Will payment giants build their own blockchains to replace Visa and SWIFT?

It seems like every day brings news about a new blockchain sweeping the crypto market. Payment giant Stripe partnered with Paradigm to launch Tempo, followed by stablecoin issuer Circle's Arc announcement. Further ahead, Plasma and Stable announced funding rounds to develop chains specifically for USDT. And tokenization players, from Securitize to Ondo Finance, have also revealed plans to build their own blockchains. This enthusiasm isn't simply a technological showpiece; it's a strategic imperative. Stablecoins and tokenized assets are increasingly recognized as two of the crypto economy's most promising sectors. They directly connect real-world capital flows with traditional financial markets and are expected to grow into a trillion-dollar asset class in the future. Cross-border payments, 24/7 clearing, and tokenized trading of bonds and stocks—these scenarios are transforming financial infrastructure, and controlling the "chain" equates to controlling the new financial rails. Martin Burgherr, an executive at the crypto bank Sygnum, aptly put it: "Building our own L1 is about control and strategic positioning, not just technology." In his view, the competition between stablecoins and tokenization isn't simply a fight for market share, but a comprehensive battle over settlement speed, regulatory compliance, fee structure, and dominance. In the eyes of the giants, the real competition is no longer about "can it run," but "who controls the rails." Blockchain is a "compulsory course" for giants. Companies building their own blockchains aren't reinventing the wheel from scratch; rather, they're driven by a core desire for blockchain as a "settlement layer." Their requirements for a blockchain often focus on several key areas. First, performance and predictability. Building their own blockchains allows giants to isolate unrelated transactions and ensure that performance consistently meets their business standards. Whether it's stablecoin payments or tokenized bond trading, high-frequency, low-latency settlement requirements are essential. This means accepting the reality of competing for bandwidth with thousands of other assets and applications—and once the network is congested, the payment experience is immediately compromised. Second, there's the issue of rebalancing costs and benefits. On Ethereum or Tron, every transaction incurs fees that go to miners or validators. For payment giants like Stripe or Circle, this amounts to handing over potential profits. Controlling the underlying chain not only allows them to internalize transaction fee revenue but also allows them to issue their own gas tokens, creating a new economic cycle. Guillaume Poncin, CTO of Alchemy, stated bluntly, "The revenue opportunities from owning the settlement layer will far exceed the profit margins of traditional payment processing." Then there's compliance and embedded regulation. One of the biggest challenges facing traditional financial institutions entering the crypto space is meeting regulatory requirements. Know your customer (KYC), anti-money laundering (AML), and transaction monitoring—these are typically patched into the application layer, whereas proprietary chains can be embedded directly at the protocol level. In other words, regulation is no longer an external constraint but rather internalized into the chain's rules. This gives these giants greater leverage in communications with regulators. Finally, there's strategy and security. Relying on Ethereum or Tron means assuming the risks of their governance decisions, technological upgrades, and even security vulnerabilities. For a network with potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in annual settlement volume, this external dependency is unacceptable. Private chains offer greater controllability and resilience, ensuring stable capital flows even in extreme circumstances. Morgan Krupetsky of Ava Labs has pointed out that the value of custom chains lies not only in the technology but also in enabling companies to treat blockchain as a "back-end" component, truly integrating it into their operations. This positioning signifies that blockchain is evolving from a testing ground for crypto enthusiasts to the fundamental infrastructure for multinational enterprises. Why not just use an existing public chain? Given that Ethereum and Solana already have a massive user base and mature ecosystem, why are these giants launching new ones? One obvious reason is control. Ethereum is a globally neutral public network, governed by a foundation, developers, and the community. For payment companies or financial giants accustomed to complete control, tying their fate to the voting and upgrade rhythms of an external community is too risky. While Solana is known for its high throughput and low fees, this also means sharing network resources with a variety of applications like NFTs and DeFi, and payment and clearing scenarios cannot tolerate this uncertainty. Another key factor is differentiation. Issuing stablecoins on a public chain can quickly gain liquidity, but it's difficult to build a competitive defense. USDT and USDC currently circulate on networks like Ethereum and Tron, but precisely because of this, user loyalty to the underlying chain is minimal, relying solely on the token itself. Building a private chain offers the potential to differentiate: it's not just a settlement tool, but an independent ecosystem built around the token. This allows issuers to upgrade from simply "asset providers" to "infrastructure providers." Of course, this doesn't mean that public chains will be marginalized. Coinbase analysts pointed out that Circle's Arc and Stripe's Tempo could directly challenge Solana's positioning in terms of performance, but Ethereum, with its large institutional user base and proven security, is unlikely to be shaken in the short term. Burgherr of Sygnum further emphasized that the migration of liquidity and trust often takes years. In other words, even if a giant launches its own chain, attracting truly large-scale transaction volume will not happen overnight. This also explains why many new chains choose to maintain compatibility with the EVM. Compatibility with the Ethereum Virtual Machine means developers can seamlessly migrate existing applications, reducing cold-start challenges while also enabling interoperability with mainstream public blockchains. This strategy fosters both independence and connectivity: maintaining control over one's own network without being isolated from the crypto world. Driven by Stripe, Circle, and a host of tokenized startups, blockchain is evolving from an "open lab" to an "enterprise-grade backend." The motivation behind building their own blockchains ultimately stems from a pursuit of control, efficiency, and profit. Their demands on blockchain go far beyond the technology itself, focusing on compliance, business models, and strategic security. In the eyes of these giants, the real competition is no longer about "can we run," but "who controls the track." This new era of blockchain "involution" has only just begun.