<p>作者：Byron Gilliam；编者：Saoirse，前瞻新闻</p>
<p>编辑注：2025 年 10 月 18 日，《财富》报道，支付专注的区块链项目 Tempo，由 Stripe 和区块链风险投资公司 Paradigm 开发，完成了 5 亿美元的 A 轮融资。风险投资巨头 Greenoaks 和 Joshua Kushner 的 Thrive Capital 领投，Tempo 的估值达到 50 亿美元。一位知情人士透露，红杉资本、Ribbit Capital 和 Ron Conway 的 SV Angel 也参与了这一轮融资。Paradigm 和 Stripe 并未参与此次融资。&#34;没有人会特意去买瑞士军刀；它通常是圣诞礼物。&#34; - 黄仁勋。伟大的公司起初更像是&#34;手术刀&#34;而非&#34;瑞士军刀&#34;。专注于单一领域的公司更有可能在该领域实现卓越，并在用户中清晰地保留其核心价值。以 1999 年的互联网公司为例：雅虎的主页涵盖了搜索、拍卖、新闻、电子邮件和即时消息，但在每个领域的表现都平平。相比之下，谷歌的主页则专注于搜索，使其定位对用户立即清晰，最终确立了谷歌在搜索领域的无可争议的领导地位。如今，&#34;谷歌&#34;已成为&#34;搜索&#34;的代名词，而雅虎则留下了如托管幻想棒球联赛等小众功能——这证明了&#34;在一件事上卓越远胜于在多件事上平庸&#34;的商业原则。那么，这一逻辑是否也适用于区块链？当前状况：两种区块链模型的平行发展。比特币是一个单一用途的区块链，其唯一功能是转移比特币。这种简单性可能是其巨大成功的主要原因。然而，以太坊和索拉纳是通用区块链，它们也取得了一定的成功。此外，这两种模型似乎并没有相互侵蚀：比特币尚未在去中心化金融（DeFi）领域取得突破，而以太坊从未成为主流货币。也许这两种模型可以和平共存？可能还为时尚早，因为通用区块链很快将面临新的单一用途竞争者。</p>
<h2>新变量：Tempo</h2>
<p>上周，支付巨头 Stripe 与投资机构 Paradigm 联合宣布，他们将开发一个专注于稳定币的区块链 Tempo。该新链一经曝光，便被业界视为 “加密支付领域的潜在赢家”。其核心优势正好击中了通用区块链的痛点：可预测的费用：以稳定币结算，无需持有原生代币；快速确认：实现 “近乎即时” 的交易最终确认；隐私与合规：支持 “可选” 的隐私保护和合规功能；专用支付通道：设立独立的 “通道”，避免与其他业务的拥堵；高吞吐量：针对支付场景进行了优化，处理效率远超通用链。负责 Tempo 开发的 Matt Huang 表示：“专注于单一领域使得链能够更快迭代。我们迫切需要满足即将到来的市场需求，同时减少对其他生态系统（如以太坊的 L1）的依赖。这对以太坊构成了间接挑战，使人们猜测 Tempo 的雄心可能超越支付领域。更值得注意的是，Matt Huang 提到：“尽管 Tempo 起初是一个 ‘许可验证节点’，但从第一天起它就是无许可的，并将逐步推进去中心化。” 一个既去中心化又擅长支付的区块链听起来与理想的通用区块链非常一致。Tempo 会成为以太坊和 Solana 的全方位竞争对手吗？争议：单一用途链的 “扩展悖论” 从商业角度来看，“先专注于一件事再扩展到多件事” 的成功并不罕见：微软从 BASIC 编程语言起步，逐渐扩展到操作系统、办公软件和云计算；亚马逊最初是一家在线书店，后来发展成为覆盖所有类别的电子商务巨头；苹果从个人电脑起步，现在建立了一个涵盖 “手机 + 电脑 + 可穿戴设备” 的生态系统。如果 Tempo 能够首先在支付领域站稳脚跟，它可能能够复制这种 “横向扩展” 的路径，成为比以太坊更全面的区块链。然而，也有反例：过去，专用计算器在计算速度上远超通用计算机，但如今谁还会购买计算器呢？抽屉里拥有瑞士军刀的人远比拥有德州仪器计算器的人多。这意味着，如果通用技术不断优化，它们可能逐渐使单一用途技术变得过时。那么，通用区块链最终会使 “支付专用区块链” 变得毫无价值吗？业界观点截然相反：Max Resnick 对通用区块链持乐观态度：“去中心化区块链最终将在速度、规模、可靠性甚至合规性上超越集中式系统，包括单一用途链。” Mert Mumtaz 质疑 Tempo 的定位：“它甚至不是一个区块链，更不用说通用区块链——怎么会有 ‘支付专用’ 的区块链？” 在他看来，去中心化是区块链的核心属性，真正去中心化的区块链必须具备通用能力。如果 Tempo 推动去中心化，它必然会吸引像 “垃圾币” 这样的无意义项目，导致支付功能拥堵和性能下降。Mert Mumtaz 进一步指出，“支付专用链” 只有两条可行路径：要么像比特币那样 “非图灵完备”（仅支持转账，无法运行复杂代码），要么采用 “许可” 系统（节点由集中组织控制）。如果这是真的，以太坊和 Solana 就不必担心被 Tempo 取代——毕竟，Tempo 要么是 “功能有限”，要么是 “去中心化不足”。但关键问题是：如果 Tempo 能够提供更快、更便宜的支付服务而不去中心化，并成为主要的稳定币流通场景，用户是否还会关心它是否是真正的区块链？结论：去中心化价值的考验 与其说这是单一用途链与通用链之间的竞争，不如说这是对去中心化价值的考验：用户愿意为去中心化支付多少？他们是否愿意接受稍慢的速度和更高的费用，以换取区块链的去中心化特性？还是他们更喜欢高效、低成本的服务，即使这些服务的去中心化程度较低？Tempo 的出现可能是这一考验的试金石。</p>

Stripe

<p>这篇文章讨论了 Tempo 最近获得的 5 亿美元 A 轮融资，该项目是一个专注于支付的区块链项目，由 Stripe 和 Paradigm 开发，估值为 50 亿美元。文章探讨了 Tempo 能否在以以太坊和 Solana 等通用区块链为主导的市场中成功作为一个单一用途的区块链。Tempo 旨在通过可预测的费用、快速确认和隐私选项等功能来解决通用链面临的问题。业内对 Tempo 的潜力及其作为真正区块链的分类意见不一</p>

<p>Author: Byron Gilliam; Compiler: Saoirse, Foresight News</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>作者：Byron Gilliam；编者：Saoirse，前瞻新闻</p>
</div><p>Editor's Note: On October 18, 2025, Fortune reported that Tempo, a payments-focused blockchain project developed by Stripe and blockchain venture capital firm Paradigm, completed a $500 million Series A financing round. Venture capital giant Greenoaks and Joshua Kushner's Thrive Capital led the investment, valuing Tempo at $5 billion. A person familiar with the matter revealed that Sequoia Capital, Ribbit Capital, and Ron Conway's SV Angel also participated in this round of financing. Paradigm and Stripe did not participate in this round of financing. &#34;No one goes out of their way to buy a Swiss Army knife; it's usually a Christmas gift.&#34; - Jensen Huang. Great companies start out more like &#34;scalpels&#34; than &#34;Swiss Army knives.&#34; Companies that focus on a single area are more likely to achieve excellence in that field and retain their core value clearly in their users. Take the internet companies of 1999 as an example: Yahoo's homepage encompassed search, auctions, news, email, and instant messaging, yet its performance in each area was mediocre. Google's homepage, on the other hand, focused solely on search, making its positioning immediately clear to users and ultimately establishing Google as the undisputed leader in search. Today, &#34;Google&#34; has become synonymous with &#34;search,&#34; while Yahoo is left with niche features like hosted fantasy baseball leagues—a testament to the business principle that &#34;excellence in one thing is far superior to mediocrity in many.&#34; So, does this logic also apply to blockchain? Current Situation: Parallel Development of Two Blockchain Models. Bitcoin is a single-purpose blockchain whose sole function is to transfer Bitcoin. This simplicity may be the primary reason for its enormous success. However, Ethereum and Solana are general-purpose blockchains, and they have also achieved some success. Moreover, the two models do not appear to be cannibalizing each other: Bitcoin has yet to achieve a breakthrough in DeFi, and Ethereum has never become a mainstream currency. Perhaps the two models can coexist peacefully? It's probably too early to tell, as general-purpose blockchains will soon face a new, single-purpose competitor.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>编辑注：2025 年 10 月 18 日，《财富》报道，支付专注的区块链项目 Tempo，由 Stripe 和区块链风险投资公司 Paradigm 开发，完成了 5 亿美元的 A 轮融资。风险投资巨头 Greenoaks 和 Joshua Kushner 的 Thrive Capital 领投，Tempo 的估值达到 50 亿美元。一位知情人士透露，红杉资本、Ribbit Capital 和 Ron Conway 的 SV Angel 也参与了这一轮融资。Paradigm 和 Stripe 并未参与此次融资。&#34;没有人会特意去买瑞士军刀；它通常是圣诞礼物。&#34; - 黄仁勋。伟大的公司起初更像是&#34;手术刀&#34;而非&#34;瑞士军刀&#34;。专注于单一领域的公司更有可能在该领域实现卓越，并在用户中清晰地保留其核心价值。以 1999 年的互联网公司为例：雅虎的主页涵盖了搜索、拍卖、新闻、电子邮件和即时消息，但在每个领域的表现都平平。相比之下，谷歌的主页则专注于搜索，使其定位对用户立即清晰，最终确立了谷歌在搜索领域的无可争议的领导地位。如今，&#34;谷歌&#34;已成为&#34;搜索&#34;的代名词，而雅虎则留下了如托管幻想棒球联赛等小众功能——这证明了&#34;在一件事上卓越远胜于在多件事上平庸&#34;的商业原则。那么，这一逻辑是否也适用于区块链？当前状况：两种区块链模型的平行发展。比特币是一个单一用途的区块链，其唯一功能是转移比特币。这种简单性可能是其巨大成功的主要原因。然而，以太坊和索拉纳是通用区块链，它们也取得了一定的成功。此外，这两种模型似乎并没有相互侵蚀：比特币尚未在去中心化金融（DeFi）领域取得突破，而以太坊从未成为主流货币。也许这两种模型可以和平共存？可能还为时尚早，因为通用区块链很快将面临新的单一用途竞争者。</p>
</div><h2>New variable: Tempo</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>新变量：Tempo</h2>
</div><p>Last week, payment giant Stripe and investment institution Paradigm jointly announced that they will develop a blockchain Tempo focusing on stablecoins. As soon as this new chain was exposed, it was regarded by the industry as a &#34;potential winner in the field of crypto payments.&#34; Its core advantages just hit the pain points of general-purpose blockchains: Predictable fees: settled in stablecoins, no need to hold native tokens Fast confirmation: achieve &#34;near-instant&#34; transaction final confirmation Privacy and compliance: support &#34;optional&#34; privacy protection and compliance functions Dedicated payment channel: set up an independent &#34;channel&#34; to avoid congestion with other businesses High throughput: optimized for payment scenarios, processing efficiency far exceeds that of general-purpose chains Matt Huang, responsible for Tempo development He stated, &#34;Focusing on a single area allows the chain to iterate faster. We urgently need to meet upcoming market demands while reducing our reliance on other ecosystems (such as Ethereum's L1). This indirect challenge to Ethereum leads one to speculate that Tempo's ambitions may extend beyond payments. More notably, Matt Huang mentioned, &#34;Although Tempo started as a 'permissioned validator node,' it has been permissionless from day one and will gradually advance decentralization.&#34; A blockchain that's both decentralized and proficient in payments sounds remarkably consistent with the ideal general-purpose blockchain. Will Tempo become an all-around rival to Ethereum and Solana? Controversy: The &#34;Expansion Paradox&#34; of Single-Purpose Chains From a business perspective, the success of &#34;focusing on one thing first and then expanding to many&#34; is not uncommon: Microsoft started with the BASIC programming language and gradually expanded into operating systems, office software, and cloud computing; Amazon began as an online bookstore and grew into an e-commerce giant covering all categories; Apple started with personal computers and has now built an ecosystem encompassing &#34;mobile phones + computers + wearable devices.&#34; If Tempo can first establish a foothold in the payment field, it may be able to replicate this &#34;horizontal expansion&#34; path and become a more comprehensive blockchain than Ethereum. However, there are also counterexamples: In the past, dedicated calculators far surpassed general-purpose computers in terms of computational speed, but who would buy a calculator these days? Far more people have Swiss Army knives in their drawers than Texas Instruments calculators. This means that if general-purpose technologies are continuously optimized, they may gradually make single-purpose technologies obsolete. So, will general-purpose blockchains eventually render &#34;payment-specific blockchains&#34; worthless? Industry opinions are sharply divided: Max Resnick is optimistic about general-purpose blockchains: &#34;Decentralized blockchains will ultimately surpass centralized systems, including single-purpose chains, in speed, scale, reliability, and even compliance.&#34; Mert Mumtaz questions Tempo's positioning: &#34;It's not even a blockchain, let alone a general-purpose blockchain—how can there be a 'payment-only' blockchain?&#34; In his view, decentralization is the core attribute of a blockchain, and a truly decentralized blockchain must possess general-purpose capabilities. If Tempo promotes decentralization, it will inevitably attract meaningless projects like &#34;junk coins,&#34; leading to congestion in payment functions and degraded performance. Mert Mumtaz further pointed out that there are only two viable paths for a &#34;payment-only chain&#34;: either &#34;non-Turing complete&#34; like Bitcoin (supporting only transfers and unable to run complex code), or adopting a &#34;permissioned&#34; system (with nodes controlled by a centralized organization). If this were true, Ethereum and Solana wouldn't have to worry about being replaced by Tempo—after all, Tempo is either &#34;functionally limited&#34; or &#34;not decentralized enough.&#34; But the key question is: if Tempo can provide faster and cheaper payment services without being decentralized and become the primary stablecoin circulation scenario, will users still care whether it's a true blockchain? Conclusion: A Test of the Value of Decentralization Rather than calling this a competition between single-purpose and general-purpose chains, it's more a test of the value of decentralization: How much are users willing to pay for decentralization? Are they willing to accept slightly slower speeds and higher fees in exchange for the decentralized nature of blockchain? Or do they prefer efficient, low-cost services, even if they're less decentralized? The emergence of Tempo may be the touchstone of this test.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>上周，支付巨头 Stripe 与投资机构 Paradigm 联合宣布，他们将开发一个专注于稳定币的区块链 Tempo。该新链一经曝光，便被业界视为 “加密支付领域的潜在赢家”。其核心优势正好击中了通用区块链的痛点：可预测的费用：以稳定币结算，无需持有原生代币；快速确认：实现 “近乎即时” 的交易最终确认；隐私与合规：支持 “可选” 的隐私保护和合规功能；专用支付通道：设立独立的 “通道”，避免与其他业务的拥堵；高吞吐量：针对支付场景进行了优化，处理效率远超通用链。负责 Tempo 开发的 Matt Huang 表示：“专注于单一领域使得链能够更快迭代。我们迫切需要满足即将到来的市场需求，同时减少对其他生态系统（如以太坊的 L1）的依赖。这对以太坊构成了间接挑战，使人们猜测 Tempo 的雄心可能超越支付领域。更值得注意的是，Matt Huang 提到：“尽管 Tempo 起初是一个 ‘许可验证节点’，但从第一天起它就是无许可的，并将逐步推进去中心化。” 一个既去中心化又擅长支付的区块链听起来与理想的通用区块链非常一致。Tempo 会成为以太坊和 Solana 的全方位竞争对手吗？争议：单一用途链的 “扩展悖论” 从商业角度来看，“先专注于一件事再扩展到多件事” 的成功并不罕见：微软从 BASIC 编程语言起步，逐渐扩展到操作系统、办公软件和云计算；亚马逊最初是一家在线书店，后来发展成为覆盖所有类别的电子商务巨头；苹果从个人电脑起步，现在建立了一个涵盖 “手机 + 电脑 + 可穿戴设备” 的生态系统。如果 Tempo 能够首先在支付领域站稳脚跟，它可能能够复制这种 “横向扩展” 的路径，成为比以太坊更全面的区块链。然而，也有反例：过去，专用计算器在计算速度上远超通用计算机，但如今谁还会购买计算器呢？抽屉里拥有瑞士军刀的人远比拥有德州仪器计算器的人多。这意味着，如果通用技术不断优化，它们可能逐渐使单一用途技术变得过时。那么，通用区块链最终会使 “支付专用区块链” 变得毫无价值吗？业界观点截然相反：Max Resnick 对通用区块链持乐观态度：“去中心化区块链最终将在速度、规模、可靠性甚至合规性上超越集中式系统，包括单一用途链。” Mert Mumtaz 质疑 Tempo 的定位：“它甚至不是一个区块链，更不用说通用区块链——怎么会有 ‘支付专用’ 的区块链？” 在他看来，去中心化是区块链的核心属性，真正去中心化的区块链必须具备通用能力。如果 Tempo 推动去中心化，它必然会吸引像 “垃圾币” 这样的无意义项目，导致支付功能拥堵和性能下降。Mert Mumtaz 进一步指出，“支付专用链” 只有两条可行路径：要么像比特币那样 “非图灵完备”（仅支持转账，无法运行复杂代码），要么采用 “许可” 系统（节点由集中组织控制）。如果这是真的，以太坊和 Solana 就不必担心被 Tempo 取代——毕竟，Tempo 要么是 “功能有限”，要么是 “去中心化不足”。但关键问题是：如果 Tempo 能够提供更快、更便宜的支付服务而不去中心化，并成为主要的稳定币流通场景，用户是否还会关心它是否是真正的区块链？结论：去中心化价值的考验 与其说这是单一用途链与通用链之间的竞争，不如说这是对去中心化价值的考验：用户愿意为去中心化支付多少？他们是否愿意接受稍慢的速度和更高的费用，以换取区块链的去中心化特性？还是他们更喜欢高效、低成本的服务，即使这些服务的去中心化程度较低？Tempo 的出现可能是这一考验的试金石。</p>
</div>

关于一次性区块链的争论：Tempo 是否是真正的区块链？