kkdemian

Technical Architecture Comparison (Consensus Mechanism, Performance, Permission Model)
Arc (Circle)
Arc is an open Layer-1 blockchain created by Circle（$USDC )
, utilizing the high-performance Byzantine Fault-Tolerant (BFT) consensus engine, Malachite [based on Tendermint]. The consensus nodes are composed of selected, permissioned validators, forming a Permissioned Proof-of-Authority (PoA) Consortium, initially run by a limited number of globally distributed, renowned institutions. This architecture ensures deterministic instant finality: transaction confirmation times are under 1 second, and once a transaction is included in a block, it is 100% irreversible.
In terms of performance, with 20 globally distributed validators, Arc has been tested to handle approximately 3,000 TPS with a final confirmation latency of <350 milliseconds. When the number of validators is reduced to 4, throughput can exceed 100,000 TPS with a confirmation latency of <100 milliseconds. To enhance enterprise-grade reliability, Arc emphasizes stable high throughput and sub-second latency, and guarantees network security and performance through its permissioned validators.
Arc is fully compatible with the EVM smart contract environment, allowing developers to build applications using existing tools like Solidity. Regarding its permission model, Arc is open and permissionless for developers and users (anyone can deploy contracts and conduct transactions), but its underlying consensus is controlled by a validator consortium invited by Circle, reflecting a degree of access control. Overall, Arc is more akin to a "Wall Street version" of a public chain: providing high-performance financial infrastructure through compliant consortium nodes.
Tempo (Stripe)
Tempo is a new Layer-1 blockchain jointly incubated by payment giant Stripe and crypto venture capital firm Paradigm, positioned as a "payments-first" stablecoin network. Technically, Tempo is also EVM-compatible, planning to run Ethereum-compatible code to facilitate the migration of existing developers.
Tempo focuses on high concurrency and low latency: it officially claims the network can achieve a processing capacity of 100,000+ TPS with transaction confirmation latency in the sub-second range. To achieve this, Tempo adopts an architecture specifically optimized for payments, including designs like a dedicated payments lane. This isolates the block space for stablecoin transfers from other activities to prevent network congestion interference. The consensus mechanism is expected to be a high-performance PoS/BFT paradigm [details have not been disclosed, but reports suggest its architecture draws inspiration from solutions like HotStuff].
Regarding the permission model, Tempo is also not entirely permissionless in its initial phase: validator nodes will be a group of "independent entities" selected by Stripe/Tempo officials, including some collaborative design partners. Therefore, it starts as a permissioned consortium chain run by Stripe and participating institutions. The official plan is to transition to a permissionless network in the future, gradually allowing more validators to join to achieve true decentralization. On the development level, Tempo emphasizes being neutral and open to developers, allowing anyone to build applications on it. In summary, Tempo's technical path strikes a balance between a consortium chain and a public chain: utilizing select nodes to ensure high performance and reliability, and then opening up permissions once the network matures to meet the stringent demands of payment scenarios for throughput and stability.
Comparison and Differences
Arc and Tempo both adopt the architectural concept of a dedicated stablecoin public chain, but there are some differences in their technical details:
Consensus and Validators: Arc uses a Tendermint-based BFT consensus run by a permissioned validator consortium selected by Circle. Tempo plans to use a high-performance, Ethereum-compatible consensus (possibly based on a HotStuff variant), with initial validators appointed by Stripe/Paradigm, to be gradually opened up in the future. Neither is a conventional public chain where miners can freely participate; both start more like a consortium chain, which guarantees speed but sacrifices some degree of decentralization.Performance Goals: Arc's tested TPS is in the thousands (3k TPS with 20 nodes, theoretically capable of 10k+ TPS) and emphasizes <1 second deterministic finality. Tempo, on the other hand, claims a throughput of 100,000 TPS. Tempo places a greater emphasis on extremely high concurrency, possibly leveraging innovations like multi-lane parallelism to enhance its capacity for processing payment flows. Overall, both significantly outperform traditional L1s, but Tempo's pursuit of extreme TPS is more prominent.Gas Fee Model: Both Arc and Tempo discard the traditional L1 model of requiring a native token for fees, but their implementations differ slightly. Arc uses USDC as its native Gas token, with on-chain transaction fees denominated in USD and paid directly with USDC. This provides the benefit of stable, low, and predictable fees, eliminating the need to hold a volatile token. Tempo goes a step further by allowing any major stablecoin to be used for Gas payments, without issuing any new platform token. Users can pay directly with USDC, USDT, etc., without needing to convert. This reflects Tempo's claimed "stablecoin-neutral" principle. However, some experts have questioned the risks of this multi-Gas model, such as the credit risk of different stablecoins potentially affecting network operations. In comparison, Arc chooses USDC as the primary fee token, supplemented by other fiat-backed stablecoins via a Paymaster model, which keeps fees stable while being more controllable. Tempo, by being completely open to multiple stablecoins, is neutral but more complex, imposing higher requirements on on-chain risk management.Privacy and Features: Both have built-in features optimized for financial scenarios. Arc provides Opt-in Privacy, allowing for the selective encryption of transactions and balances to protect sensitive commercial information while still meeting regulatory audit needs. Tempo also claims to have built-in privacy measures that can hide key transaction details while maintaining compliance. Additionally, Arc has a built-in stablecoin foreign exchange (FX) engine, enabling price discovery and PvP settlement for multiple stablecoins through an on-chain RFQ system. Tempo offers a native stablecoin swap function, allowing different stablecoins to be exchanged directly at low cost. Tempo also specifically supports features like batch transactions, account abstraction (settling multiple transfers in one on-chain transaction), and transaction memos (supporting the ISO 20022 format) to improve payment reconciliation efficiency. Overall, both Arc and Tempo have deeply customized payment/financial functions, but Arc places more emphasis on institutional-grade FX settlement and high-speed determinism, while Tempo comprehensively optimizes the payment user experience [multi-currency Gas, batch transfers, memos, etc.].Permissions and Decentralization Roadmap: Both Arc and Tempo will use permissioned node control in the short term to ensure performance and compliance, but their medium-to-long-term strategies differ slightly. Tempo has explicitly outlined a plan to transition to permissionless as the network matures, following a Libra-style path of "consortium first, then open." Arc, on the other hand, focuses on serving financial institutions, using renowned institutions as validators to enhance trust and compliance. It has not made a clear commitment to fully opening validator rights to the public and may be more inclined to maintain a validator consortium with participation from regulated institutions for the long term. This means Arc leans more towards controlled decentralization in its underlying governance, while Tempo intends to move towards fully open decentralization [depending on future execution].
Stablecoin Issuance Mechanism (Multi-Sovereign Currency Support, Issuing Participants, Native vs. Cross-Chain Issuance)
Arc (Circle)
Arc is designed to be the "home for stablecoin finance," supporting the coexistence of stablecoins pegged to various fiat currencies. Circle's own issued USD Coin (USDC) and Euro Coin (EURC) will be the first native assets deployed on Arc and will be used for on-chain activities like paying Gas fees. Additionally, Circle has introduced USYC, a token pegged to a money market fund, which Arc will incorporate as a day-to-day asset to support richer financial use cases.
Multi-Sovereign Currency Support: Arc is not limited to USD stablecoins; it is positioned to accommodate all forms of digital currency and tokenized value. This means stablecoin issuers from other countries or institutions can also issue their native currency stablecoins on Arc. Arc officially invites "all kinds of stablecoin issuers and builders" to join its ecosystem.Issuance Model: Arc's model for stablecoin issuance is quite flexible. It supports native issuance (where issuers directly mint and redeem on the Arc chain) and also allows for the introduction of existing stablecoins through official cross-chain protocols. For example, Circle already has the CCTP (Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol) for trustlessly moving USDC between different chains. In the future, USDC on Arc can be natively interoperable with USDC on chains like Ethereum and Solana, avoiding fragmentation. For stablecoins not yet directly on Arc (issued by third parties), they can be introduced via bridging contracts provided by Arc or bridges operated by the issuers themselves. However, in the long run, Circle prefers to attract major, trusted stablecoin issuers to participate directly in the Arc network, achieving multi-currency native issuance and thereby establishing Arc as a common platform for the digitization of different fiat currencies.
Tempo (Stripe)
Tempo follows a stablecoin-neutral path. It does not issue any new tokens itself but instead supports the circulation of existing mainstream stablecoins on its network. Stripe is not a stablecoin issuer; its strategy is to partner with existing issuers to enrich the Tempo ecosystem. Philosophically, Tempo welcomes all major fiat stablecoins, including USDC, USDT, DAI, EUR, etc., to create a multi-currency payment network.
Participation of Other Issuers: Yes, Tempo is actively seeking official support from various issuers. It hopes that stablecoin issuers will "officially support Tempo," meaning the issuers would provide bridges or direct issuance contracts to connect with the Tempo network. For example, if Circle agreed, it might deploy a USDC contract on Tempo and add it to its list of officially supported chains, allowing USDC on Tempo to be freely redeemed 1:1 for US dollars. Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison has stated that Tempo's goal is to serve as backend infrastructure, where businesses and users will not directly "pay with Tempo" but will complete stablecoin transfers through the Tempo chain seamlessly within Stripe products. Therefore, Stripe needs the cooperation of stablecoin issuers to achieve this frictionless experience.Native vs. Cross-Chain Issuance: While no specific stablecoins have been announced for native support on Tempo yet, the claim to "support all major stablecoins" suggests an expectation of official integration for USDC, USDT, and others. In the interim, even without official issuer integration, Tempo can allow users to use various stablecoins through trusted bridging solutions. For instance, a cross-chain bridge operated by Tempo or a partner could lock USDC on Ethereum and mint a corresponding wrapped USDC on Tempo, which could later be redeemed back to Ethereum. Ideally, Tempo hopes for native multi-chain issuance of stablecoins—where issuers mint directly on Tempo, allowing users to deposit/redeem fiat directly on that chain, thus increasing trust and liquidity. In the long run, Tempo aims to become a neutral platform for stablecoin issuers, distinguishing it from the Circle-led (and thus naturally USDC-centric) approach of Arc. As analysts have noted, Tempo seeks to attract official participation from various stablecoin issuers through a more open network to broaden the universality of its payment network.
Comparison and Differences
The main differences between the two in their stablecoin mechanisms lie in the scope of supported currencies and the leadership in issuance:
Degree of Multi-Currency Support: Arc is led by a stablecoin issuer (Circle) and has already confirmed support for Circle-affiliated stablecoins like USDC (US Dollar) and EURC (Euro), while positioning itself as a platform for other fiat stablecoins. Tempo is naturally currency-neutral, not limited to any single issuer, and claims that "all major stablecoins will be supported". This means Arc starts with its own coins and expands to others, whereas Tempo aims to be inclusive of the entire industry's stablecoins from the outset. Consequently, Arc's ecosystem may be dominated by USDC initially, while Tempo strives to simultaneously incorporate market leaders like USDC and USDT to avoid single-point dependency.Issuance and Redemption Model: USDC/EURC on Arc will be natively issued by Circle [Circle will directly manage the minting and burning of the tokens on the Arc chain]. Other stablecoin issuers participating in Arc can also choose to deploy official contracts for native issuance. This ensures that stablecoins on Arc are directly controlled and backed by their respective issuing entities, allowing users to complete the full cycle from fiat to stablecoin on the Arc chain. Tempo, on the other hand, does not issue any coins itself and relies entirely on external issuers. For Tempo to facilitate the smooth flow of stablecoins, it must use cross-chain bridges to map tokens from their native chains to Tempo or, ideally, have issuers officially deploy minting contracts on Tempo. There is currently no indication that Tempo will issue its own stablecoin or pegged asset, meaning all coins on its network will originate externally. This gives Arc greater autonomy over its own stablecoins, whereas Tempo must establish partnerships with various issuers to achieve a perfect native experience, which involves higher difficulty and coordination costs.Participation of Multiple Issuers: Arc explicitly welcomes other compliant stablecoin-issuing institutions to join, providing a platform for multiple stablecoins to coexist. Tempo is similarly committed to persuading various issuers to "officially support" it. While both appear open to collaboration on the surface, their motivations differ. Arc is a stablecoin issuer building its own infrastructure, and other issuers' decisions to join may depend on mutual benefits and the platform's neutrality. Tempo is a third-party payment platform leading the creation of a network, needing to convince competing issuers to coexist on a Stripe-dominated chain. This presents a potential conflict—stablecoin giants might prefer to promote their own chains (like Circle's Arc or Tether's Plasma/Stable projects) rather than ceding traffic to Stripe's platform. Therefore, when attracting other issuers, Arc might focus more on regional stablecoins or those that complement its business. Tempo, meanwhile, attempts to act as a "neutral clearing layer across issuers" but must avoid a situation where issuers operate in silos.Gas Mechanism and Stablecoin Role: Arc is designed with USDC as the base currency of the chain. Even if other stablecoins join, they will primarily serve as the underlying assets for trading and financial products, not for paying network fees [unless converted via Paymaster]. Tempo, however, directly allows any supported stablecoin to be used as Gas, giving all of them the status of "payment fuel". This reflects Arc's focus on optimizing the user experience around Circle's stablecoins [USD-denominated fees], whereas Tempo tries to remain impartial, granting equal on-chain monetary status to various stablecoins. This difference also reflects the strategic priorities of the two companies: Circle wants to strengthen USDC's position as digital cash and expand its other fiat stablecoin businesses, while Stripe is more concerned with the overall traffic of stablecoin payments, without directly competing in the currency space.
In summary, both Arc and Tempo recognize the importance of cross-chain, multi-currency compatibility for the future stablecoin ecosystem. However, Arc is building its ecosystem from the top down, leveraging its issuance advantage, while Tempo is attempting to unite multiple issuers horizontally from a third-party perspective. This results in an initial ecosystem for Arc where Circle-affiliated stablecoins like USDC have the upper hand. Tempo, in contrast, needs the support of major stablecoins to thrive, and its success largely depends on whether it can gain official support from "sovereign stablecoins" like USDC and USDT.
Compliance and Review Strategy (Embedded Compliance Logic, Base-Layer Neutrality)
Arc (Circle)
From its inception, Arc has emphasized compliance and audit transparency. Its validators are permissioned, run by regulated and well-known institutions. These validator nodes often have their own regulatory obligations [such as AML compliance, SOC2 security certification, etc.], have verifiable real-world identities, and are distributed across multiple jurisdictions. This architecture gives the Arc network a "built-in compliance" characteristic at its foundation: the entities participating in consensus are bound by law and deterred from engaging in illicit activities, thus adding a layer of real-world oversight and accountability to the network's behavior.
Arc officially aligns this with regulatory frameworks, noting that with a strongly controlled permissioned chain, stablecoins are more likely to be treated as lower-risk assets by regulators [e.g., the Basel Committee is considering placing stablecoin networks with robust controls into a preferential asset group]. Therefore, Arc has embedded certain compliance considerations into its core logic, particularly in: 1) Validator selection, by granting ledger control only to trusted institutions; and 2) Network governance, where principles are set by Circle to align with financial regulations.
Furthermore, Arc features "opt-in compliant privacy," allowing businesses and users to selectively encrypt and hide on-chain transaction records while retaining the transparency required for audits. This means, for example, a financial institution making a transfer on Arc can hide transaction details from the public but can provide decrypted information to regulators when required, ensuring compliance with AML and audit requirements.
Arc itself has not claimed to have mandatory on-chain blacklist/whitelist functions. However, since its target clients are regulated institutions, it is expected that these participants will adhere to sanctions and KYC requirements on their own. For instance, as the issuer of USDC, Circle has always enforced the OFAC sanctions list, and USDC contracts on various chains have the ability to freeze suspicious addresses. It can be inferred that USDC on Arc will maintain this contract-level review capability (with Circle freezing illicit addresses), thereby achieving compliance at the application layer.
Arc officials have also stated their intention to maintain a neutral and open base layer, avoiding a "walled garden" ecosystem —any developer can freely deploy projects, and the chain itself does not pre-emptively restrict transaction content. In practice, however, because Arc's validators are all compliant institutions, they have both the incentive and the ability to cooperate with law enforcement when encountering illegal transactions (e.g., by refusing to produce blocks containing certain illicit transactions or assisting in investigations). Therefore, Arc's "base layer neutrality" is relatively limited: while block production is technically non-censoring for ordinary transactions, the network's governance is controlled by a set of entities with compliance obligations, who will sacrifice neutrality to enforce regulatory requirements when necessary.
Tempo (Stripe)
Tempo also places a high priority on compliance and review functions, as it is positioned as an "enterprise-grade payment chain" that needs to cater to the requirements of large financial institutions and regulators. Unlike Arc, which ensures compliance more through its governance structure, Tempo has integrated compliance tools directly at the protocol level.
Tempo provides a built-in blacklist/whitelist mechanism, allowing for the on-chain setup of access or blocking for specific addresses. This means applications or participants can use on-chain functions to set transaction permissions for users, such as allowing transfers only from KYC-verified addresses or preventing wallets on sanctions lists from transacting. This user-level permission control provides a direct means to comply with various national regulations (e.g., whitelisting for transactions, restricting security tokens to qualified investors, etc.).
Furthermore, Tempo claims to offer the capability for privacy protection to coexist with compliance. Its private transaction feature can protect sensitive information while including "compliance hooks" to facilitate adherence to audit standards. Stripe's CEO, in explaining Tempo, also emphasized that the chain will "serve as backend infrastructure" for payment processes, much like SWIFT/ACH, rather than being a consumer-facing app. This strategy implies that Tempo will interface with the existing financial system rather than disrupt it—by embedding compliance modules, Stripe can assure institutions like banks that using Tempo will not compromise their ability to comply with KYC/AML regulations.
Tempo's initial validators are composed of independent institutions chosen by Stripe, including partners from traditional finance and commerce (potentially including Standard Chartered, Visa, etc.). These nodes also have their own compliance obligations and will uphold the network's legality. While there are plans to open up validator access later, in the network's early stages, Stripe/Paradigm effectively control network governance, ensuring that compliance policies are implemented.
Regarding base-layer neutrality, Tempo claims to be neutral and open to all developers and stablecoins. However, with its built-in compliance switches and initial permissioned nodes, it has essentially sacrificed some base-layer neutrality to gain institutional trust. This has sparked some industry discussion—some question whether Tempo's claimed "stablecoin neutrality" is truly feasible, especially when stablecoin issuers have conflicting interests or face regulatory pressure. For example, if a government requires Tempo to block suspicious flows of a certain stablecoin, the permissioned nodes on Tempo would have both the ability and the responsibility to cooperate with law enforcement. Therefore, Tempo's design provides participants with compliance tools, with the expectation that institutional users will proactively use these tools to ensure their transactions are compliant. At the network-wide level, Stripe and its node partners are also inclined to comply with regulatory intervention rather than resisting the law in the name of "blockchain neutrality".
Comparison and Differences
In their compliance and review strategies, both Arc and Tempo prioritize ensuring compliance, but their methods and trade-offs regarding "base-layer neutrality" differ:
Degree of Embedded Compliance: Arc's compliance features are more evident at the network governance level, achieving compliance through permissioned validators and integration with traditional finance (positioning it as a "compliance bridge for institutional finance" ). The network itself does not have hard-coded rules to reject transactions, but the nodes are managed by compliant institutions, creating a de facto review capability. Tempo, on the other hand, integrates compliance functions directly at the protocol level, providing modules for black/whitelisting and permission controls. In other words, Arc leans towards "governance compliance"—ensuring compliance through trusted node operators—while Tempo adopts "technical compliance"—embedding regulatory control hooks into the blockchain's logic. Both paths serve to meet regulatory requirements, but Arc maintains a superficial chain neutrality (no code to restrict transactions, but validators will cooperate with regulators), whereas Tempo explicitly provides compliance switches from the start.Base-Layer Neutrality Trade-off: Arc officials emphasize maintaining an open base layer and not creating a "walled garden", while Tempo also claims its chain is a "neutral, permissionless" development platform. However, in practice, neither achieves complete neutrality in a fair sense. Because validator power in Arc is held by a few institutions, there is a potential for collusive censorship or denial of service to specific users (although these institutions are from different jurisdictions, which may mitigate the risk of complete control by a single government). Tempo's base layer explicitly allows for setting permissions, indicating that it has innately abandoned absolute neutrality in favor of prioritizing compliance needs. One reflection of this is the view on Tempo that "there's a reason successful L1s only accept their native token for gas; using other assets as gas introduces counterparty risk, which grows with the chain's scale" —one such risk is regulatory/issuer risk, which can be seen as a concern about Tempo's compliance neutrality. In contrast, Arc uses USDC for gas, which is simpler and clearer from a regulatory perspective (as Circle itself is regulated), whereas Tempo's multi-stablecoin gas model requires coordinating the compliance risks of multiple issuers.Censorship Resistance: Traditional public chains rely on decentralization for censorship resistance, whereas both Arc and Tempo have opted for a degree of centralized coordination, making their censorship resistance weaker. If a major regulatory body issues an order, both networks have the capability to restrict the activities of illicit accounts. However, this is precisely the prerequisite for them to attract financial institutions—sacrificing some decentralization in exchange for a legally compliant operating environment.Review Strategy and Positioning: Arc targets large financial institutions and cross-border transaction scenarios, positioning itself as a "trusted settlement layer". Its review strategy is to introduce the trust endorsement of traditional finance while maintaining open-source openness, such as complying with the Basel Committee's requirements for stablecoin networks, making banks feel comfortable using it. Tempo's strategy is more like building a new-age SWIFT network. Patrick Collison stated that Tempo will act as a backend clearing layer, not directly perceived by end consumers. Therefore, Stripe is focused on making Tempo compatible with existing regulations, like the Travel Rule (sharing user identity information) and AML, to make it a ready-to-use on-chain payment channel for financial institutions. The inclusion of a Memo field in Tempo, compatible with ISO 20022, is also to facilitate transaction information recording and regulatory interfacing.
In summary, Arc and Tempo are not "absolutely neutral" anarchic chains but rather blockchains operating within a regulatory perimeter. Arc leans slightly towards maintaining openness through soft constraints, while Tempo provides rigid rules directly to meet compliance needs. Arc's compliance is slightly more skewed towards financial regulation (banking laws, securities laws), while Tempo's is slightly more focused on payment regulation (payment licenses, fund flow monitoring). However, their fundamental goal is the same: to bring on-chain stablecoin transactions under the purview of audits and law, rather than letting them exist outside of regulation.
Ecosystem and Capital Participation (Partners, Financial Backing, Capital Preferences)
Arc Ecosystem and Capital
Arc is backed by Circle, the world's second-largest stablecoin issuer. Circle is already deeply integrated into the traditional financial system, having received investments from major institutions including BlackRock and support from several U.S. financial institutions, and successfully went public in 2025. This means Arc's development is supported by substantial capital strength and regulatory relationships.
In terms of partners, Circle has built alliances with numerous fintech and crypto companies over the years. For example, payment technology giant FIS partnered with Circle to bring USDC into mainstream merchant payment systems. It is foreseeable that Arc will leverage these existing relationships to expand its ecosystem: banks, payment service providers, and custodians may become Arc validators or node operators to help establish it as part of the global clearing infrastructure. The Arc website has already opened applications for the "Arc Alliance Program" and its testnet, aiming to attract financial institutions and multinational corporations to participate in trials.
Technically, the Arc team has incorporated the Malachite consensus development team from Informal Systems, reflecting its emphasis on the open-source community and academic resources. Circle's own developer ecosystem (such as Circle's payment APIs, wallet services, CCTP protocol, etc.) will also be seamlessly integrated with Arc, lowering the barrier for enterprises to adopt the new chain.
It can be said that Arc's ecosystem development follows a "top-down" approach: leveraging Circle's credibility in regulatory and financial circles to directly enlist institutional-grade partners to co-build the network. Its backing capital (such as traditional investment banks and funds) prioritizes compliance and stability, preferring a path of collaboration rather than confrontation with the existing financial system. For instance, Arc specifically emphasizes its alignment with the U.S. GENIUS Act (a stablecoin regulatory framework) and Basel guidelines, which is consistent with its investors' desire to bring stablecoins into the fold of regulated finance. Overall, Arc's vision is to build an on-chain economy managed by mainstream finance and serious capital: Circle provides the base currency (USDC), partner banks and clearinghouses provide nodes and application support, and regulation-friendly funds provide financial backing. Its path is to embrace regulation and expand through alliances, positioning Arc as a new global financial market infrastructure.
Tempo Ecosystem and Capital
Tempo's ecosystem is driven by the cross-industry duo of Stripe and Paradigm. Stripe, a global payment unicorn, has millions of online merchants and business partners, as well as long-standing relationships with payment networks like Visa and Mastercard. Paradigm is a top-tier crypto venture capital firm with a deep technical background and investments in numerous Web3 projects.
From the outset, Tempo has brought in cross-industry partners to provide design input, including AI company Anthropic, e-commerce giant Shopify, internet platform DoorDash, Latin American digital bank Nubank, European neo-banks Mercury and Lead Bank, major financial institutions Deutsche Bank and Standard Chartered, payment network Visa, and AI research firm OpenAI. This diverse list of partners, spanning AI, retail, e-commerce, banking, and financial infrastructure, shows that Tempo is adopting a "co-creation community" strategy, involving leaders from various fields in its design before the product is officially launched to ensure the network meets a wide range of real-world needs.
In terms of financial support, Tempo is currently incubated jointly by Stripe and Paradigm, with Paradigm co-founder Matt Huang personally serving as the project lead for Tempo. Paradigm's role here is not just as an investor but as a co-builder, a deep involvement that signals the VC firm's strong belief in the stablecoin payment sector and its willingness to commit resources. Stripe itself is well-funded (having gone through multiple financing rounds and valued at tens of billions of dollars) and has a stable cash-flow business, enabling it to provide sustained funding and talent for Tempo. It is also possible that Tempo will bring in more strategic investors in the future—for instance, partners from its collaboration list like Visa or banks might invest or become node operators to align interests as the network matures.
Regarding its strategic preference, Paradigm and other crypto capital backers emphasize technological innovation and open finance, while Stripe focuses on user experience and compliant scaling. Balancing these, Tempo is pursuing a path of "tech-empowering traditional payments": using Paradigm's blockchain expertise to build a high-performance network while leveraging Stripe's commercial network to embed it into mainstream payment scenarios. This means the Tempo ecosystem is more inclined towards a B2B2C model, where Stripe offers Tempo-based payment clearing services to businesses, which in turn serve end-users. Crypto payment infrastructure acquired by Stripe, such as Bridge (a platform connecting stablecoins to the banking system) and Privy (a wallet infrastructure), will also be integrated into Tempo's strategy, providing enterprise clients with a one-stop on-chain payment solution. The capital preference is for driving mass adoption of blockchain, hence the choice of high-frequency payments as a breakthrough point. Compared to Arc's focus on financial institutions, Tempo's partners and investors are more cross-disciplinary, including tech and internet sectors, and its corporate culture is more aligned with Silicon Valley's rapid iteration style. In summary, Tempo's ecosystem is a blend of "bottom-up + cross-industry alliance": led by a tech company, it unites industry leaders to co-create infrastructure and then relies on Stripe's vast merchant network to introduce stablecoin payments into everyday commerce. Its capital backing prefers a fusion of neutral openness and tech-driven innovation (Paradigm's perspective) with commercial viability and market expansion [Stripe's perspective].
Comparison and Differences
The differences between Arc and Tempo in their ecosystems and capital backing reflect the different backgrounds and strategic priorities of their founding entities:
Dominant Force and Partner Composition: Arc is led by a stablecoin issuer, and its ecosystem partners tend to be traditional financial institutions and Circle's existing network [such as banks and payment companies]. Tempo is jointly led by a payment technology company and a crypto VC, and from the beginning, it has involved partners from tech, e-commerce, and finance in its co-creation process. Arc's collaborations are more focused on financial depth (clearing, banking, financial markets), while Tempo's partnerships emphasize breadth of application (payments, commercial apps, cross-border e-commerce, AI micropayments, etc.). For example, while Arc has not yet announced a detailed list of nodes, it is expected to include regulated financial firms. Tempo has already made it clear that traditional giants like Visa and Standard Chartered, as well as tech companies like OpenAI and Shopify, are influencing its blueprint. Therefore, Arc's ecosystem has a strong financial flavor, while Tempo's ecosystem is a cross-industry fusion of finance and the internet.Capital Background and Funding Model: Circle, the entity behind Arc, has gone through years of financing and a recent public listing, with shareholders including large asset managers like BlackRock and Fidelity, as well as strategic partner banks. This capital favors strategies that are compliant, secure, and synergistic with the existing system, pushing Arc down a path of regulatory approval. Tempo is supported by internal funds from the private giant Stripe and a top-tier crypto VC, with no news of independent fundraising yet (Paradigm's direct incubation is equivalent to an investment). Crypto capital like Paradigm has a higher tolerance for innovative trial and error, and Stripe maintains a long-term vision, not rushing to monetize Tempo through token sales. This makes Arc's funding strategy potentially more conservative (relying on Circle's own revenue and traditional fundraising), while Tempo has more of the characteristics of a startup, able to flexibly bring in strategic investors. It's possible that Tempo may attract large institutions as shareholders to strengthen its alliance (similar to the Libra Association model) in the future. Arc, being embedded within Circle's corporate structure, is unlikely to have a similar association framework unless spun off. The difference in capital strategy is also reflected in whether they issue a platform token: Arc currently has no plans to issue a new token [fee revenue goes into an on-chain treasury for ecosystem development]; Tempo also has no native token planned. This indicates that the capital return model for both is based on long-term network effects rather than short-term ICOs. However, since Arc is part of a publicly traded company, its future profitability model may lie in increasing USDC usage and network fee revenues to return value to shareholders. Tempo, on the other hand, is seen as a strategic project for Stripe, with its focus on expanding the payment landscape, and direct revenue will come from service fees Stripe charges to businesses. In short, Arc's capital prefers stable, compliant operations and strengthening its moat, while Tempo's capital prefers expanding user scale and cross-industry empowerment.Ecosystem Expansion Strategy: Arc has Circle's existing stablecoin user base and fiat reserve system, allowing it to quickly convert USDC holders into Arc users. It also leverages Circle's existing enterprise services, like the Circle Payments Network (CPN), to position Arc as the on-chain settlement layer for these businesses. Therefore, Arc's expansion is more about vertical deepening—bringing Circle's existing clients (banks, payment institutions) on-chain and attracting financial market participants by offering new features (like on-chain FX). Tempo, conversely, is more focused on horizontal expansion—reaching new user segments through Stripe's network (such as Shopify merchants, DoorDash businesses, OpenAI's AI economy), entering areas where blockchain has not deeply penetrated (e.g., payroll, cross-border e-commerce settlement, AI agent micropayments are all use cases mentioned for Tempo ). Tempo aims to be the gateway for Web2 enterprises to move on-chain, thereby rapidly increasing stablecoin transaction volume and use cases. According to Blockworks research, some analysts believe that if Tempo succeeds, it will not only compete with Ethereum and Solana for payment traffic but also become a powerful competitor to stablecoin issuers Circle (USDC) and Tether (USDT) in the payment space.Approach Style: Arc's approach reflects its financial institution-led nature—emphasizing regulatory compliance, reliability, and integration with traditional systems. Tempo's approach embodies an internet product mindset—driven by user needs, focused on lowering fees and barriers to entry, and rapidly piloting use cases [e.g., Tempo's pursuit of extreme TPS and low fees to attract merchants and users, similar to a freemium internet strategy to capture the market]. This is also related to the culture of their backers: Arc's investors are mostly from traditional finance, prioritizing security and compliance first, growth second. Tempo's incubators, like Paradigm, are more startup-oriented, emphasizing building user scale first, then considering full compliance and openness [as some have compared Tempo to Libra 2.0 but with a more favorable political environment].
Ultimately, both represent a new wave of blockchain infrastructure development that is heavily backed by capital and driven by corporate forces.
Potential Impact on Monetary Sovereignty and Global Payment Structure (Trend of Clearing Alliances and Alternative Sovereign Tracks)
The Trend of Centralized Clearing Alliances
The emergence of Circle's Arc and Stripe's Tempo signals a trend in global payment clearing towards a "quasi-alliance" model. Both adopt a consortium node + permissioned mechanism approach, bringing together large corporations to co-build a network. This contrasts with the traditional cross-border clearing system dominated by central banks and government agencies. In a sense, Arc and Tempo are like a "stablecoin version of SWIFT" or a "Libra 2.0" experiment: a consortium of multinational corporations and financial institutions establishing a universal value transfer network.
Such networks are highly centralized—a few companies control the infrastructure yet serve a broad range of cross-border transaction needs. If Arc and Tempo operate successfully on a large scale, we may witness the rise of a clearing system dominated by corporate alliances. This trend could shift international payment clearing from inter-governmental coordination (like the SWIFT network) to inter-corporate collaboration.
While such a centralized private clearing alliance could bring efficiency gains and cost reductions, it also raises concerns about the concentration of financial power. If a handful of companies control the global stablecoin settlement pipeline, could it create new monopolies and systemic risks? This situation is similar to one of the reasons why the Libra Association's original vision was met with caution by central banks. Fortunately, unlike Libra, which attempted to issue an independent currency, Arc and Tempo handle digital representations of national fiat currencies, which are inherently pegged to fiat. This makes their challenge to sovereign currencies more subtle and gradual. As one commentary noted: "The Tempo chain is Libra v2, just with a greater likelihood of being politically greenlit today". Governments are now more inclined to establish regulatory frameworks for stablecoins rather than outright banning them, as was the case during the Libra era in 2019. The passage of the GENIUS Act in the U.S., for example, has established a federal regulatory system for payment stablecoins, providing some legal basis for these consortium chains.
Impact on Monetary Sovereignty
The widespread adoption of Arc and Tempo could have multiple impacts on national monetary sovereignty and the global payment landscape. On one hand, they could strengthen the global penetration of major reserve currencies. The current stablecoin market is dominated by the US dollar [USDT, USDC, etc., account for over 90% of the market share], and as optimized carriers for USD stablecoins, Arc and Tempo could accelerate the trend of digital dollarization. If citizens and businesses in smaller countries widely use these networks for cross-border settlement or even daily transactions, it will be easier for them to bypass their local currency in favor of digital dollars (or digital euros, etc.), thereby weakening the role of the domestic currency in their own economies.
This creates a monetary substitution track: currency exchange and payments that originally went through banks and foreign exchange markets could partially shift to a track run by privately issued stablecoins. If local regulation cannot keep up, these fund flows will be difficult for central banks to monitor and control, challenging the effectiveness of monetary policy and capital controls. However, it is worth noting that Arc and Tempo are not decentralized, anonymous networks but compliant consortium chains. Therefore, governments can still exert influence indirectly by regulating stablecoin issuance, custody, and node operators. For example, central banks could require bank nodes to report transaction activity on Arc/Tempo or maintain financial stability by demanding audits of stablecoin reserve assets. Thus, for financial regulators, these new tracks are both a challenge and an opportunity.
Reshaping the Global Payment Structure
On the other hand, Arc and Tempo could reshape the global payment structure. Current cross-border payments rely on messaging networks like SWIFT and the correspondent banking system, which are slow and expensive. Arc and Tempo offer an alternative path with 24/7 real-time settlement and low costs. For example, Arc's cross-border payment and FX functions could allow businesses to bypass multiple banking intermediaries and complete currency conversion and payments directly through stablecoins. Tempo's vision is to enable anyone to pay in any currency, anytime, anywhere, regardless of traditional banking hours and national borders.
If these functionalities mature, large multinational corporations might prefer to remit funds via stablecoin chains rather than SWIFT wire transfers, thereby eroding the monopoly of traditional cross-border clearing networks. This also presents a new challenge for countries that rely on SWIFT for sanctions power: how to implement sanctions or monitoring when payments move to stablecoin chains? For now, due to their compliance-oriented design, both Arc and Tempo will still enforce Western sanctions regimes (e.g., by freezing wallets of sanctioned entities), so the short-term impact on the geopolitical landscape may be limited.
Centralized Clearing Alliances vs. Sovereign Tracks
Another potential impact of Arc and Tempo is the formation of a "dual-track" global payment landscape: one track being the official CBDC track developed by central banks, and the other being the private stablecoin track represented by Arc and Tempo. These two tracks might compete and cooperate. If the private track becomes controlled by a few giants, governments will be wary of its systemic importance and intervene (e.g., by requiring licenses or limiting business scope). Conversely, governments issuing their own CBDCs might distribute them through these networks (Stripe has mentioned that Tempo could serve as the underlying stablecoin account layer for banks, and it's possible that central bank digital currencies could be integrated in the future).
Conclusion
In conclusion, stablecoin chains like Circle's Arc and Stripe's Tempo have the potential to shake up the traditional financial landscape. They are building new global clearing networks in the form of alliances, improving the efficiency of cross-border payments, and reinforcing the international status of major currencies, while also concentrating some financial power in the hands of private institutions. If this trend develops without proper oversight, there is a risk of "financial power shifting from nations to oligarchic alliances." However, all participants are currently seeking regulatory cooperation, making this trend more likely to integrate with sovereign systems rather than replace them. As analysts have pointed out, the projects that can strike a balance between open innovation and compliance requirements are most likely to become the bridge connecting traditional finance and crypto finance, and thereby secure a key position in the competition for global financial infrastructure. Arc and Tempo are strong contenders in this race. The evolution of these platforms will continue to test each nation's definition and protection of monetary sovereignty.
References
Arc Litepaper, Circle, August 2025.Circle Official Blog, "Introducing Arc: An open Layer-1 blockchain...", August 2025.CoinDesk News, "Circle Unveils Layer-1 Blockchain Arc…", August 2025.Paradigm Announcement, "Tempo: The Blockchain Designed for Payments", September 2025.Tempo Official Website, "The blockchain designed for payments", September 2025.CoinDesk News, "Stripe Building ‘Tempo’ Blockchain...", August 2025.BeInCrypto Analysis, "Stripe’s Tempo Blockchain: The New Libra or Ethereum Killer?", September 2025.Sean Goedecke Blog, "Unofficial Tempo FAQ", September 2025.ChainCatcher Research, "The Battle of Stablecoin Public Chains: Competition of Giants", September 2025.Bankless Newsletter, "Plasma Wants to Own Stablecoin Fever", June 2025.

Exekutive Zusammenfassung
DeAgentAI hat ein technisch fortschrittliches, dezentrales Koordinierungsframework für KI-Agenten entwickelt, sieht sich jedoch erheblichen Herausforderungen in Bezug auf die Nachhaltigkeit der Token-Ökonomie und die Akzeptanz im Ökosystem gegenüber. Das Protokoll adressiert drei zentrale Herausforderungen für KI-Agenten in verteilten Umgebungen—Konsensunsicherheit, Identitätskonsistenz und Zustandskontinuität—durch seine innovative Lobe-Executor-Committer-Dreischichtarchitektur, die echte technische Originalität demonstriert. Der $AIA
Token hat derzeit eine Marktkapitalisierung von 30,7 Millionen US-Dollar, eine FDV von 305 Millionen US-Dollar und ein Handelsvolumen von 93,78 Millionen US-Dollar in 24 Stunden, was auf eine extrem hohe Markttätigkeit hinweist. Das Team und die Investoren halten jedoch 39 % der Token mit konzentrierten Freisetzungsrisiken, und die Akzeptanz im Ökosystem befindet sich noch in einem frühen Stadium, was dies zu einer hochriskanten, aber potenziell lohnenden Investition macht. Institutionelle Investoren wird geraten, einen vorsichtigen Abwartemodus einzunehmen, bis klarere Signale für die Akzeptanz und Verbesserungen der Token-Ökonomie auftreten.

Sentient-Projekt: Tiefgreifender Forschungsbericht über Chancen und Risiken der KI-Web3-Kollaborationsinnovation
TL;DR
$SENT
Sentient stellt einen glaubwürdigen Versuch dar, einen Web3-nativen KI-Protokollstapel zu entwickeln, der anspruchsvolle Open-Source-KI-Forschung mit blockchainbasierten Anreizkoordinierungen kombiniert. Mit 85 Millionen Dollar an Seed-Finanzierung von Tier-1-Krypto-VCs, einem Partnernetzwerk mit über 110 Partnern und hochmodernen Denkfähigkeiten (ROMA: 45,6 % SEAL-0 Genauigkeit) zeigt das Projekt technische Umsetzungskapazität. Der ehrgeizige Vor-Marktanalysewert von 1,15 Milliarden Dollar, das Angebot von 34 Milliarden Token und das nicht bewährte Wirtschaftsmodell bringen wesentliche Bewertungs- und Ausführungsrisiken mit sich. Die strategische Positionierung als Koordinationsschicht für offene AGI zeigt Differenzierung gegenüber geschlossenen Laboren und reinen DePIN-Anwendungen, doch der Erfolg hängt von der Annahme nach der TGE, der Skalierung des GRID und der Reifung der Governance über 24-36 Monate ab.

1. Executive Summary
This report aims to use a six-dimensional analytical framework to project key structural trends in the crypto market in 2026. This framework integrates the macro-monetary environment, on-chain capital structure, narrative cycles, regulatory frameworks, technological protocol evolution, and market microstructure. We abandon single-point predictions and explore possible market paths under different combinations of variables through three scenarios: baseline, risk, and tail scenarios.
Core variables and scenario matrix:
Key VariableBaseline ScenarioRisk ScenarioTail Scenario (Positive)Federal Reserve Interest Rate PathThe interest rate cut cycle will begin in the second half of 2026, with a total rate cut of 50-75 basis points for the year.Sticky inflation could lead to high interest rates throughout the year, or a rate cut followed by another rate hike.Economic recession pressures forced a rapid interest rate cut in the first half of the year, with a full-year cut of over 150 bps.US fiscal liquidityReverse repurchase agreements (RRPs) were exhausted, and the Treasury's general account (TGA) remained at $750 billion, indicating a moderate injection of liquidity.The Treasury's massive bond issuance has drained liquidity, pushing the TGA account above $1T, indicating a tightening effect.The Ministry of Finance may slow down bond issuance or restart quantitative easing (QE), releasing significant liquidity into the market.Spot ETF Fund FlowThe average monthly net inflow into the BTC/ETH ETF has remained in the range of $1B-$3B, with increased volatility.Net outflows or continued losses below the average monthly inflow of $500 million are dampening market confidence.The integration of traditional financial products is accelerating, with an average monthly net inflow exceeding $5 billion.Technological paradigm breakthroughWith the L2/L3 ecosystem mature and parallelized EVM becoming mainstream, early applications of AI+Crypto have emerged.ZK technology has been found to have a major security vulnerability, potentially exposing the risks of L2 centralization.Composable AI agents can achieve an on-chain economic closed loop, potentially pushing RWA's asset size to over a trillion.Global regulatory frameworkUS regulation remains unchanged (through enforcement), MiCA 2.0 discussions begin, and Asia (Hong Kong/Singapore) remains open.The SEC has filed lawsuits against major DeFi protocols and stablecoins, hindering key infrastructure development.The United States has enacted clear legislation similar to MiCA, providing a clear path for institutional compliance.
Conclusion SummaryIn the baseline scenario, the market in 2026 will exhibit a highly volatile structural bull market, with capital rapidly rotating between different narratives, and the L2 ecosystem and the Bitcoin ecosystem being the main battlegrounds. The risk scenario points to a deep correction and liquidity depletion, with the market entering a "crypto winter 2.0". The tail scenario relies on an unexpected release of macro liquidity or a paradigm shift in technological applications, potentially triggering exponential growth.
2. 2025 Review: Confirmatory Analysis Framework
Reviewing market forecasts for 2025 serves as the logical starting point for constructing the 2026 outlook. Previously, key variables we focused on included the approval of an ETH spot ETF, the growth of TVL in restaking protocols, the recovery of the Solana ecosystem, and the sustainability of the AI ​​narrative.
ETH Spot ETFAs expected, approval is anticipated in Q2-Q3 of 2025, but the initial inflow of funds (approximately $0.5B-$1B per month) is lower than the most optimistic market expectations, indicating that institutional allocation is still in the exploratory stage. This validates the judgment that "regulatory approval does not equate to immediate large-scale adoption."Restaking 与 LRTsEigenLayer and its ecosystem's TVL surpassed $50 billion in 2025, becoming a core layer of DeFi liquidity. However, its complexity also brought new systemic risks, with multiple slashing incidents involving operators confirming the symmetry between returns and risks.Solana EcosystemThe Fireracer client launched on the mainnet in the second half of 2025, significantly improving network throughput and stability. Applications such as DePIN, Meme, and Perp DEX saw growth, but no "killer app" has yet emerged to surpass the Ethereum ecosystem.AI+Crypto NarrativeThe narrative, from the computing power market to AI agents, remained popular throughout the year. However, most projects remained in the proof-of-concept stage, and the autonomous economic activities of on-chain AI agents had not yet reached a significant scale, validating the view that "technological integration takes time, and we should be wary of excessive hype."
Overall, the market in 2025 largely met expectations of "structural differentiation." The upper limit of macro liquidity tightening constrained the overall market beta, but specific narratives (Restaking, Solana, AI) brought significant alpha opportunities.
3. Macroeconomic Environment Analysis
Macro liquidity is a core constraint defining crypto market beta. The key in 2026 lies in the policy paths of global central banks, particularly the Federal Reserve, and the liquidity operations of the US Treasury.
3.1 Interest Rate Path and Inflation Dynamics
variableUS core PCE, non-farm payroll data, and wage growth rate.mechanismThe Federal Reserve adjusts the federal funds rate based on the "data-dependent" principle. High inflation and strong employment will delay rate cuts, while the opposite will accelerate them.Baseline ScenarioThe core PCE rate is projected to stabilize between 2.5% and 2.8% by the end of 2025. The Federal Reserve is expected to cut interest rates by 25 basis points for the first time in Q2 or Q3 of 2026, with a cumulative cut of 50-75 basis points for the whole year. This provides a mild tailwind environment for risk assets.Falsifiable conditionsIf core PCE unexpectedly rebounds to above 3% in Q1 2026, the first rate cut is expected to be postponed to Q4 or 2027.
3.2 US Fiscal Liquidity (TGA & RRP)
variable: Treasury General Account (TGA) balance, overnight reverse repurchase (RRP) size, Treasury Quarterly Refinancing Plan (QRA).mechanismA decrease in RRP balances injects liquidity into the market, while an increase in TGA balances drains liquidity from the market. The relative changes in these two factors together determine the level of bank reserves, which in turn affects the prices of risky assets.Baseline ScenarioThe RRP is expected to be largely exhausted by Q1 2026. The TGA will remain within the target range of $750 billion to $850 billion. Treasury bond issuance will remain stable, with a neutral impact on market liquidity.Falsifiable conditionsIf the US government fiscal deficit expands beyond expectations, resulting in net issuance of Treasury bonds exceeding $2.5T in 2026, it will have a crowding-out effect on private sector credit, creating a de facto liquidity crunch.
3.3 USD cycle
variableDXY index, US-EU-Japan interest rate differential.mechanismA strong US dollar typically suppresses global liquidity, putting pressure on capital in non-US regions and negatively impacting the crypto market (especially trading pairs with non-US fiat currencies).Baseline ScenarioWith the Federal Reserve beginning to cut interest rates, and the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan having limited policy space, the US dollar is expected to show a moderate downward trend in 2026, with the DXY index fluctuating between 98 and 105.Falsifiable conditionsThe emergence of an energy crisis 2.0 in Europe or a surprise sharp interest rate hike by the Bank of Japan could disrupt expectations of a moderate decline in the US dollar.
4. Evolution of On-Chain Capital Structure
On-chain data provides a micro-perspective for observing the internal structure of the market, capital preferences, and investor behavior.
4.1 Capital Age and Activity
variable: BTC/ETH HODL Waves, long-term/short-term holder supply ratio, daily active addresses (DAA).mechanismAn increase in the supply share of long-term holders (LTH) typically indicates that the market is entering an accumulation phase, while a large-scale sell-off signals the top of a bull market. The number of active addresses reflects the actual usage of the network.Baseline ScenarioIn 2026, with the slow influx of new users, the supply ratio of Short-Term Holders (STH) will fluctuate between 15% and 30%. During price corrections, LTH supply will see net growth. Mainstream L1/L2 DAA will experience plateau-like growth rather than an exponential surge.Falsifiable conditionsThe LTH supply ratio of BTC has decreased by more than 10% over three consecutive months, which may indicate that the top of the cycle is approaching.
4.2 Stablecoins and Liquidity Distribution
variableTotal market capitalization and on-chain distribution of mainstream stablecoins (USDT, USDC, etc.), and the ratio of DEX trading volume to TVL.mechanismThe growth in the total market capitalization of stablecoins is a direct reflection of purchasing power in the crypto market. Their distribution across different chains (L1/L2/Sidechain) reflects the direction of capital flows and ecosystem preferences.Baseline ScenarioThe total market capitalization of stablecoins is projected to grow moderately to $200-$250 billion in 2026. Of this, the proportion of stablecoins on L2 cryptocurrencies will increase from approximately 15% by the end of 2025 to 25%-30%. USDT will continue to dominate trading scenarios, while USDC will expand its share in compliance and RWA scenarios.Falsifiable conditionsIf there is a severe regulatory crackdown or trust crisis on mainstream stablecoins (especially USDT), it will lead to a complete liquidity crunch in the market.
5. Narrative Cycles Monitoring
Capital rotation in the crypto market is highly dependent on narrative. Identifying the lifecycle of a narrative (emergence, growth, maturity, decline) is crucial.
AI + CryptoThe first round of hype was completed in 2025. The key in 2026 is...Verifiable on-chain agent economic activity。ChanceIt focuses on infrastructure for decentralized computing, data verification, and inter-agent payment settlement.riskMost projects are still at the "API encapsulation" level, lacking native cryptographic value.Real-world assets (RWA)In 2025, the focus will be on the tokenization of government bonds. In 2026, [the focus will shift to...].More diversified asset classesExtend.Chance: Compliant tokenization platforms, derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) for RWA, and AMMs that can handle illiquid assets.riskThe challenges include an unclear legal framework, risks associated with centralized custody, and the impact of rising macroeconomic interest rates on the yield of tokenized assets.RestakingIt has entered a mature stage and become the foundational yield layer of DeFi. The focus in 2026 is...Complex Applications Based on Restaking (AVS)。ChanceInnovative AVS technologies, such as decentralized sorters, oracle networks, and coprocessors, will further unlock the DeFi composability of LRT.riskThe risks include the complexity of the protocol leading to "bugs," the risk of operator centralization, and the reduced attractiveness due to the decline in the yield of the underlying ETH staking.L2s & Parallel EVMCompetition among L2 licensed users is intensifying. By 2026,Parallelized EVM(such as Eclipse, Neon) andZK-based L2This will become key to the performance race.ChanceApplications that can effectively utilize parallel processing capabilities (especially Perp DEX and on-chain games), as well as infrastructure that provides cross-L2 general liquidity and messaging.riskCentralization and censorship risks of L2 sorters, and cost and efficiency bottlenecks in ZK-Rollup proof generation.Bitcoin ecosystemAfter exploring inscriptions and L2 in 2025, 2026 will focus on...A more usable Bitcoin L2 solution。ChanceL2: Able to natively use BTC as gas and asset, and provides smart contract functionality.riskThe reasons include: differences in technical approaches, conflicts in community culture, and disadvantages in developer tools and composability compared to the Ethereum ecosystem.
6. Regulatory Landscape
Regulation is a key external variable affecting the institutionalization process of the crypto market.
USAThe SEC is expected to continue its "enforcement-style regulation" strategy in 2026.Baseline ScenarioLawsuits against some DeFi protocols and stablecoins will continue, but will not deal a fatal blow to core infrastructure (such as ETH and mainstream L2). Market focus will shift to Congress, anticipating bipartisan stablecoin or market structure legislation.Risk ScenarioSEC Chairman Gary Gensler has taken a more aggressive step by defining mainstream L2 tokens, or DeFi governance tokens, as securities.EuropeMiCA regulations will enter a observation period after full implementation in 2025.Baseline ScenarioThe market will adapt to the MiCA framework in 2026, giving compliant stablecoin issuers and CASPs (crypto asset service providers) a competitive advantage. Discussions on MiCA 2.0 will begin, potentially covering DeFi and NFTs.AsiaHong Kong and Singapore will continue to play the role of hubs for crypto innovation.Baseline ScenarioHong Kong may approve more types of crypto ETFs (such as L2 token portfolios). Singapore continues to strengthen its regulatory framework under the Payment Services Act, attracting family offices and institutional capital.
7. Technology & Protocol Layer Evolution
ZK technologyWhile the speed and cost of proof generation will continue to be optimized, it is still far from large-scale, low-cost applications. In 2026, ZK coprocessors will become an important direction, allowing off-chain computation and submitting the results on-chain in the form of ZK proofs, balancing performance and trust.ParallelizationSolana's Firedancer test has proven its effectiveness. The Ethereum ecosystem will catch up through parallel EVMs (such as the Eclipse Mainnet) and state management optimizations (such as state separation). This will enable high-frequency trading, complex DeFi strategies, and more on the EVM chain.Modularization vs. IntegrationModular architectures (DA layers represented by Celestia) will face strong challenges from integrated L1 architectures (such as Solana) in 2026. The market will test whether the sovereignty and flexibility brought by modularity can offset its increased complexity and potential liquidity fragmentation.AI Agents and Smart ContractsBy 2026, hybrid agents combining large language models (LLMs) and smart contracts will emerge. These agents can autonomously analyze on-chain data, execute transaction strategies, and participate in governance voting. The core challenge lies in ensuring the determinism and security of agent behavior.
8. Market Microstructure
Funding RatesFunding rates will continue to serve as a core indicator for measuring market leverage and sentiment. In the highly volatile environment of 2026, extreme positive/negative values ​​(annualized rates exceeding 100%) will occur frequently, becoming an important signal for contrarian traders.liquidation mechanismAs Perp DEX matures (refer to dYdX, Hyperliquid, etc.), the efficiency and decentralization of the liquidation engine will improve. The focus will shift from "whether a large-scale liquidation will occur" to "the impact of a liquidation on the price of the underlying asset and on-chain liquidity."Positions and leverageThe increasing popularity of BTC and ETH spot ETFs will introduce new leverage tools to the market (such as ETF-based options). This could lead to an interaction between on-chain leverage and traditional financial market leverage, increasing system complexity.Option skewThe 25-delta skew will become a key indicator of medium- to long-term market expectations. If call options continue to trade at a significant premium, it indicates strong upward expectations in the market; conversely, a premium for put options suggests risk aversion.
9. Three Scenarios for 2026
Baseline Scenario: A High-Volatility Structural Bull Market
MacroThe Federal Reserve is expected to begin moderate interest rate cuts in the second half of the year, with liquidity remaining neutral to slightly loose.marketBTC is fluctuating widely between $80k and $150k. ETH is in the $5k-$10k range. The altcoin market is experiencing dramatic sector rotation, with capital rapidly shifting between narratives related to AI, RWA, L2, and DePIN.Dominant LogicContinued institutional buying from ETFs provided a price floor, but macroeconomic uncertainty and internal leverage liquidation amplified volatility. The market shifted from a broad-based rally to a focus on fundamentals and narrative strength.
Risk Scenario: "Liquidity Trap and Regulatory Winter"
MacroUS inflation has rebounded, forcing the Federal Reserve to maintain high interest rates or even raise them, and the dollar index has returned to above 110.marketBTC fell below $50k, and ETH fell below $3k. Market trading volume and on-chain activity shrank significantly.Dominant LogicTightening macro liquidity led to a broad sell-off of risky assets. Simultaneously, the SEC's stringent regulatory measures on mainstream DeFi protocols and stablecoins destroyed market confidence. "Black swan" events in complex systems like EigenLayer triggered a chain reaction of deleveraging.
Tail-end scenario: "Paradigm break and exponential growth"
MacroThe risk of a global economic recession has intensified, prompting major central banks to coordinate and launch large-scale quantitative easing (QE) policies.marketBTC broke through $200k and ETH broke through $15k. The market is experiencing a full-blown bull market.Dominant LogicA massive influx of fiat currency liquidity into the limited crypto asset market. Simultaneously, the widespread adoption of an AI+Crypto application or RWA platform attracted users and capital from outside the crypto space, creating an "iPhone moment" that fundamentally altered the valuation logic of crypto assets.
10. Identification of Structural Opportunities
Interest Rate Derivatives Market (Benchmark/Risk Scenario)In a volatile interest rate environment, there will be huge demand for interest rate swaps (IRS) and fixed-rate products targeting ETH staking yields, stablecoin lending rates, and LRT yields.ConstraintsThere is a need for efficient and low-cost oracles and liquidation systems.Decentralized computing power and data markets (all scenarios)Regardless of the pace of AI development, the need for verifiable computation and data remains constant. DePIN and middleware protocols focused on providing GPU computing power, model training/inference verification, and data profiling have long-term value.ConstraintsThe cost and ease of use gap with Web2 cloud services needs to be addressed.Cross-chain liquidity and execution layer (benchmark/tail scenario)With the proliferation of L2 and application chains, the fragmentation of assets and state will become more severe. Protocols that can provide secure and efficient cross-chain liquidity aggregation and universal execution will become core infrastructure.ConstraintsA balance must be struck between security, speed, and cost to avoid becoming a new centralized point of failure.RWA Compliance Infrastructure (Baseline/Tail Scenario)As the regulatory framework becomes clearer, service providers offering KYC/AML solutions, asset tokenization standards, and compliant stablecoin channels to institutions will capture significant value.ConstraintsIt is highly dependent on the evolution of laws in various countries, and there is policy uncertainty.
11. Risk Factor Checklist
Macroeconomic risksGlobal inflation stickiness exceeds expectations; sovereign debt crisis; soaring energy prices due to geopolitical conflicts.Regulatory risksThe US has classified ETH or other mainstream PoS tokens as securities; imposed sanctions on core stablecoins such as USDT; and banned decentralized front-ends.Technology and security risksSystemic forfeiture incidents occurred in the Restaking protocol; a major vulnerability was discovered in the ZK circuit or proof system; another large-scale theft occurred in cross-chain bridges; centralized malicious behavior occurred in the L2 sorter.Internal market risks: Chain liquidation caused by excessive leverage; DeFi systemic collapse triggered by LRT asset de-anchoring; capital mismatch and liquidity trap caused by the Meme coin craze.Centralization riskSingle points of failure in critical infrastructure (such as Infura and Cloudflare); lack of transparency or misappropriation of assets by stablecoin issuers.
12. Self-Correction & Validation
Assumptions：This report assumes that there will be no global, non-economic black swan events (such as large-scale wars or global pandemics).Assuming that the basic security model of blockchain technology (such as PoW for BTC and PoS for ETH) will not be fundamentally breached by 2026.We assume that the behavioral patterns of market participants (following narratives, leverage preference) are somewhat comparable to historical cycles.Data source：Macroeconomic data: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Federal Reserve (FED), Treasury Department.On-chain data: Glassnode, Dune Analytics, DeFiLlama, Artemis, Token Terminal.Market data: CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, The Block, Kaiko, Laevitas.Falsifiability Statement：Baseline ScenarioIf the price of BTC does not reach $80k or the price of ETH does not reach $5k by the end of 2026, and macro interest rates do not enter a downward trend, then the baseline scenario will be disproven.Risk ScenarioIf the market does not experience a maximum annual drawdown of more than 40% in 2026, and no major regulatory lawsuits occur against core DeFi protocols, then the risk scenario is disproven.Tail sceneIf the total market capitalization of crypto does not exceed $8T in 2026, and no native crypto application with more than 10 million users emerges, then the tail scenario will be disproven.
All views expressed in this report are based on current information and analytical framework and do not constitute any investment advice. The non-linear nature of market evolution means that any long-term forecast is subject to significant uncertainty, and this framework will be continuously revised based on actual changes in core variables. $BTC

Author: [kkdemian]
Date: December 2025
Read Time: Approx. 15 Minutes
Abstract: If 2024 was the year of recovery and 2025 the year of validation, then 2026 will mark the watershed moment where the crypto market transitions from a "speculative casino" to a global financial "main artery."
Core Thesis: The Main Arteries for the Next Liquidity Expansion
Before diving into specific predictions, we must address a central question: Amidst the incoming liquidity expansion of 2026, which vehicles will serve as the primary conduits for institutional capital and genuine demand?
The Sassano, SWF、Vanguard, BlackRock, ARKK and so on Logic: A Structural Bet
For Ethereum permabulls, the logic of betting on ETH and its L2 ecosystem will become irrefutable in 2026. We define the asset stratification framework as follows:
BTC = Digital Gold (Store of Value)Absorbs "anti-inflationary" and "safe-haven" capital.Characteristics: Massive liquidity, but low velocity.Status: Has attracted over $175 billion in institutional funds via ETFs as of 2025.ETH = Digital Bond & Settlement Network (Value Transmission)Institutional capital seeks not just safety, but Yield (Staking) and Settlement utility.Core Logic: The explosion of high-frequency Web3 interactions in 2026 can only be supported by the ETH Settlement Layer + L2 Execution Layers.Status: ETH staking exceeds 34 million tokens, with APY stabilized at 3-5%.
Market Validation Data (2025 Baseline):
L2 TVL: Surpassed $39 billion (+37% YoY).L2 Activity: Daily transactions hit 1.9 million, representing 60% of the total Ethereum ecosystem volume.Adoption: Base (Coinbase L2) exceeded 3.2 million monthly active users.Tokenized RWA has reached: $36.1BPerp DEX monthly trading volume surpassed $1.2 trillion(11-30-2025)
The 12 Core Predictions for 2026
1. Web3 User Stratification: From "Natives" to "Premium Trad-Users"
Trend Analysis: 2026 marks the death of the "browser extension wallet" era. The ubiquity of Account Abstraction (AA) and Passkeys will revolutionize UX.
Key Forecast:Users won't need to understand "decentralization"; they will arrive solely for more efficient financial services (PayFi).Mobile UX will rival Web2 apps; PayPal and Robinhood will become the largest Web3 on-ramps.Validation: Non-crypto-native users will exceed 70%, with monthly active wallets breaking 200 million.
2. DeFi 3.0: Synthetic Yields & RWA Settlement
Trend Analysis: Purely inflationary yield farming will die out. Big capital will focus exclusively on RWAs (Real World Assets) and On-Chain Real Yield.
The Synthetic Index Revolution: The market will flood with "Synthetic Yield Tokens" (e.g., a bundle of 40% Treasury RWA + 30% Aave Lending + 30% ETH Staking).Institutional Moves: BlackRock's BUIDL fund grows from $615M to $1.87B in one year; Goldman Sachs and BNY Mellon issue tokenized MMFs.Key Forecast: RWA protocol yields stabilize at 5-8% APY; regulatory arbitrage vanishes as compliance becomes the barrier to entry.
3. Dissolving Asset Boundaries: On-Chain Equities & 24/7 Trading
Trend Analysis: Traditional US equities will accelerate onto the blockchain via tokenization, realizing a global financial market that never sleeps.
Scenario: An investor in Tokyo buys tokenized "Apple Stock" at 2:00 AM Saturday and immediately collateralizes it on Aave to borrow USDC for cross-asset arbitrage.Key Forecast: Tokenized securities market cap breaks $100 billion; T+0 instant settlement becomes the standard, dismantling the moats of traditional brokerages.
4. Info-Fi Rising: Prediction as Hedging
Trend Analysis: Prediction markets will evolve from isolated islands into "forward-looking indicators" for broader financial markets.
New Asset Class: "Event Hedging Instruments." When a user buys Nvidia stock, the interface automatically recommends a Polymarket token betting on "Earnings Miss" as a hedge.Key Forecast: Info-Fi market cap exceeds $50 billion; "Prediction + Hedging" becomes a standard investment strategy.
5. Tokenomics Awakening: Buybacks as Religion
Trend Analysis: Pure "Governance Tokens" (voting rights only) will be abandoned. Valuation logic will shift from TVL to P/E (Price-to-Earnings).
New ICO Model: Mandatory binding of "Protocol Revenue Buyback/Burn" or "Real Dividends." Projects without positive cash flow will fail to launch.Key Forecast: The Meme coin bubble bursts; traditional financial analysis frameworks are fully applied to token valuation.
6. The Agentic Maturity: AI Monopolies & M2M Economy
Trend Analysis: Humans will use Agents for efficiency; Agents will form a Machine-to-Machine (M2M) economy among themselves.
AI Monopolies: Prediction market data processing, on-chain MEV capture, and dynamic AMM parameter adjustments.Currency: Agents won't use bank accounts; they will exclusively use Stablecoins (Payment) and ETH (Gas).Key Forecast: By 2026, 60% of on-chain transaction volume will be initiated by AI Agents; humans will completely exit high-frequency trading.
7. The Privacy Renaissance: From "Laundering Tools" to "Commercial Compliance"
Trend Analysis: Privacy will become a prerequisite for enterprise adoption. Corporations will utilize ZK tech for "Data Invisibility with Trusted Verification."
Tech Stack: Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKP), Homomorphic Encryption, Multi-Party Computation (MPC).Key Forecast: Without a privacy layer, corporate capital cannot move on-chain at scale. Compliant privacy solutions (e.g., Paxos partnerships with Aleo) will gain mainstream acceptance.
8. Quantum Computing & The DeSci Narrative
Trend Analysis: Quantum computing may hit a technological singularity in 2026; "Quantum-Resistance" will become a mainstream narrative for the first time.
DeSci (Decentralized Science): Using blockchain to solve research funding, data ownership, and result sharing.Key Forecast: Ethereum advances its "Lean Ethereum" anti-quantum upgrades; DeSci project funding breaks $1 billion.
9. Market Structure Flip: Perp DEX Swallows CEX Share
Trend Analysis: With zkEVM and high-performance L2 maturity, on-chain derivatives will offer UX comparable to CEXs, but with transparent liquidation and self-custody.
The Decline of CEX: Centralized exchanges will devolve into mere fiat on/off ramps and beginner platforms.Key Forecast: On-chain derivatives volume captures >40% market share; protocols like Hyperliquid and dYdX normalize daily volumes exceeding $5 billion.
10. The ETH Scaling Endgame: zkEVM as the Primary Growth Channel
Trend Analysis: Ethereum Mainnet retreats to the background, serving strictly as the "Security & Settlement Layer."
Value Flow: Users pay negligible Gas on L2 → L2 pays Data Availability fees (ETH) to Mainnet → ETH is burned via EIP-1559.Key Forecast: L2 daily transactions break 5 million; ETH supply turns deflationary via burn mechanisms.
11. Institutionalization of Prediction Markets
Trend Analysis: Prediction markets complete the shift from "fringe casinos" to "mainstream financial tools."
Three Scenarios: Macro Hedging (Institutional), Enterprise Risk Management (Supply Chain/Policy), Information Aggregation (Bloomberg Terminal integration).Key Forecast: Global prediction market volume breaks $100 billion; Asia (Singapore, Hong Kong) leads in issuing licenses.
12. The New ICO Paradigm: Futarchy + Community Raises
Trend Analysis: 2026 will witness the birth of "ICO 2.0"—a fusion of market governance (Futarchy) and community fundraising.
The MetaDAO Model: Trading replaces voting (Futarchy) to prevent governance attacks.The Echo/Coinbase Model: Community Pools lower individual risk; on-chain transparency eliminates the "VC Discount" privilege.Key Forecast: Total fundraising via these new models breaks $20 billion; Futarchy becomes the standard configuration for DAO governance.
Conclusion: The Dialectic Return of "Fat Applications"
In 2016, the "Fat Protocol" thesis argued that value would accrue to the underlying layer. In 2026, we will see a dialectical return of this theory.
Value will still settle at the bottom (ETH), but the switch that triggers value capture will be firmly in the hands of the Application Layer: it is the AI Agent's payment request burning Gas, the RWA Platform contributing TVL, and the Prediction Market generating data.
We are bidding farewell to the "Wild West" era of vaporware and entering a mature financial epoch defined by "Closed-Loop Logic and Real Value Settlement." For everyone involved, 2026 is not just an opportunity for asset appreciation, but a leap in cognitive understanding.
Do not just be a Holder; be a User. In the next decade of Web3, the greatest dividends will belong to those who actually understand and utilize this infrastructure.
"The best time to buy ETH was at $10. The second best time is right before the liquidity flood of 2026."

From the periphery to the mainstream: The explosive growth of the prediction market in 2025
In 2025, a financial experiment once considered "fringe gambling" is becoming the hottest sector in the crypto industry. Prediction market platform Polymarket has accumulated a trading volume of over $36 billion in just two years, with its valuation soaring from zero to $12-15 billion. Its competitor, Kalshi, more than doubled its valuation in just a few weeks, jumping from $5 billion to $11 billion, with a $1 billion funding round co-led by Sequoia Capital and CapitalG.
Even more noteworthy is Google's announcement in early 2025 that it would directly integrate real-time data from Polymarket and Kalshi into its search engine and financial products. This landmark move signifies that the "predictive probabilities" generated by mass trading are being recognized as a new and valuable type of financial infrastructure data—just like stock prices or economic indices. Bernstein analysts point out that prediction markets are transforming into comprehensive information hubs encompassing sports, politics, business, economics, and culture.
Behind this dramatic shift lies a fundamental question: Why will prediction markets be able to achieve Product-Market Fit (PMF) by 2025? What are the essential differences between them and traditional options? And why has cryptography become the catalyst for all of this?
Predicting the nature of markets: Redefining binary options
Mechanism Deconstruction: From Probability to Contracts
The core mechanism of prediction markets is not complicated—it is essentially a type of binary option based on event outcomes. Users can place bets on events such as "whether Trump will win the election," "whether the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates," and "which country will be the next Nobel Prize winner." The platform forms a "market probability" based on the prices of the two parties involved in the transaction.
Typical prediction market contracts trade between 0 and 100 cents. If the event occurs, the contract is worth $1; if it doesn't, it's worth 0. The current trading price can be directly interpreted as the market's collective prediction of the probability of the event occurring—for example, if a contract predicting "Bitcoin will break $100,000 this year" is trading at 65 cents, it means the market believes there is a 65% probability of the event occurring.
Three key differences: Why not traditional derivatives?
Although prediction markets resemble options in form, they differ from traditional financial derivatives in three fundamental ways:
Underlying asset characteristics: Discrete events vs. continuous prices
Traditional options are based on assets with continuous prices, such as stocks, foreign exchange, and commodities, allowing for continuous trading. In contrast, prediction markets rely on a finite number of discrete events in the real world—presidential elections every four years, the World Cup every four years, and the Oscars every year. The discontinuity and non-replicability of these events mean that prediction markets cannot maintain high trading volumes when there are no major events.
Source of Value: Information Aggregation vs. Fundamental Analysis
The value of stock options stems from a company's intrinsic value—quantifiable fundamental factors such as future cash flows, profitability, and assets. The value of prediction markets, on the other hand, depends entirely on "interest in the outcome of the event itself" and the informational advantage of participants. As the Wharton School of Business Institute points out, "The power of prediction markets comes from their incentives for the disclosure of truthful information, for research and information discovery, and because the market provides an algorithm for aggregating opinions."
Regulatory Framework: Information Derivatives vs. Financial Derivatives
Traditional options are subject to strict financial derivatives regulation, with standardized contract specifications and settlement mechanisms. Prediction markets have long existed in a regulatory gray area, with the CFTC classifying them as "gambling-like" rather than financial derivatives. It wasn't until 2025 that regulatory attitudes underwent a fundamental shift, with the founders of Kalshi defining this new category as "information derivatives"—a tool that allows investors to directly trade "what they believe will happen."
Duopoly: Two Paths to Product-Market Fit
Polymarket: A Decentralized Global Experiment
Polymarket represents a typical path for the crypto industry—decentralized, global, and permissionless. Built on the Polygon blockchain, the platform uses the USDC stablecoin for transactions and is open to users worldwide (except for a few countries such as the US, UK, and France).
The scale of the data is staggering:
Cumulative trading volume exceeded US$36 billion in 2024-2025.Weekly trading volume in October 2025 exceeded $3 billion.The peak number of monthly active traders reached 450,000 (January 2025).Even after the election fervor subsided, it still maintained over 260,000 active users.Weekly active users exceeded 225,000 in October 2025.
Polymarket's business model is equally aggressive:Zero transaction feesThe platform generates revenue through market maker rebates and a potential token economic model, which significantly lowers the barrier to entry for users. More importantly, the platform's decentralized nature means that no single authority controls market creation or outcome determination—users can propose new markets on virtually any topic, from political elections to cryptocurrency price movements.
Regulatory Turning PointIn 2022, the CFTC fined Polymarket $1.4 million for "operating an unregistered event marketplace" and ordered it to block U.S. users. However, in 2025, the CFTC issued a "No-Action Letter," allowing it to reopen the U.S. market. This 180-degree turn signifies that the prediction market has moved from a "gray area" to "regulatory visibility."
Kalshi: Wall Street's Breakthrough in Compliance
Kalshi chose the exact opposite strategy—becoming the first prediction market exchange to receive full CFTC approval, bringing event trading under the same regulatory framework as futures and options.
The growth trajectory is even more astonishing:
Starting in September 2025, monthly trading volume will surpass Polymarket.October trading volume reached $4.4 billion, accounting for 55-60% of the market share.Annual revenue is projected at $60 million (equivalent to a valuation of $12 billion based on a price-to-sales ratio of 200).Within weeks, its valuation soared from $5 billion to $11 billion.
Kalshi accepts USDC stablecoin deposits from Circle and uses Coinbase for custody. This natural fit with crypto infrastructure allows it to maintain its crypto-native advantages within a compliant framework. Its founders position the platform as the birthplace of "information derivatives"—a completely new asset class.
Giants enter the market: Competition intensifies
In the second half of 2025, the prediction market sector saw a wave of major players entering the market:
CoinbaseIn partnership with Kalshi, they plan to launch a prediction market product at the "Coinbase System Update" event on December 17th, covering betting options such as Federal Reserve decisions, cryptocurrency prices, and news events.GeminiGemini Titan has been launched after obtaining a Designated Contract Market (DCM) license from the CFTC, with plans to expand to crypto futures, options, and perpetual contracts.RobinhoodThe company announced plans to launch a futures and derivatives exchange through a joint venture with Susquehanna International Group, with the prediction market becoming one of its fastest-growing revenue lines.Crypto.comFrom a "crypto trading app" to a "prediction market heavyweight," offering yes/no contracts in sports, economics, politics, crypto, and popular culture.Truth SocialTrump's social media platform plans to partner with Crypto.com to launch a prediction market.
Behind this mass influx lies a consensus on a fundamental judgment:Prediction markets have found the true PMF.。
The three pillars of PMF verification
Pillar One: Regulatory Breakthrough – From Hostility to Support
The regulatory environment in 2025 has undergone a historic shift, which is a primary prerequisite for predicting the market to find the Product-Market Fit (PMF).
Key timeline:
May 2025: The CFTC withdrew its lawsuit against Kalshi, formally acknowledging that prediction contracts can be legally traded "under certain frameworks."September 2025: The CFTC issued a non-enforcement letter to Polymarket, allowing it to reopen its U.S. market.Second half of 2025: The CFTC approves several organizations, including Gemini and Robinhood, to enter the prediction market.
Behind this shift lies a change in the political climate. Zach Hamilton (founder of crypto startup Sarcophagus) bluntly stated, "If you're looking for one reason why the crypto prediction market has returned to the US, it's the Trump administration—it's Donald Trump."
During Trump's second term, CFTC Acting Chair Caroline Pham showed greater support for prediction markets. Regulatory clarity not only eliminated compliance risks for platforms but also removed the biggest obstacle to large-scale capital intervention.
Pillar Two: User Scale – Real and Sustained Growth
Polymarket's user growth curve proves the existence of real demand:
The number of monthly active traders is projected to peak at 450,000 in January 2025.Even after the US election fervor subsided, it still maintains over 260,000 active users.In October 2025, weekly active users exceeded 225,000, demonstrating a real and continuous influx of users.
More importantly, these users are not "wool-pullers" or bots—they are real traders betting real money. While a Columbia University research paper indicates that about 25% of trading volume may be wash trading, and this percentage can even soar to 60% during certain event weeks, the remaining real trading volume is still enough to support a business valued at tens of billions of dollars.
Pillar Three: Transaction Volume Verification – Billions of Dollars in Real Liquidity
The trading volume growth trajectory of the prediction market validates its Product-Market Fit (PMF):
Polymarket performance:
October 2025 monthly trading volume: US$3.02 billionWeekly trading volume in October 2025: First time exceeding $3 billionTotal transaction volume for the year: over US$18 billion
Kalshi's performance:
October 2025 monthly trading volume: $4.4 billion (surpassing Polymarket)Trading volume in the last 30 days: $4.47 billionMonthly transaction volume growth rate: Over 300% (from September to October)
Industry as a whole:
The market trading volume is projected to exceed US$10 billion by 2025.Experts predict it could reach $50 billion by the end of the year.The weekly combined notional trading volume exceeded US$2.34 billion by the end of October 2025.
These figures are not fabricated—they represent real money flows, real risk-taking, and real discovery of information value.
Encryption technology: the technological foundation of prediction market PMF
Why will the prediction market explode in 2025, rather than 10 years ago or 10 years from now? The answer lies in...Encryption technology provides four core capabilities that traditional financial infrastructure cannot offer.。
1. Smart Contracts: Automated Trust Machines
Traditional prediction markets (such as the now-defunct Intrade) require centralized institutions to manage funds, determine outcomes, and execute payouts. This not only increases counterparty risk but also significantly raises operating costs and regulatory complexity.
Smart contracts have revolutionized everything. On Polymarket, when an event concludes, smart contracts automatically execute payouts, completely eliminating the need for trusted intermediaries. Escrow services, result verification, and payout execution—the entire process is fully automated, immutable, transparent, and verifiable.
2. Stablecoin Settlement: The Unified Language of Global Liquidity
Almost all major prediction market platforms use USD-denominated stablecoins such as USDC as their settlement currency. This choice is crucial:
Eliminating exchange rate riskUsers worldwide use a unified unit of account, eliminating concerns about currency fluctuations.Instant settlement24/7 cross-border, real-time fund flowsLow friction accessUsers can seamlessly deposit and withdraw funds without being restricted by traditional banking systems.
This globalization and immediacy of liquidity is something that traditional financial systems cannot provide.
3. Permissionless Market Creation: Unlocking the Value of Long-Tail Events
Polymarket's most disruptive feature is its open market creation mechanism—users can propose new prediction markets on virtually any topic. This unlocks enormous long-tail value: countless niche but valuable events, from "what words a company's CEO will say in an earnings call" to "when a certain game will be released," can be marketed.
This permissionless nature allows prediction markets to reach areas inaccessible to traditional financial derivatives. Countless events in reality possess informational value and generate trading demand, but because they are too niche or specialized, traditional exchanges do not create standardized contracts for them. Decentralized market creation mechanisms perfectly solve this problem.
4. Decentralized Authentication: Trust Guarantee for the Oracle Network
Determining the outcome of events is the core challenge of prediction markets. Traditional centralized platforms rely on manual judgment, which is prone to disputes and trust issues. Crypto prediction markets, on the other hand, use decentralized oracle networks (such as Chainlink and UMA) to verify event outcomes, and contract execution is triggered only after consensus is reached among multiple independent data sources.
This mechanism greatly enhances the objectivity and censorship resistance of the results, giving participants more confidence in the platform's long-term reliability.
Controversy and Challenges: Where are the Boundaries of PMF?
Despite the impressive data, prediction markets still face structural challenges that determine the true boundaries of their product-market fit (PMF).
Challenge 1: Low frequency of events – the ceiling is clearly visible
In a sobering analysis, IOSG pointed out the fundamental limitations of predicting markets:In the real world, events that truly garner widespread attention, have clear outcomes, and are settled within a reasonable timeframe are very limited.
The data confirms this:
The 2024 US presidential election accounts for over 70% of Polymarket's total open interest (OI).The vast majority of events are in a state of low liquidity and high bid-ask spreads for extended periods.Trading volume is highly concentrated on a few top events (the finals, presidential elections, etc.).
This means that trading volume in the prediction market will inevitably fluctuate dramatically—soaring in election years and declining in ordinary years. This cyclical fluctuation is an underlying characteristic that cannot be changed by product design or incentive mechanisms.
Challenge Two: Disputes over data cleansing transactions – Data authenticity is in doubt
A research paper from Columbia University analyzed two years of historical data from Polymarket and found that:
Approximately 25% of the trading volume may be wash trading.During certain high-profile event weeks (such as the US presidential election or the NBA Finals), this percentage surges to 60%.The same entity engages in wash trading between its own accounts to create false activity levels.
This finding raises questions about the rationale behind market valuations. If nearly a quarter of the trading volume is fabricated, does the valuation logic based on volume multiples hold water?
Challenge 3: Diverse Liquidity – The Dilemma of the Long Tail Market
While prediction markets can theoretically cover an unlimited number of events, in practice, liquidity is highly concentrated. On Polymarket, most niche markets have extremely large bid-ask spreads, making it difficult to execute meaningful trades. This limits the platform's speed in moving towards its vision of "predictable everything."
Users are more willing to place heavy bets on high-profile events like the "final results," but are less likely to invest heavily in regular season games. This concentration of attention and capital is a structural problem that the prediction market must confront in the long term.
Traditional Options Markets: A Comparative Experiment in Parallel Universes
When discussing prediction markets, we cannot ignore another parallel market:Traditional cryptocurrency options marketThis market also experienced significant growth in 2025, but its PMF validation path was completely different.
Deribit: The Ruler of Centralized Options
Deribit is a leading global cryptocurrency derivatives exchange, specializing in options and futures contracts for Bitcoin and Ethereum. Its market position is virtually monopolistic.
It accounts for approximately 85% of the BTC/ETH options open interest.The notional value of options expiring each month reaches $13-15 billion.Options trading volume continued to grow in 2025, with institutional participation significantly increasing.
Size Comparison: The True Ceiling of the Options Market
When we compare the crypto options market with the prediction market, an awkward fact emerges:
Crypto Options Market:
Daily trading volume is approximately $20 billion.This represents only 0.06% of the approximately $3 trillion cryptocurrency market capitalization.This proportion is one-tenth of the proportion of stock market options (0.6%).
Predicting the market:
Polymarket's monthly trading volume is estimated at $3 billion (October 2025).Kalshi's monthly trading volume is approximately $4.4 billion (October 2025).The combined monthly trading volume of the two is approximately $7.4 billion, with an annualized value of approximately $90 billion.
Surprisingly,The annualized trading volume of the prediction market is approaching the daily trading volume of the traditional crypto options market.This suggests that although prediction markets are "latecomers," their growth rate and user appeal may be surpassing traditional options.
Why is it faster to predict market growth?
There are three reasons behind this phenomenon:
User experience that delivers a superior experience
Traditional options trading requires understanding complex concepts such as Greek letters (Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega), implied volatility, and strike price. Even with beginner tools like Deribit's "Options Wizard," the learning curve remains steep.
Predicting markets minimizes complexity:Will Trump win the election? Yes or no.This intuitiveness allows millions of ordinary people who have never been exposed to derivatives to participate.
Narrative Emotional Connection
Options trading is a purely financial instrument; traders are concerned with price, volatility, and time value. Predicting market movements is what traders are doing.The narrative of the event itselfYou're not betting on "Bitcoin's volatility," you're betting on "whether Bitcoin will break $100,000." This narrative creates a stronger emotional connection and motivation to participate.
Viral spread on social media
Prediction markets are naturally well-suited for social media dissemination. A headline like "Market believes Trump has a 73% chance of winning" is more likely to generate discussion and sharing than "BTC $110K call option implied volatility rises to 50%." Polymarket's surge during the 2024-2025 US election was largely due to the widespread use of its prediction data by mainstream media.
Breakthrough Opportunities in On-Chain Options: The Next Battleground
Although prediction markets and traditional options appear to be competing in different sectors, they are actually evolving in the same direction:On-chain and Decentralization。
Current bottleneck: The dominance of centralized exchanges
Almost all crypto options trading still occurs on centralized exchanges (CEXs), with decentralized exchanges (DEXs) having virtually no presence in the options market. This contrasts sharply with spot trading—DEXs account for over 20% of spot trading volume.
Core issue:
Options market making requires complex pricing models and risk management systems.The AMM (Automated Market Maker) mechanism is difficult to operate effectively in the options market because liquidity providers are vulnerable to arbitrage losses.Early on-chain options protocols required short positions to be fully collateralized, resulting in extremely low capital efficiency.
Coinbase's acquisition of Deribit: A centralized counterattack
In 2025, Coinbase acquired Deribit, a move that sent a risk signal to foreign miners and decentralized fundamentalists—funds might be reluctant to be held in US-controlled entities. But from another perspective, this is precisely...Huge opportunities in on-chain optionsIt provides a trustless, censorship-resistant alternative.
BitVM and the Bitcoin Bridge: A Glimmer of Hope for Technological Breakthrough
The feasibility of on-chain options is improving, mainly due to:
Advances in BitVM technology (Bitcoin smart contract capabilities)Overall improvement in the quality of Bitcoin cross-chain bridgesBetter custody guarantee
These technological advancements are providing the necessary infrastructure for building attractive on-chain alternatives.
Five Endgame Patterns: The Potential for Valuation Models
How much value can the market ultimately hold? An in-depth study proposes five possible endgame scenarios, each corresponding to a different valuation level:
A. Event Derivatives Exchange
Valuation range: $5 billion - $15 billion
This is the current positioning – focusing on event trading, similar to a derivatives exchange for a specific product category. Polymarket and Kalshi are currently in this stage.
B. Parametric Insurance Infrastructure
Valuation range: $200-500 billion
The mechanisms of prediction markets are naturally well-suited for parametric insurance—automatic payouts triggered by verifiable events. For example, an automatic payout could be triggered for a flight delay exceeding four hours, eliminating the need for cumbersome claims processes. This application scenario could potentially open up the InsurTech market.
C. The Truth/Probability Layer in Decision-Making and Governance
Valuation range: $500-$1000 billion
When probability data from prediction markets is widely adopted as input for decision-making, it becomes the "layer of truth" for society. Businesses, governments, and organizations can make strategic decisions, allocate resources, and manage risks based on market forecasts. Google's integration of prediction market data is an early sign of this trend.
D. AI Probabilistic Data and World Prediction OS (WOS for AI)
Valuation range: $100 billion - $300 billion
AI systems need to make decisions based on probabilistic predictions of the future. Prediction markets can provide AI with real-time, market-validated probabilistic data—expectations for the future in various fields such as politics, economics, society, and technology. This is equivalent to building a "world state prediction operating system" for AI.
The integration of AI and prediction markets is beginning to emerge. Research shows that on platforms like Polymarket, AI-driven arbitrage strategies captured nearly $40 million in profits within a year, highlighting the significant potential for improving market efficiency. AI, as an efficient arbitrage hunter and ecosystem enabler, systematically improves market efficiency by uncovering market pricing errors and providing analytical tools.
E. ByteDance Model: Rebuilding All Businesses with "Prediction"
Valuation range: $300 billion+
The most imaginative endgame is a "prediction market version of ByteDance." Just as ByteDance used its powerful "recommendation algorithm" to reshape all internet businesses (news, video, e-commerce, search), prediction markets can theoretically use the ability of "prediction" to restructure multiple industries:
finance:Transform all investment decisions into forecast contractsInsurance:Transform all insurance products into parametric forecastsdecision making:Transform all strategic plans into internal forecasting marketsGovernance:Transform all DAO voting into prediction-driven decision-making.
ByteDance has reached a market capitalization of $500 billion. If the market predictions actually come true, its valuation ceiling could be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Present and Future: From Speculative Instruments to Infrastructure
Current situation: Speculation-driven, but value has emerged
The current prediction market is still mainlySpeculation-drivenYes. Most users participate because they want to "make money" rather than "discover information." But this doesn't mean it has no social value—speculation itself is a mechanism for price discovery and risk transfer.
Data shows that predictive markets have surpassed traditional polls in accuracy in certain areas. In the 2024 US presidential election, Polymarket and Kalshi accurately predicted the results, while traditional polls were generally inaccurate. This proves that "voting with money" can indeed aggregate information more accurately than "voting with words."
Transformation Signals: The Path from the Edge to the Center
Several key signals indicate that the forecasting market is transforming from a "speculative tool" into a "financial infrastructure":
Institutional funds enter the market.
Polymarket's investors include Peter Thiel's Founders Fund, 1789 Capital (in which Trump's eldest son has a stake), and ICE, the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange. Kalshi's investors include top-tier firms such as Sequoia Capital, CapitalG, a16z, and Paradigm. These institutions are clearly not betting on a short-term hype, but rather on a new asset class.
Data integration into mainstream products
Google's integration of market prediction data into its search engine and financial products signifies that this data is recognized as a valuable source of information. This is similar to stock prices being integrated into news reports—no longer fringe data, but a crucial indicator for understanding the world.
The strategic deployment of traditional financial giants
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME Group)—the world's largest financial derivatives exchange—plans to launch contracts for sports and economic events by the end of 2025. This is a landmark signal that traditional finance is officially recognizing the value of predictive markets.
Maturity of the regulatory framework
From the CFTC's shift in attitude, Kalshi's DCM license, Gemini's approval, to Robinhood's derivatives exchange plans, the regulatory framework is rapidly maturing. This lays the legal foundation for the long-term development of prediction markets.
Future Directions: Three Possible Evolutionary Paths
Path 1: Vertical Deepening – Focusing on Core Scenarios
Prediction markets may choose to focus on core areas such as politics, sports, and economics, becoming professional information platforms in these fields. This path corresponds to the positioning of an "event derivatives exchange," with a relatively clear valuation ceiling.
Path Two: Horizontal Expansion – Penetrating Insurance and Decision-Making
Through applications such as parametric insurance, enterprise-internal forecasting markets, and DAO governance forecasting, forecasting markets can expand into a broader B2B market. This path offers greater market potential, but it requires overcoming the current speculative nature of the consumer (C-end) market.
Path Three: Infrastructure Development – ​​Becoming the Probabilistic Data Layer in the AI ​​Era
The most radical vision is to become the "world state prediction operating system" for the AI ​​era. Each AI agent, when making decisions, needs to query the prediction market to obtain probability distributions about the future. This path corresponds to the highest potential valuation, but it is also the most difficult to achieve.
Conclusion: Product-Market Fit (PMF) has emerged, but the path remains unclear
The rise of the prediction market in 2025 is no accident. It has found three sufficient conditions for PMF:
Regulatory BreakthroughFrom the gray area to legalizationUser authenticationHundreds of thousands of real active usersProof of Transaction VolumeBillions of dollars in real liquidity
Cryptographic technologies (smart contracts, stablecoins, decentralized verification) offer core capabilities that traditional financial infrastructure cannot provide, which is the fundamental reason why the market is expected to explode in 2025 rather than earlier or later.
However, the existence of PMFs does not equate to a predetermined endgame. Prediction markets still face structural challenges such as the low frequency of events, data authenticity, and fragmented liquidity. Their final form—whether it remains a "event derivatives exchange" or evolves into a "probabilistic infrastructure for the AI ​​era"—remains undecided.
But one thing is certain:Prediction markets are no longer a fringe experiment in finance, but a real, rapidly growing new market with disruptive potential.Whether it's Polymarket's decentralized approach, Kalshi's compliant approach, or the full-scale entry of giants like Coinbase, Gemini, and Robinhood, all are driving this market toward maturity.
For investors, traders, and industry participants, the question is no longer "whether the market will succeed," but rather "to what extent the market will succeed." The answer may need to be provided by the market itself—just as it predicts other events.

TL;DR
Der Vorhersagemarkt-Sektor erreichte 44 Milliarden US-Dollar Handelsvolumen im Jahr 2025, was einen strukturellen Wandel von akademischer Neugier zu einer Mainstream-Finanzinfrastruktur darstellt. Zwei dominante Modelle treten hervor: CFTC-regulierte zentrale Börsen (Kalshi: 17,1 Milliarden US-Dollar Volumen, 1 Milliarde US-Dollar Finanzierung) und krypto-native dezentrale Protokolle (Polymarket: 21,5 Milliarden US-Dollar Volumen, 2,279 Milliarden US-Dollar Finanzierung). Kernbefunde: (1) tokenlose Modelle zeigen eine überlegene Markttraktion im Vergleich zu tokenisierten Alternativen, (2) Orderbuch-Mechanismen dominieren trotz früher LMSR AMM-Designs, (3) regulatorischer Arbitrage ermöglicht Wachstum, schafft aber Fragmentierungsrisiken, (4) Informationsaggregation übertrifft traditionelle Umfragen in Märkten mit hoher Liquidität, versagt jedoch während Manipulation oder geringer Teilnahme. Der Sektor sieht sich Dynamiken gegenüber, bei denen der Gewinner den Großteil favorisiert und die Konzentration der Liquidität begünstigt, wobei 73 % des DeFi TVL (insgesamt 423 Millionen US-Dollar) allein in Polymarket konzentriert sind.

$ZAMA Kryptografie-Infrastruktur Forschungsbericht
TL;DR
Zama ist ein $1B+ bewertetes Unternehmen für kryptografische Infrastruktur, das die vollständig homomorphe Verschlüsselung (FHE) für vertrauliches Rechnen in der Blockchain vorantreibt. Mit dem Hauptnetz, das am 30. Dezember 2025 auf Ethereum gestartet wurde, über 130 Millionen Dollar Gesamtfinanzierung und mehr als 5.000 Entwicklern (70 % FHE-Marktanteil) stellt Zama den fortschrittlichsten produktionsbereiten FHE-Stack für vertrauliche Smart Contracts dar. Das Burn-and-Mint-Token-Modell, der Ansatz zur Gewährleistung von Vertraulichkeit über mehrere Ketten hinweg und der Fahrplan zur Hardwarebeschleunigung (20 TPS aktuell → über 10.000 TPS bis 2027-2029) positionieren Zama als grundlegende Infrastruktur für institutionelle DeFi, RWAs und regulatorisch konforme Datenschutzanwendungen.

Mit dem Aufstieg des Prognosemarktes haben wir in diesem Bereich viele interessante Variationen gesehen. Cue ist eine neuartige Plattform auf Basis von Solana, die sich als „Meinungsmarkt“ definiert.
Im Gegensatz zu Polymarket oder Opinion, die sich auf objektive Fakten (wie „Wer wird die Wahl gewinnen?“ oder „Wird der Bitcoin-Preis 100.000 überschreiten?“) konzentrieren, strebt Cue nicht nach absoluter Wahrheit. Hier hängt die Definition von „richtig“ von Konsens und dem Fluss von Geldern ab.
1. Kernunterschied: Was ist ein „Meinungsmarkt“?

TL;DR
$XPL Plasma ist eine stabilecoin-native Layer-1-Blockchain mit einem TVL von 2,1 Milliarden USD und einer Marktkapitalisierung von 300 Millionen USD, unterstützt von institutionellen Investoren, darunter Founders Fund und Bitfinex mit 75,8 Millionen USD an Finanzierungen. Das Protokoll bietet gebührenfreie USDT-Transfers über einen neuartigen Protokoll-Level-Zahlungsdienstleister und erreicht eine finale Bestätigung in weniger als einer Sekunde durch den PlasmaBFT-Konsens. Während die technische Architektur für Zahlungsinfrastrukturen überzeugend ist, ist der TVL um 63 % von einem transienten Höchststand von 14 Milliarden USD nach dem Hauptnetz-Start im September 2025 gesunken, und das Projekt sieht sich frühzeitigen Zentralisierungsrisiken mit teamgesteuerten Validierern gegenüber. Das stabilecoin-orientierte Gasmodell bietet ein differenziertes Wertversprechen gegen die USDT-Dominanz von Tron, aber das Ausführungsrisiko bleibt in einem intensiv wettbewerbsintensiven Umfeld hoch.

1. Projektübersicht
Name: Fogo
Domäne: fogo.io
Sektor: Layer-1 Blockchain / Hochleistungs-SVM / Echtzeit-DeFi-Infrastruktur
Kernpositionierung: Fogo ist eine Blockchain mit ultra-niedriger Latenz und hohem Durchsatz, die speziell für Händler und institutionelle On-Chain-Finanzierung entwickelt wurde. Das Netzwerk zielt auf Blockzeiten unter 40 ms und Bestätigungen unter einer Sekunde ab, um "Latenzsteuern", "Reibungssteuern", "Bot-Steuern" und "Geschwindigkeitssteuern" in On-Chain-Handelsumgebungen zu eliminieren. fogo.io
Ausführungsumgebung: Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) mit voller Kompatibilität für Solana-Programme, -Tools und -Workflows, betrieben von einem einheitlichen Firedancer-Client (ursprünglich Frankendancer-Hybrid), der für parallele Verarbeitung, Speicherverwaltung, SIMD-Nutzung und C-Netzwerk-Stack optimiert ist. docs.fogo.io

TL;DR
Inference Labs ist ein wegweisender Anbieter von zkML-Infrastruktur, der sich auf die Ermöglichung von kryptographisch verifizierbaren, datenschutzbewahrenden KI-Inferenz für Web3-Anwendungen konzentriert. Durch den Bittensor Subnet-2 (Omron) Marktplatz und das proprietäre DSperse-Framework hat das Protokoll bedeutende technische Meilensteine erreicht, darunter 300 Millionen zk-Proofs, die am 6. Januar 2026 im Stresstest verarbeitet wurden. Mit 6,3 Millionen Dollar an Finanzierung von Tier-1-Investoren (Mechanism Capital, Delphi Ventures) und strategischen Partnerschaften mit Cysic und Arweave ist das Projekt als kritische Middleware für autonome Agenten, DeFi-Risikomodelle und KI-gesteuerte Governance-Systeme positioniert. Aktuell in der Pre-TGE-Phase ohne gestarteten Token zeigt Inference Labs starke technische Grundlagen, sieht sich jedoch mit Skalierungsherausforderungen konfrontiert, die inherent an der Kostenwettbewerbsfähigkeit von zkML und den Zentralisierungsrisiken der Prover sind.

Canton-Netzwerk Datenschutzfähige Layer-1
Das Canton-Netzwerk ist eine datenschutzfähige Layer-1-Blockchain, die für institutionelle Finanzen entwickelt wurde und über 6 Billionen Dollar an On-Chain-Realdaten und über 600.000 tägliche Transaktionen im Dezember 2025 verarbeitet. Das Protokoll verwendet ein einzigartiges Burn-Mint-Tokenomics-Modell mit dem nativen CC-Token (Marktkapitalisierung 2,7 Milliarden Dollar, im Umlauf 36 Milliarden Token), das Validatoren und Anwendungsanbieter durch einen Fair-Launch-Mechanismus ohne Pre-Mine oder VC-Zuweisungen belohnt. Mit über 575 Validierern, darunter große Institutionen wie Goldman Sachs und BNP Paribas, hat Canton eine Produkt-Markt-Passung im regulierten Finanzsektor erreicht, obwohl die datenschutzorientierte Architektur die Transparenz für traditionelle Inhaber und On-Chain-Analysen einschränkt.

TL;DR
Octra repräsentiert eine bahnbrechende vollständig homomorphe Verschlüsselung (FHE) L1-Blockchain mit proprietärer hypergraphbasierter Kryptografie, betriebsbereiter Mainnet-Alpha seit dem 17. Dezember 2025, und hat eine Durchsatzrate von 17.000 TPS über 100 Millionen Transaktionen demonstriert. Zu den erheblichen Risiken gehören nicht geprüfte proprietäre Kryptografie mit dokumentierten PoC-Schwachstellen, der Status vor Einnahmen mit 200 Millionen USD FDV, wiederholte ICO-Verzögerungen und ungewisse regulatorische Positionierungen für verschlüsselte Berechnungen im großen Maßstab.
1. Projektübersicht

TL;DR
TradeGenius hat sein Hauptnetz am 13. Januar 2026 als ein datenschutzorientiertes On-Chain-Handelsbetriebssystem gestartet, unterstützt von YZi Labs (Investition im mehrstelligen Millionenbereich) mit CZ als Berater. Die Plattform hat ein Testnetzvolumen von 160 Millionen USD verarbeitet und bietet nun einen einheitlichen Zugang zu Spot-/Perps-/Ertragsmöglichkeiten über mehr als 10 Chains mit signaturlosem, kettenunsichtbarem Handel über Ghost Orders und MPC-Architektur. Mit 200 Millionen Genius-Punkten, die über Saison 1 (Ende am 16. März 2026) verteilt wurden, und 0% Gebühren während der anfänglichen Promotionsphase, zielt die Plattform auf professionelle Trader ab, die eine institutionelle DeFi-Ausführung ohne traditionelle UX-Reibung suchen.

[Kolumne über langfristiges Geld] Kolumne über langfristiges Geld, Ausgabe 2 – Reden wir über Vermögensverwaltung
Autor: yh
Rezension:kk
Warum müssen normale Menschen eine Vermögensverwaltung durchführen? Wie plant man ein Anlagevermögen? Exkurs: Langfristiges Halten erfordert eine gute Gesundheit
 
Wir kommen, Familie. Dies ist die zweite Ausgabe der Kolumne „Long Money“, in der es um die Vermögensverwaltung der einfachen Leute geht.
Warum brauchen normale Menschen eine Vermögensverwaltung?
Zunächst müssen wir unser langfristiges Geldkonzept überprüfen:
Einfach Geld verdienen
Guter Vermögenswert + guter Preis + langfristiges Halten
Die Vermögensverwaltung, über die wir heute sprechen, dient dem Konzept des langfristigen Haltens.

[Kolumne über langfristiges Geld] 1. Die Kolumne über langfristige Geldforschung hat begonnen! Fortschritt 5,23 %
Autor: yh
Rezension:kk
Dies ist eine neue Kolumne, um den Prozess aufzuzeichnen, wie wir gemeinsam in web3 langsam reich werden.
Unterschiedliche Menschen haben unterschiedliche Anlagesysteme
Ich hatte kürzlich mehrere Kaffeetermine mit KK (Herrn Bai). Als wir über Web3-Investitionen sprachen, stellten wir fest, dass jeder unterschiedliche Anlagephilosophien und -strategien hat. Manche Leute kaufen nur BTC (Top 1), manche kaufen nur ETH und BTC (Top 2), manche kaufen nur Mainstream-Münzen (Top 20), manche jagen Hot Spots und stürmen nach unten, und manche Leute konzentrieren sich auf Airdrops Um ihre Arbeit zu beginnen, konzentrieren sich einige Leute auf das Mining, ziehen Münzen ab und verkaufen sie, und andere kaufen überhaupt keine Münzen, können aber dennoch Geld verdienen, indem sie verschiedene Dienste im Web3-Ökosystem anbieten ... Verschiedene Menschen haben unterschiedliche Anlagesysteme, und es gibt keinen Unterschied zwischen hoch und niedrig, solange es einen Gewinn bringt, ist es ein gutes System.

[Langfristige Geld-Kolumne] Langfristige Geld-Forschungs-Kolumne Nr. 3 – Lassen Sie uns über den Grid-Handel sprechen
Autor: yh
Rezension:kk
 
Wir kommen, Familie. Dies ist die dritte Ausgabe der Changqian-Kolumne. Lassen Sie uns über den quantitativen Netzhandel sprechen, der für die Gruppe von Interesse ist.
Netzhandel
Der Grid-Handel ist ein spezifisches Mittel des quantitativen Handels. Das Wichtigste bei der Quantifizierung ist, dass Sie Ihre Hände frei haben und die Programmeinstellungen strikt befolgen, um Kauf- und Verkaufsvorgänge durchzuführen. Nach Abschluss der Einstellungen sind im Allgemeinen keine manuellen Vorgänge mehr erforderlich, es sei denn, die Parameter werden aktiv geändert.
Im Allgemeinen gibt es viele voreingestellte Raster, die je nach Art des Handelspaares in Münz-USDT-Raster (als Coin-U-Raster bezeichnet) oder Coin-Coin-Raster (als Coin-Coin-Raster bezeichnet) unterteilt werden können derzeit gehalten Es gibt ein ETH-BTC-Währungsraster. Warum halte ich BibiGrid, aber nicht BiUGrid, weil ich den aktuellen Währungspreis für etwas hoch halte und ich es nicht kaufen möchte? Warum halte ich also Bitcoin Grid? Weil ich denke, dass es immer noch einen Wechselkursunterschied zwischen ETH und BTC gibt und ich Geld verdienen kann, das ist alles.