On Tempo, permissionlessness, L1 vs L2
Tempo will be a permissionless chain. On day 1, anyone will be able to deploy a token, and anyone will be able to transact on the chain. Some projects think that attracting real-world usage and serious institutions requires giving up on base layer neutrality. We do not think that, and that's not how we're building Tempo.
The plan for Tempo is to have permissionless validation and permissionless smart contract deployment as well as permissionless usage: just like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, etc. We’ll start with a permissioned validator set to get going and decentralize further from there.
We’re building in features to make it easy for entities interacting with the blockchain (like asset issuers, money transmitters, etc.) to comply with their relevant obligations, but the base layer will remain neutral. This is a principle we feel incredibly strongly about (see: paradigm.xyz/2022/09/base-l…).
As many parts of the mainstream world look to adopt crypto, we think there is a risk that they adopt permissioned systems. Our goal with Tempo is to help onboard them onto crypto rails that solve specific payments needs while still being truly permissionless.
—
Why L1 rather than an Ethereum L2?
At Paradigm, we are heavily invested, both intellectually and literally, in the Ethereum ecosystem. We will continue to help it scale, and invest in and support companies building on Ethereum. We are also extremely excited about single-sequencer L2s for many use cases, including trading.
But building a network for global payments will require bringing together thousands of partners that may not trust us, or Stripe, or anyone as a platform. We think a decentralized validator set—for the chain itself—is a necessary requirement for those partners, and to ensure that the chain is unquestionably neutral in the long run.
From an operational perspective, we feel urgency to build for the demand that’s coming and want fewer dependencies, including on the rate of Ethereum L1 progress. With Tempo, we tried to remove all crypto tribalism and alignment games from our thinking and just focus on building the right product for crypto payments.
At a technical level, we are prioritizing attributes like fast finality (L2s are generally only as final as the underlying L1), multiple validators (vs. single sequencer), and custom transaction lanes and gas pricing. Some of these are technically possible for an L2, but could be complex, slow to implement, and/or introduce many external dependencies. Tempo is stablecoin-focused, so interoperability through native issuance is more relevant to us than the native bridge to Ethereum that L2s have.
We aren’t Bitcoin, Ethereum, or Tempo maximalists. We’re maximalists for permissionless crypto. We want Ethereum L1 to scale, and we want L2s to thrive. We love Bitcoin as a monetary asset. We find substance in Solana, Hyperliquid, and many other ecosystems. We want to ensure real-world payment flows happen on crypto rails, and that’s why we’re building Tempo.
Tempo will be a permissionless chain. On day 1, anyone will be able to deploy a token, and anyone will be able to transact on the chain. Some projects think that attracting real-world usage and serious institutions requires giving up on base layer neutrality. We do not think that, and that's not how we're building Tempo.
The plan for Tempo is to have permissionless validation and permissionless smart contract deployment as well as permissionless usage: just like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, etc. We’ll start with a permissioned validator set to get going and decentralize further from there.
We’re building in features to make it easy for entities interacting with the blockchain (like asset issuers, money transmitters, etc.) to comply with their relevant obligations, but the base layer will remain neutral. This is a principle we feel incredibly strongly about (see: paradigm.xyz/2022/09/base-l…).
As many parts of the mainstream world look to adopt crypto, we think there is a risk that they adopt permissioned systems. Our goal with Tempo is to help onboard them onto crypto rails that solve specific payments needs while still being truly permissionless.
—
Why L1 rather than an Ethereum L2?
At Paradigm, we are heavily invested, both intellectually and literally, in the Ethereum ecosystem. We will continue to help it scale, and invest in and support companies building on Ethereum. We are also extremely excited about single-sequencer L2s for many use cases, including trading.
But building a network for global payments will require bringing together thousands of partners that may not trust us, or Stripe, or anyone as a platform. We think a decentralized validator set—for the chain itself—is a necessary requirement for those partners, and to ensure that the chain is unquestionably neutral in the long run.
From an operational perspective, we feel urgency to build for the demand that’s coming and want fewer dependencies, including on the rate of Ethereum L1 progress. With Tempo, we tried to remove all crypto tribalism and alignment games from our thinking and just focus on building the right product for crypto payments.
At a technical level, we are prioritizing attributes like fast finality (L2s are generally only as final as the underlying L1), multiple validators (vs. single sequencer), and custom transaction lanes and gas pricing. Some of these are technically possible for an L2, but could be complex, slow to implement, and/or introduce many external dependencies. Tempo is stablecoin-focused, so interoperability through native issuance is more relevant to us than the native bridge to Ethereum that L2s have.
We aren’t Bitcoin, Ethereum, or Tempo maximalists. We’re maximalists for permissionless crypto. We want Ethereum L1 to scale, and we want L2s to thrive. We love Bitcoin as a monetary asset. We find substance in Solana, Hyperliquid, and many other ecosystems. We want to ensure real-world payment flows happen on crypto rails, and that’s why we’re building Tempo.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
