethereum Virtual Machine allows developers to seamlessly migrate existing applications, reducing cold-start difficulties while maintaining interoperability with major public chains. It’s a strategy of "independence without isolation": controlling their own networks without being cut off from the crypto world.

Driven by Stripe, Circle, and a wave of tokenization upstarts, blockchain is transitioning from an "open experimental field" to an "enterprise-grade middle and back office." The motivation behind proprietary chains boils down to control, efficiency, and profit. Their demands on blockchain go far beyond technology, focusing more on compliance, business models, and strategic security. For giants, the real competition is no longer about "whether it can run" but "who controls the rails."

This new blockchain "involution" has only just begun.