The battle of single-purpose blockchain: Is Tempo a true blockchain?

Written by: Byron Gilliam

Compiled by: Saoirse, Foresight News

Editor’s note: On October 18, 2025, according to Fortune, Tempo, a blockchain project focused on payments developed by Stripe and blockchain venture capital firm Paradigm, completed a $500 million Series A funding round, led by venture capital giants Greenoaks and Thrive Capital, founded by Joshua Kushner. This funding round valued Tempo at $5 billion, and a source revealed that Sequoia Capital, Ribbit Capital, and SV Angel, founded by Ron Conway, also participated in this round of financing. Paradigm and Stripe did not participate in this funding round.

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

Great enterprises start off more like a “scalpel” rather than a “Swiss Army knife.” Companies that focus on a single domain can achieve excellence in that area and allow users to clearly remember their core values.

Taking the internet companies of 1999 as an example: Yahoo's homepage included functions like search, auctions, news, email, and instant messaging, but performed mediocrely in each area; whereas Google's homepage focused solely on the search function, making its positioning immediately 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 only niche functions like hosting fantasy baseball leagues — this confirms the business logic that “mastering one thing far exceeds being mediocre at many things.”

So, does this logic also apply to blockchain?

Current Status: “Parallel Development” of Two Blockchain Models

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

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

Moreover, these two modes do not seem to erode each other: Bitcoin has yet to achieve a breakthrough in the DeFi space, and Ethereum has never become a mainstream currency.

In this case, perhaps the two modes can coexist peacefully?

It may be too early to draw conclusions now, as a new competitor focusing on a single field will soon emerge in the universal blockchain space.

New variable: Tempo

Last week, payment giant Stripe announced in collaboration with investment firm Paradigm that they will develop a blockchain called Tempo focused on stablecoins. This new chain, once revealed, was seen by the industry as a “potential winner in the crypto payment space,” with its core advantages directly addressing the pain points of general-purpose blockchains:

• Predictable fees: Settled in stablecoins, no need to hold native tokens
• Fast confirmation speed: Achieve “almost instant” transaction final confirmation.
• Balancing Privacy and Compliance: Supports “Optional” Privacy Protection and Compliance Features
• Exclusive Payment Channel: Set up a dedicated “channel” to avoid congestion with other services.
• High throughput: Optimized for payment scenarios, processing efficiency far exceeds that of general-purpose chains.

Matt Huang, who is responsible for the development of Tempo, stated: “Focusing on a single domain allows the chain to iterate faster. We urgently need to meet the upcoming market demands while reducing our dependence on other ecosystems, such as Ethereum L1.”

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

What is more noteworthy is that Matt Huang mentioned: “Although Tempo started with 'permissioned validation nodes', it has had 'permissionless' properties since the first day it went online, and will gradually promote decentralization.”

A blockchain that is “both decentralized and proficient in payments” sounds remarkably aligned with the “ideal universal blockchain.” Could Tempo become the “all-purpose competitor” to Ethereum and Solana?

Controversy: The “Expansion Paradox” of Single-Use Chains

From a business case perspective, successful examples of “start small and then expand” are not uncommon: 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 an e-commerce giant covering all categories; Apple entered through personal computers and has now built an ecological empire of “phones + computers + wearable devices.” 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.

But counterexamples also exist: in the past, dedicated calculators far surpassed general-purpose computers in speed, but who would specifically buy a calculator nowadays? 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 eliminate single-purpose technology. So, will general-purpose blockchains in the future also render “payment-specific chains” worthless?

There are also明显分歧 in industry perspectives:

Max Resnick is optimistic about universal blockchains: “Decentralized blockchains will ultimately surpass centralized systems in terms of speed, scale, reliability, and even compliance, including single-use chains.”

Mert Mumtaz questioned the positioning of Tempo: “It can't be considered a blockchain at all, let alone a general-purpose blockchain—where is there a blockchain that 'only does payments'?” In his view, “decentralization” is the core attribute of blockchain, and a truly decentralized blockchain must possess “general capabilities.” If Tempo promotes centralization, it will inevitably lead to the influx of meaningless projects like “junk coins,” resulting in congestion of payment functions and decreased performance.

Mert Mumtaz further pointed out that the “payment-specific chain” has only two feasible paths: either it is “non-Turing complete” like Bitcoin (only supporting transfers, unable to run complex code), or it adopts a “permissioned” model (controlled by a centralized entity). If that 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 key question 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 about “decentralized value”

Rather than saying this is a “competition between single-purpose chains and general-purpose chains,” it is more accurate to say this is a test of “decentralized value”: How much are users willing to pay for “decentralization”? Are they willing to accept slightly slower speeds and higher costs in exchange for the decentralized nature of the 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” of this test.