Recently, I came across an article in Rzeczpospolita referencing a study from the University of Maryland and Microsoft Research. It claimed that Polish outperformed English in prompting large language models on coding-related tasks.

At first, it sounded surprising — but not entirely.

Back in March 2025, researchers released a paper titled “One ruler to measure them all: Benchmarking multilingual long-context language models,” available on arXiv.

The benchmark, called OneRuler, evaluated how models handle reasoning tasks across 26 languages, using extremely long contexts, from 8,000 up to 128,000 tokens. One of the co-authors, Marzena Karpinska, is Polish, which likely ensured accurate translation and validation for our language.

According to the study, Polish reached about 88% accuracy, ranking first. English scored just under 84%, landing in sixth place.

That difference appeared mainly in tasks with very long prompts ,between 64k and 128k tokens, where the model had to search for or aggregate specific information across long sequences of text.

The missing context.

These results are interesting, but they don’t tell the whole story. We don’t actually know what kind of Polish was used in those prompts. The paper doesn’t specify whether it was pure natural Polish or a technical hybrid that mixed English terminology (functions, libraries, classes, framework names) with Polish syntax and logic.

That detail matters a lot.

After reading the study, I looked at how I write prompts myself. And I realized, what I use isn’t really “Polish.” It’s something in between, what I’d call technical Polish.

A hybrid language in action.

Take this example:

“Napisz funkcję generateUserToken() w Node.js, która tworzy token JWT z określonym czasem ważności. Zapisz w bazie timestamp jako query.”

Grammatically, it’s Polish. But semantically, it’s filled with English programming constructs — generateUserToken, Node.js, token JWT, timestamp, query.

The AI doesn’t treat it as a translation problem. It interprets it as a structured instruction, a natural command (“write a function”) anchored by technical symbols it already knows.

This hybrid works so well because:

Polish provides structural clarity — verbs, relationships, and dependencies are explicit.

English provides exact references — to code, APIs, and functions that exist in the model’s training data.

Together, they form a kind of developer pidgin, a semi-formal, semi-natural syntax optimized for reasoning about code. The Polish hybrid version naturally breaks the task into steps: create → store → define conditions. It reads more like an algorithmic instruction, something between human reasoning and pseudo-code.

This might be one reason Polish performs so well in those benchmark tests. Not because it’s “better” linguistically, but because its grammatical precision combines well with English technical references that anchor meaning inside the model.

Why the benchmark still matters.

Even with those nuances, OneRuler provides an important insight. Language structure directly affects how AI interprets logic and intent.

Polish is morphologically dense. Word endings encode who acts, what changes, and how actions relate, information that English distributes across separate words. That density may help models preserve meaning across long contexts and reduce ambiguity.

Essentially, Polish “compresses” logical information, using fewer tokens to describe relationships, which could improve performance when token limits are tight.

But this doesn’t mean the model is “better” at Polish.

It probably means Polish prompts are more explicit by design, and when mixed with English technical vocabulary, they hit a balance that models find easy to process.

The next step. Studying technical hybrids.

This points to an interesting direction for further research: how hybrid prompting — mixing natural language and programming semantics — influences reasoning accuracy.

Questions worth exploring:

• Does blending Polish syntax with English code tokens systematically improve results?

• Are multilingual, semi-structured prompts more effective for specific task types (like code generation or data extraction)?

• Could “technical hybrids” evolve into their own meta-language for working with LLMs?

Right now, developers are already using such hybrids intuitively. It’s time academia caught up and measured their impact systematically.

Why this matters.

Poland has a strong AI and developer community. Many of us think in Polish but code, write, and build in English. That bilingual mindset might actually be an advantage, it trains us to move naturally between descriptive logic and formal systems, which is exactly how prompt engineering works.

What’s more, Polish engineers and researchers hold key positions in leading AI companies — from OpenAI (Jakub Pachocki, Wojciech Zaremba) to Anthropic, DeepMind, ElevenLabs, and Wordware. This presence isn’t just symbolic. It means Polish expertise directly influences how large models are trained, tested, and optimized, including how they interpret Polish language inputs.

Real representation in research and engineering teams often determines which languages receive more careful data preparation, evaluation, and continuous improvement.

The best results might come not from choosing one language over another, but from combining them intelligently, using Polish for logic and constraints, and English for technical anchors.

Our challenge now isn’t linguistic. It’s educational.

Much of our expertise still comes from individual effort and self-learning. If anything, this study should remind us that the potential is already here. We just need to formalize it, through research, education, and shared experimentation.

At the same time, we often underestimate how deeply AI is already changing us, how it reshapes the way we think, reason, and even structure language itself. That’s why studies like this matter. They’re not just about model performance or linguistic ranking.

They help us understand how intelligence — both human and artificial — adapts through interaction. And that understanding will be just as important as the technology itself.

For years, the primary criticism of cryptocurrency payments at point of sale has been unacceptable user experience. The process required four to six separate user interactions: token selection, blockchain network selection, waiting for address generation, manual amount entry, transaction confirmation. For someone standing at a checkout counter, this scenario excluded such payment methods from everyday use.

In February 2025, customers at Metro Department Store in Singapore began paying for purchases by scanning a QR code and clicking one confirmation button in their self-custodial wallet. Transaction time: ten to fifteen seconds. User experience comparable to Alipay or Apple Pay. This is the first production deployment of the CAIP-358 standard (Universal Payment Request Method), which fundamentally changes how wallets communicate with merchant systems.

I'll show you how this standard works technically, why it solves problems of previous implementations, and what it means for retail business owners and users actively utilizing self-custodial wallets in the Web3 ecosystem.

Why Previous Solutions Failed in Retail

Existing blockchain payment standards like EIP-681 for Ethereum or BIP-21 for Bitcoin had two fundamental limitations. First, each was specific to a single blockchain ecosystem. A merchant wanting to accept payments on Ethereum, Solana, and Polygon had to implement three separate solutions. Second, different payment providers developed proprietary, incompatible protocols for wallet-to-point-of-sale communication.

A typical pre-CAIP-358 payment flow looked like this: user informed merchant which cryptocurrency to use, then which blockchain network, system generated payment address (sometimes taking five to fifteen seconds), user opened wallet application, scanned QR code, approved connection with merchant application, manually entered amount, confirmed transaction, and waited for on-chain confirmation. Each of these steps represented a potential point of failure or process interruption.

According to WalletConnect's "The State of Onchain Payments 2025" report, only ten percent of cryptocurrency users indicated payments as their preferred use case. The main obstacle cited was inefficiency – too many steps, too long execution time, too high probability of error.

Technical Architecture of CAIP-358

Luka Isailovic and Derek Rein developed a standard that transfers all selection complexity from user interaction level to automatic wallet processing. The key change is that the merchant sends the wallet an array of all accepted payment options in a single request.

This request structure contains an order identifier, an array of possible payment methods, and request expiration time. Each payment method specifies recipient address, asset identifier according to CAIP standards, and amount. For example, a merchant can specify in one request that they accept USDC on Ethereum, USDC on Polygon, and USDT on Solana.

Upon receiving such a request, the wallet automatically filters options based on assets the user actually possesses. The selection algorithm considers available balance, current network fees, and user preferences. The user sees a single screen: "Pay 47.50 USDC to Metro Department Store" with a confirmation button. One interaction instead of six.

After confirmation, the wallet executes the transaction and returns to the merchant system a structure containing the blockchain transaction identifier and confirmed payment parameters. The standard defines an idempotency mechanism – if payment for a given order identifier has already been completed, the wallet returns the original result without executing a new transaction. This solves the connection loss problem during payment, where the merchant system can retry the request without risk of double payment.

A significant element is privacy by design. The user's wallet address is not transmitted to the merchant before the transaction. The wallet independently decides which address to use. This eliminates the possibility of merchants tracking users based on address as an identifier across different transactions.

First Production Implementation in Singapore

Singapore-based dtcpay, holding a Major Payment Institution license from the Monetary Authority of Singapore, launched this system at Metro Department Store in February 2025. This is a significant case for one reason: it demonstrates the standard works in actual retail conditions with real customers and real transactions. Not a pilot, not proof of concept, but production implementation in a major department store.

The integration process from the merchant's perspective does not pose a major technical challenge. The POS terminal generates a payment request according to CAIP-358 specification and displays a WalletConnect QR code. That's all. WalletConnect infrastructure handles the rest – encrypted wallet connection, message exchange, confirmation. You'll soon see similar implementations in other locations worldwide, as the barrier to entry for merchants is low.

According to Chainalysis, stablecoin transactions in Singapore reached nearly one billion dollars in value in Q2 2024. These are actual payments for goods and services, not trading volumes on exchanges. On the WalletConnect network, stablecoins constitute seventy-two percent of all payments, with USDC accounting for thirty-eight percent and USDT for thirty-four percent. These numbers demonstrate that demand for such solutions is real.

Implications for Self-Custodial Wallets

WalletConnect currently supports over seven hundred wallets, including applications with self-custodial wallet functionality such as mone.my. Each of these applications that implements the wallet_pay method according to CAIP-358 standard automatically gains the ability to make payments at points of sale cooperating with processors supporting this standard.

This represents a key change in business model. Previously, each wallet had to negotiate separate agreements with merchants or payment processors. Now a merchant integrating with a processor supporting CAIP-358 gains compatibility with all wallets implementing the standard. For a mone.my user or another self-custodial application, this means they can pay anywhere a merchant displays a WalletConnect QR code, without requiring prior configuration or registration with specific merchants.

The standard does not enforce a specific business model on the processor side. It can offer immediate conversion of received stablecoins to fiat currency, storage in stablecoins, or hybrid solutions. Transaction costs depend on the chosen blockchain layer. Transactions on Polygon generate network fees in the range of one to five cents, Ethereum mainnet from one to five dollars depending on network congestion, Solana below one cent.

For a user possessing a self-custodial wallet with WalletConnect functionality, the in-store payment process differs from card payment only in requiring opening the application and scanning the code. Execution time remains comparable: three to eight seconds for Polygon, twelve to fifteen seconds for Ethereum, one to two seconds for Solana. The difference lies in the settlement layer: card payment requires intermediation of acquirer, issuer, and card network with final settlement occurring one to three days later, while stablecoin payment executes immediate on-chain settlement directly to the merchant's address.

WalletConnect Network Scale and Shifting Payment Infrastructure Dynamics

WalletConnect is set to surpass four hundred billion dollars in annual Total Network Volume. This positions the network on a scale comparable to major global fintech players. For context: Square processes two hundred thirty-one billion dollars annually in gross payment volume, Checkout.com projects three hundred billion dollars, Shopify Payments handles two hundred ninety-two billion dollars in gross merchandise value, and Wise facilitates one hundred forty-five billion dollars in cross-border volume.

The network currently serves three hundred fifty million wallet-to-app connections across fifty million users, seventy thousand applications, and seven hundred wallets. Institutional participants include Fireblocks, Ledger, Robinhood, Blockchain.com, OKX Wallet, Binance Wallet, and Gemini Wallet. Applications such as Aave, Spark.fi, and Hyperliquid drive significant volume, while enterprises like Stripe, Coinbase Commerce, and Shopify utilize WalletConnect for onchain payment infrastructure.

This scale fundamentally changes the context for CAIP-358 retail deployment. When I write about stablecoin payments entering physical retail through this standard, I'm describing the opening of a new segment for infrastructure already processing hundreds of billions in annual volume. The retail payment capability represents logical expansion from DeFi protocols and dApp interactions into physical commerce.

The power dynamics in payment infrastructure are shifting. Traditional payment processors built networks over decades by establishing merchant relationships and issuing cards to consumers. WalletConnect built a network by becoming connectivity standard for blockchain applications and wallets. The four hundred billion dollar annual volume flows through this infrastructure without WalletConnect ever holding custody of assets or controlling private keys. Every connection operates with end-to-end encryption, fundamentally different architecture than traditional payment rails.

For retail business owners evaluating whether to integrate stablecoin payment capabilities, the relevant question is not whether blockchain-based payment infrastructure will scale to handle retail volumes. It already processes four hundred billion dollars annually. The question is whether your customer base includes users of the seven hundred wallets in this network, and whether the economics of immediate on-chain settlement versus traditional card processing justify integration costs.

The trajectory suggests movement from billions to trillions in annual volume. As institutional adoption accelerates and regulatory frameworks mature in jurisdictions beyond Singapore, retail represents significant addressable market expansion for this infrastructure. CAIP-358 provides the technical standard making this expansion operationally viable by solving the user experience problems that previously made blockchain payments impractical at physical points of sale.

Coexistence with Traditional Payment Infrastructure

The stablecoin payment system via self-custodial wallet does not replace card payments. It functions as a parallel path for users possessing such wallets and preferring this payment method. Mastercard in June 2025 announced the Web3 Card program enabling self-custodial wallet holders to issue payment cards, where conversion from cryptocurrency to fiat occurs at the moment of transaction authorization. Visa is developing similar solutions.

The Tempo blockchain, which I wrote about in a previous article, implements interbank settlements using blockchain as technical infrastructure. CAIP-358 and WalletConnect Pay represent a different path – the entire payment flow from user to merchant occurs directly on-chain, without intermediation of traditional payment institutions in the settlement layer.

These models can coexist in a single terminal. A standard terminal with NFC reader supports card and mobile payments, the same terminal displaying a WalletConnect QR code supports stablecoin payments. From my perspective as someone observing payment system transformation, this is not competition between models but different implementation paths for a fundamental change: transition from legacy payment rails to blockchain-based infrastructure for value transfers.

Limitations and Future Development Directions

The CAIP-358 standard remains in draft status and requires formal acceptance by the Chain Agnostic Standards Alliance. Production implementation precedes standard finalization, which is typical for standardization driven by real-world deployment.

The current specification does not cover recurring payment mechanisms, partial payments, or dispute resolution. It also does not define merchant reputation protocols or on-chain review systems. These functionalities will likely be subjects of future extensions.

Technical challenges concern scalability with mass adoption. Ethereum mainnet processes fifteen transactions per second, which represents a limitation for retail payment volumes. Layer 2 solutions offer higher throughput but require users to hold assets on specific networks. Cross-chain interoperability – where a wallet holding USDC on one chain automatically bridges to another required by the merchant – is not currently part of the standard and generates additional costs and latency.

The regulatory landscape remains geographically diverse. Singapore, through clear regulatory frameworks for payment institutions handling digital payment tokens, enables rapid commercialization. The European Union is implementing MiCA, which defines requirements for stablecoin issuers and payment service providers. The United States lacks coherent federal regulations, slowing deployment in the world's largest economy.

The CAIP-358 standard reduces cryptocurrency payment user experience in retail to a level comparable with card payments. I'm showing you this solution because the fundamental change consists of transferring complexity from the user interaction level to automatic wallet processing. The process reduces to a single interaction: scan code and confirm. For users actively utilizing self-custodial wallets, this eliminates the main barrier to payment adoption at physical points of sale. For retail business owners, this signals that blockchain payment infrastructure has reached scale – four hundred billion dollars in annual network volume – where retail integration becomes strategically relevant rather than experimental. The technical barrier to entry is low, the potential user base spans seven hundred compatible wallets, and the shift in payment infrastructure dynamics is already underway.

Stripe and Paradigm have launched Tempo, a Layer 1 blockchain that fundamentally changes the rules of stablecoin transfers. This isn't just another blockchain project. It's a systematic attack on the incumbent payment infrastructure, executed by a team that knows how to build at scale, backed by the world's largest financial players.

Tempo solves critical problems that have hampered enterprise blockchain adoption: speed, transaction segregation, and predictable costs. With over 100,000 transactions per second (TPS) and sub-second finality, this is the first blockchain infrastructure for stablecoins operating at this performance level. And it's currently in private testnet with global partners including Visa, Deutsche Bank, OpenAI, and Shopify.

The Problem. Performance and Predictability

Current blockchain infrastructure wasn't built specifically for payments. Ethereum, Solana, and others were designed for general-purpose smart contracts, DeFi protocols, NFT marketplaces, and decentralized applications. They excel at these use cases. But when payment transactions compete for block space with NFT minting, gaming applications, and complex DeFi operations, the result is unpredictable fees and occasional congestion. This isn't a flaw, it's a natural consequence of their design priorities. Enterprise payment infrastructure simply requires different architectural trade-offs.

XRP's model uses their native token as a bridge currency for bank-to-bank transfers. This approach introduces certain trade-offs. Banks must hold a third-party asset with price volatility, navigate regulatory considerations around utility token classification, and operate within a protocol they don't control. The multi-year SEC legal proceedings highlighted regulatory uncertainties that can affect institutional adoption.

Ethereum and Solana support various transaction types, but payment operations share block space with DeFi protocols, NFTs, and other applications, leading to variable fee structures. During periods of high network activity, gas costs can spike significantly, creating budgeting challenges for enterprises processing high transaction volumes.

Tempo proposes dedicated infrastructure for stablecoin transfers, featuring isolated payment lanes (separate mempool), 100,000+ TPS throughput, sub-second finality, and transaction fees paid directly in stablecoins.

The Technology. Fundamental Transformation

Payment Lanes. Isolated Infrastructure for Stablecoins

Payment lanes are dedicated pathways that completely isolate payment transactions from other blockchain operations. This architectural separation ensures that payment processing doesn't compete for network resources with NFT minting, DeFi protocols, gaming applications, or other blockchain activities.

The technical implementation uses a dedicated mempool. The staging area where transactions wait before block inclusion, exclusively for payment operations. This "payment lane" optimizes how transactions propagate through the network and reach finality, potentially handling different transaction types through separate processing pathways to prevent any performance interference.

For enterprises managing millions in daily transactions, this architectural isolation delivers consistent performance regardless of activity in other parts of the blockchain. Transaction costs remain stable and denominated in USD terms through stablecoins. Network congestion from unrelated activities cannot impact payment processing speed or costs.

The practical impact. Enterprises can reliably plan operating costs and performance expectations without monitoring broader network conditions or competing for block space through variable gas auctions.

This differs from general-purpose blockchains where payment transactions must compete with all other network activities. Ethereum and Solana process payments alongside DeFi operations, NFT transactions, and smart contract executions in a shared mempool. When network demand increases from any application type, all transaction types experience higher costs and potential delays. Tempo's isolated architecture prevents this interference.

Sub-Second Finality. Technical Implementation

Traditional blockchains like Ethereum use probabilistic finality. Transactions typically receive initial confirmations within 12-15 seconds (one block), with most applications accepting transactions after 2-3 block confirmations (approximately 30-45 seconds). However, absolute economic finality takes approximately 12-15 minutes (about 64 blocks, representing two epochs in Ethereum's Proof of Stake system).

Tempo implements deterministic finality using Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) consensus mechanisms. Once validators confirm a transaction, it achieves immediate and irrevocable finality. The transaction cannot be reversed or reorganized.

The process. Transaction initiation, payment lane routing, validator consensus round, instant finalization. Completing in under one second.

This performance is achievable through Tempo's Proof of Authority (PoA) consensus model. Instead of coordinating among thousands of unknown validators, the initial implementation uses a pre-selected set of institutional validators from trusted financial institutions. This PoA architecture, where validator authority derives from institutional reputation rather than token staking, enables consensus rounds to complete in milliseconds. Fewer validators with enterprise-grade infrastructure can reach transaction agreement far faster than networks with thousands of distributed validators.

This represents a design choice prioritizing immediate performance and enterprise requirements, with planned transition to permissionless validators in later phases.

Proof of Authority. Enterprise Validator Model

As mentioned, Tempo's initial PoA model uses a permissioned validator set expected to include design partners such as Deutsche Bank, Standard Chartered, and Visa. This consortium-based approach provides specific operational advantages.

Immediate performance capability. 100,000+ TPS from initial deployment. Regulatory compliance integration. Validators are regulated financial institutions with established compliance frameworks. Infrastructure reliability. Institutional-grade systems with professional operations and uptime guarantees.

The corresponding trade-off is initial centralization. Network governance and validation authority rest with the consortium of participating institutions rather than a broadly distributed community of independent validators.

However, this reflects strategic prioritization rather than a permanent limitation. Enterprise blockchain adoption requires predictable performance, regulatory compliance, and institutional counterparties that enterprises already trust and have existing relationships with. The published roadmap explicitly includes transitioning to permissionless Proof of Stake operation, where any party meeting technical and potentially regulatory requirements can become a validator.

The initial phase focuses on enterprise adoption and performance validation, with the PoA model enabling the sub-second finality described above. The roadmap includes subsequent transition to broader validator participation.

Gas Fees in Stablecoins. Single-Asset Transaction Model

Most blockchains require users to hold two separate assets for transactions. The asset being transferred and a native token for gas fees. On Ethereum, sending USDC requires USDC plus ETH for gas. On Solana, USDC plus SOL. This dual-asset requirement creates operational friction. Treasury departments must acquire, hold, and manage a volatile gas token simply to transfer stablecoins.

Tempo eliminates this requirement entirely. Transaction fees are paid in the same stablecoin being transferred. Sending USDC incurs fees paid in USDC. Sending USDT incurs fees paid in USDT.

This functionality is implemented through an Automated Market Maker (AMM) integrated at the protocol level. This protocol-level AMM automatically converts whatever stablecoin users pay into the denomination validators require for compensation.

From the user perspective, this simplifies the transaction process. Fees display in USD terms (e.g., $0.001 per transaction), paid in the user's chosen stablecoin, without requiring any additional steps or asset management.

This neutrality is strategically important. Tempo doesn't favor Circle's USDC over Tether's USDT over Stripe's USDB over any other compliant stablecoin. Every issuer has equal protocol-level support. This maximizes potential adoption. Each bank or financial institution can use their preferred stablecoin or even their own tokenized deposit instruments.

This contrasts with XRP's approach, where banks must acquire, hold, transfer, and convert XRP tokens, introducing additional steps including market spreads on purchases and sales, price volatility during holding periods, and treasury management complexity. Tempo's single-asset model eliminates these intermediate conversion requirements.

Reth. Technical Foundation

The technical foundation is Reth, Paradigm's open-source Rust implementation of an Ethereum execution client. Reth represents the fastest available Ethereum client implementation, combining Rust's memory safety and performance characteristics with full EVM compatibility.

EVM compatibility means existing Ethereum smart contracts and development tools can be used on Tempo with minimal modification. The migration path for applications or tooling from Ethereum to Tempo requires primarily configuration changes rather than code rewrites.

For Tempo's infrastructure, Reth provides proven, production-tested blockchain execution engine optimized for performance, then customized specifically for payment-focused use cases through the payment lane architecture and other modifications.

Transforming Digital Payment Rails. Infrastructure Development

Dankrad Feist. Ethereum Scaling Architecture Expertise

On October 17, 2025, Dankrad Feist announced he was joining Tempo as a senior engineer, transitioning from his full-time role at the Ethereum Foundation while maintaining advisory involvement in specific Ethereum initiatives.

Feist is a prominent figure in Ethereum development circles, known primarily for his work on scaling solutions. He joined the Ethereum Foundation in 2018 as a researcher, becoming a full-time core contributor in 2019. His primary contributions include Danksharding, the co-created Ethereum's sharding scaling approach which bears his name. PeerDAS (Peer Data Availability Sampling), pioneer of this data availability solution scheduled for implementation in Ethereum's Fusaka upgrade. Extensive work on Layer 1 scaling mechanisms, blob transactions for data availability, and user experience improvements in Ethereum protocols.

His stated reasoning for the transition. "I believe that the real world moment is now, and I want to make sure we do not miss this window to touch normal people's lives everywhere in the world."

His transition generated significant discussion within the cryptocurrency community. Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum's co-founder, publicly expressed support for Feist's decision. Other community members characterized it as a loss for open-source blockchain development in favor of corporate infrastructure projects.

Feist clarified his perspective. Tempo complements Ethereum rather than competing with it. He emphasized that open-source technology developed for Tempo can integrate back into the Ethereum ecosystem, and both projects share "permissionless ideals" as design principles. He will continue as a research advisor to the Ethereum Foundation, focusing on Layer 1 scaling, blob transactions, and user experience initiatives.

Technical Contribution to Tempo

Feist's expertise in Layer 1 blockchain scaling, sharding architectures, data availability mechanisms, and consensus protocols directly addresses Tempo's core technical challenges. Delivering 100,000+ transactions per second with sub-second finality while maintaining security properties and enabling eventual decentralization.

His work on Ethereum involved scaling a general-purpose blockchain with backward compatibility constraints and a massive existing ecosystem. At Tempo, he applies this knowledge to infrastructure designed specifically for payments from inception, without legacy system constraints.

Payment Infrastructure Context

Traditional payment infrastructure has remained largely unchanged for decades. SWIFT handles messaging but not actual fund transfers. ACH processes transactions in batches overnight. International wire transfers cost $25-50 and take hours to days. Card network settlements occur in T+2 or T+3 timeframes.

Blockchain technology has proposed improvements to these systems. Bitcoin was originally conceived as peer-to-peer electronic cash. Ethereum enabled programmable money and smart contracts. XRP positioned itself as a bridge currency for interbank transfers.

However, widespread adoption for routine payment transactions has remained limited. Bitcoin's transaction throughput (approximately 7 TPS) and price volatility limit payment use cases. Ethereum's transaction costs and variable confirmation times create challenges for high-volume payment processing. XRP's requirement that institutions use a third-party token introduces considerations around volatility management and treasury operations.

Tempo takes a specialized approach. Purpose-built infrastructure designed specifically for payment transactions, developed with financial institution participation from the initial design phase.

The Global Ecosystem. Institutional and Technology Participation

Banking and Payment Networks

Visa, operating one of the world's largest payment networks, participates as a design partner testing Tempo for B2B cross-border settlements and remittance applications.

Deutsche Bank and Standard Chartered bring traditional banking institutional credibility. Deutsche Bank represents European banking infrastructure and regulatory experience. Standard Chartered provides extensive Asia-Pacific market presence and cross-border payment expertise. Both institutions are testing tokenized deposit concepts and 24/7 settlement capabilities.

These institutions participate as design partners in the development phase and are expected to operate as validators in the network. This differs from traditional client-vendor relationships. Participants contribute to infrastructure design and will operate core network functions.

Revolut (45M+ users globally), Nubank (100M+ customers in Latin America), and Mercury (banking platform for startups) represent the digital financial services segment. Lead Bank provides traditional banking infrastructure integration experience.

E-Commerce and Platform Economy

Shopify operates e-commerce infrastructure for millions of online merchants globally. Their participation focuses on instant payout capabilities for merchants. Enabling real-time stablecoin transfers rather than traditional T+2 settlement cycles.

DoorDash represents on-demand service platforms and gig economy payment requirements. Testing includes instant payment capabilities for delivery drivers and restaurant partners, replacing batch payment processing with real-time settlement.

Coupang, a major e-commerce platform in South Korea, validates Tempo's relevance in Asian markets and provides perspective on regional payment requirements.

AI Research Organizations

OpenAI (developers of ChatGPT) and Anthropic (developers of Claude AI) participate focusing on emerging payment paradigms for AI systems.

The specific use case involves autonomous AI agents making payments independently. Potentially thousands of micropayments per hour for API calls, computational resources, data access, or other services. Current payment infrastructure cannot efficiently support this transaction volume and frequency due to transaction costs and settlement delays.

Tempo's technical specifications, sub-second finality and low transaction costs paid in stablecoins, could support high-frequency micropayments required for autonomous AI agent transactions.

Network Coverage

The participant constellation provides geographic and industry vertical distribution.

Geographic coverage. Europe (Deutsche Bank, Revolut). North America (Stripe, Shopify, DoorDash, Mercury, OpenAI, Anthropic). Latin America (Nubank). Asia-Pacific (Standard Chartered, Coupang).

Industry vertical coverage. Traditional banking institutions. Global payment networks. E-commerce platforms. Digital financial services and neobanks. Artificial intelligence research and applications.

Distribution potential. The combined user base reaches hundreds of millions of users globally. Stripe (100M+ merchant accounts). Visa (billions of cardholders). Nubank (100M+ customers). Shopify (millions of merchant stores). Revolut (45M+ users). OpenAI (hundreds of millions of API users).

Comparative Context. Different Approaches to Blockchain Payments

Understanding Tempo's design requires context of alternative approaches to blockchain-based settlement infrastructure.

XRP and RippleNet

XRP and RippleNet have operated since 2012, establishing market presence in blockchain-based interbank settlement. In XRP's operational model, banks using RippleNet for cross-border transfers with XRP as a bridge currency engage in a multi-step process. Acquiring XRP tokens through market purchases, holding XRP in treasury, transferring XRP across the ledger for settlement, and selling XRP tokens back to local currency at destination.

This process involves certain operational considerations. Price movements during the holding period between purchase and sale. Market spreads on buying and selling operations. Treasury management for volatile asset positions. Regulatory classification questions that the SEC addressed through legal proceedings concluded in 2023.

XRP's architecture uses their Unique Node List (UNL) validator system, processing approximately 1,500 transactions per second with 3-5 second settlement times.

Ethereum and Solana

Ethereum and Solana represent general-purpose blockchain platforms supporting diverse applications beyond payments. Ethereum processes approximately 15-20 transactions per second on its base layer, with transactions typically confirming in 12-15 seconds and most applications accepting finality after 30-45 seconds. Transaction fees are paid in ETH, requiring users to hold both the stablecoin being transferred and ETH for gas costs.

Solana offers higher throughput, processing several thousand transactions per second with sub-second confirmation times in practice. However, payment transactions share network resources with DeFi protocols, NFT operations, and other applications. Transaction fees are paid in SOL.

Both platforms excel at their design purpose. Supporting diverse decentralized applications, smart contracts, and programmable money. Payment transactions represent one use case among many, processed through the same infrastructure serving all other applications.

Tempo's Differentiated Model

Tempo's design addresses specific requirements of payment-focused infrastructure through several architectural choices.

Asset model. Instead of requiring a bridge token (XRP) or gas token (ETH, SOL), Tempo enables institutions to use existing fiat-backed stablecoins. USDC from Circle, USDT from Tether, USDB from Bridge, or potentially tokenized bank deposits. Transaction fees are paid in the same stablecoin being transferred.

Infrastructure participation. Rather than functioning as users of external protocols, financial institutions participate as validators in Tempo's Proof of Authority model. This provides governance participation and infrastructure ownership.

Transaction isolation. Payment operations process through dedicated lanes separate from other blockchain activities. This architectural separation prevents payment performance from being affected by congestion from DeFi protocols, NFT minting, or other applications.

Performance specifications. Tempo targets 100,000+ transactions per second with sub-second deterministic finality, enabled by the Proof of Authority consensus model with a smaller set of institutional validators.

Regulatory positioning. Stablecoins operate under developing regulatory frameworks with increasing clarity. The proposed GENIUS Act in the United States and MiCA regulations in the European Union provide defined parameters for stablecoin operation.

These design choices reflect optimization for enterprise payment requirements. Stable assets, predictable performance, infrastructure ownership, and integration with existing financial systems.

Project Status. Development Phase

As of Q4 2025, Tempo operates in private testnet phase. The infrastructure is functional and processing test transactions with design partner participation.

Design partners are validating specific use case implementations. Payroll processing (instant salary disbursements in stablecoins). Cross-border remittances (international transfers between different currencies and jurisdictions). B2B payments (enterprise invoicing and settlement). Agentic payments (autonomous AI system transactions). Merchant settlements (real-time payment to e-commerce sellers).

Performance validation includes stress testing the stated parameters. 100,000+ TPS throughput, sub-second finality, predictable fee structures denominated in USD terms.

The development roadmap includes public testnet (timeline not publicly specified), mainnet launch (timeline not publicly specified), validator transition (progressive shift from permissioned to permissionless validator participation), and integration completion (full connection with Stripe's payment infrastructure and Bridge's stablecoin platform).

Tempo is actively recruiting across engineering roles, partnership positions, and operations functions. Indicating preparation for production-scale deployment.

Leadership and Organizational Structure

Matt Huang. Chief Executive Officer

Matt Huang serves as CEO of Tempo while maintaining his role as co-founder and managing partner at Paradigm. Before Paradigm, he was a partner at Sequoia Capital.

Since 2021, Huang has held a board seat at Stripe. A seven-member board that includes Stripe's co-founders Patrick and John Collison and two representatives from Sequoia Capital.

Huang's background spans traditional venture capital (Sequoia Capital), cryptocurrency investment (Paradigm), and payments infrastructure (Stripe board member).

Patrick Collison. Stripe CEO and Strategic Sponsor

Patrick Collison co-founded Stripe in 2010 with his brother John. Over fifteen years, Stripe has grown to a $91.5 billion valuation and processes payments for millions of businesses globally across over 100 countries.

The company's cryptocurrency strategy has followed a deliberate progression. 2018 (discontinues Bitcoin payment support). 2021 (Matt Huang joins Stripe's board). 2024 (restarts cryptocurrency payment support). February 2025 (acquires Bridge for $1.1 billion). May 2025 (launches Stablecoin Financial Accounts). June 2025 (acquires Privy, supporting 75M+ wallets). September 2025 (announces Tempo blockchain development).

This represents systematic vertical integration. Bridge (stablecoin issuance and management) plus Privy (wallet infrastructure and key management) plus Tempo (blockchain settlement layer) plus Stripe (payment APIs and merchant services) equals integrated infrastructure spanning from blockchain protocol to merchant payment acceptance.

Dankrad Feist. Senior Engineer

Dankrad Feist joined Tempo on October 17, 2025, after serving as a researcher at the Ethereum Foundation since 2018. His Ethereum contributions include Danksharding (co-architect of Ethereum's sharding scaling design), PeerDAS (lead developer scheduled for Ethereum's Fusaka upgrade), scaling research (extensive work on Layer 1 blockchain scaling, blob transactions), and technical proposals (author of multiple Ethereum Improvement Proposals).

At Tempo, Feist serves as senior engineer focusing on blockchain architecture, consensus mechanisms, and scaling implementations. He maintains an advisory role at the Ethereum Foundation for specific initiatives.

Organizational Foundation

Paradigm provides blockchain technical infrastructure through Reth, the open-source Rust-based Ethereum execution client. Beyond software infrastructure, Paradigm contributes blockchain architecture expertise, connections throughout cryptocurrency and blockchain ecosystems, experience with cryptoeconomic mechanism design and consensus protocols, and portfolio synergies with other infrastructure projects.

Stripe brings operational experience in payment processing at global scale. Processes billions of dollars in payments annually across 135+ countries. Maintains compliance infrastructure spanning multiple regulatory jurisdictions. Operates systems requiring extreme reliability and uptime. Manages relationships with banks, card networks, and regulatory bodies globally.

Tempo operates as an independent company with its own full-time team. Stripe and Paradigm participated as initial investors and maintain strategic involvement.

Strategic Analysis. Infrastructure for Payment-First Blockchain

Tempo represents specialized infrastructure development for a specific blockchain use case. High-volume stablecoin payments requiring predictable performance, regulatory compliance, and integration with existing financial systems.

The project's technical design reflects payment-specific optimization. Isolated payment lanes prevent payment transactions from competing with other blockchain activities. Sub-second deterministic finality through BFT-style consensus enables immediate, irrevocable transaction confirmation. Stablecoin-native fee structure eliminates the requirement for separate gas tokens. EVM compatibility provides migration paths for existing Ethereum development tools. Proof of Authority consensus enables high performance through coordination among a smaller set of institutional validators.

The validator and design partner structure differs from typical blockchain development. Financial institutions participate not just as users or customers, but as infrastructure operators and co-designers. This provides infrastructure ownership, compliance integration (validators are regulated financial institutions), enterprise requirements (design input from major institutions), and distribution channels (participation from companies with hundreds of millions of combined users).

Several market developments provide context. Stablecoin market expansion (growth from approximately $10B in 2020 to $270B in 2025). Regulatory framework development (progression toward defined regulatory parameters in major jurisdictions). Institutional blockchain adoption (increasing financial institution exploration of blockchain-based settlement). Emerging AI payment patterns (development of autonomous AI agent systems requiring high-frequency micropayment capabilities).

Operational model characteristics include phased decentralization approach (initial deployment with permissioned validators, explicit roadmap toward permissionless validator participation), multi-stablecoin neutrality (protocol-level support for multiple compliant stablecoins), vertical integration strategy (combination of blockchain protocol, stablecoin infrastructure, wallet systems, and merchant payment services), and enterprise development standards (measured progression through private testnet, public testnet, and mainnet phases).

Assessment. Specialized Infrastructure Development

Tempo represents infrastructure development targeting specific requirements of payment-focused blockchain applications rather than general-purpose blockchain platforms.

The project combines experienced leadership (team backgrounds spanning payment processing, blockchain development, and scaling architecture), institutional participation (direct involvement from major financial institutions as design partners and likely validators), operational infrastructure (functional system in private testnet currently processing test transactions), technical differentiation (architecture choices specifically targeting payment use cases), and strategic integration (positioning within Stripe's broader cryptocurrency strategy).

Blockchain-based payment infrastructure continues developing across multiple approaches. General-purpose platforms like Ethereum and Solana prioritize application diversity and programmability. Bridge currency models like XRP enable interbank settlement through a protocol-specific token. Payment-specialized infrastructure like Tempo optimizes specifically for stablecoin settlement.

Enterprise adoption will likely depend on alignment between architectural characteristics and specific institutional requirements. Asset stability and regulatory clarity for treasury operations. Infrastructure ownership and governance models affecting operational control. Technical performance specifications including throughput, finality speed, and cost predictability. Integration capabilities with existing financial systems and operational workflows.

Tempo's model addresses specific enterprise requirements. Stablecoin-native architecture, institutional validator participation, isolated payment processing, integration with Stripe's merchant infrastructure. The approach differs from general-purpose platforms and bridge currency models, representing specialized optimization for payment use cases.

The project's significance lies in demonstrating systematic infrastructure development for payment-focused blockchain applications, combining technical blockchain expertise, operational payment processing experience, and institutional financial services participation.

Just a few days ago, Google quietly published something that might turn out to be one of the most important milestones in the evolution of AI and Web3. On its official blog, the company announced the Agent Payments Protocol (AP2).

The very first words they used set the stage:

Authorization. Authenticity. Accountability.

It almost reads like the opening lines of a Web3 whitepaper. The core values of decentralized technology are now being adopted as the foundation for a new open standard designed to allow AI agents to transact safely on behalf of their users.

Agents Enter the World of Transactions

Up until now, AI agents have mostly been about productivity, creativity, and automation. They could write, code, generate images, and optimize workflows. But commerce? That was always the missing piece.

With AP2, agents gain the ability not just to identify themselves and prove authorization, but to actually execute financial transactions. This is the moment when interactions between AI agents move to a completely new level: they can now buy, sell, and settle payments in real time.

And here’s where one detail from Google’s announcement becomes especially important. Among the more than 60 organizations backing AP2 is Coinbase, bringing its X402 protocol into the mix. X402 is designed for micropayments and API monetization, giving AI agents the ability to pay “as they go” instead of locking into subscriptions. Combined with stablecoins like USDC, this means an agent can autonomously spend a few cents for an API call, access to market data, or compute power instantly, securely, and without human intervention.

Why AP2 Matters

Picture this, you ask your AI agent to organize a vacation. It finds the best flights, books a hotel, and arranges a rental car within your budget. Sounds convenient—until the moment comes to pay. Until now, a human was always required to enter card details or approve the transaction.

AP2 changes that by solving three critical problems:

Authorization – The agent can only act within the boundaries of your explicit, cryptographically secured consent.

Authenticity – Every request for payment matches your true intent, preventing errors or manipulation.

Accountability – The system makes it clear who is responsible if something goes wrong: the user, the agent, or the merchant.

In short, AP2 provides a universal language of trust for transactions between AI and the financial system.

Web3 as the Natural Backbone

If this all sounds familiar, it’s because blockchain and Web3 have been building exactly these mechanics for years:

• Immutable public ledgers.
• Programmable money.
• Smart contracts that guarantee enforceability of agreements.

It’s hard not to see how much AP2 borrows from the Web3 playbook. The difference is that now, these ideas are being implemented by one of the largest players in tech—and aimed directly at making AI agents economically autonomous.

Coinbase and Ethereum Step In

Google isn’t building this in isolation. Over 60 organizations are backing AP2, and among them are two giants of Web3, Coinbase and the Ethereum Foundation.

Coinbase brings the infrastructure and expertise to integrate digital assets and stablecoins into global payments.

Ethereum Foundation signals that this protocol won’t be closed off—it’s designed with interoperability and public blockchains in mind.

Stablecoins and Coinbase X402

One of the most exciting aspects of AP2 is its native support for stablecoins, but that alone isn’t enough for full autonomy. To really enable agents to pay, settle, and monetize without human friction, you need a payments protocol built for machine-to-machine, real-time, microtransaction scenarios. That’s where Coinbase’s x402 enters, and it’s uniquely positioned to complement AP2 thanks to its architecture, benefits, and comparison with legacy payment systems.

What is x402 exactly?

• Internet-native payments using stablecoins over HTTP. x402 is an open standard/protocol introduced by Coinbase that allows instant stablecoin payments directly over HTTP.
• Using HTTP status code 402. It resurrects the long-unused HTTP 402 (“Payment Required”) code so that when a client (which might be a browser, app, or AI agent) requests a paid resource, the server responds with 402 including pricing info, supported tokens (e.g., USDC), destination wallet addresses etc.
• Simple payment flow. After the 402 response, the client sends a payment payload (signed), then repeats the request with a header (e.g., X-PAYMENT) including the payment info. The server or a facilitator then verifies the payment on-chain, settles it, and returns a normal 200 OK with a payment receipt header.
• Stablecoin, but token-agnostic in design. While USDC is primary now, the protocol is built to support other tokens / stablecoins in the future.

How x402 works with AP2 and what this combination enables

Because AP2 is about establishing a standardized framework for agents to transact (authorization, authenticity, accountability), x402 fills in the payments piece: it’s the stablecoin facilitator in AP2’s ecosystem. Some concrete capabilities this combo unlocks:

• Agents can not only talk/coordinate (via AP2’s standards) but also pay each other for services, data, compute, etc., without human intervention.
• Micropayments by agents for resource usage (e.g. cloud compute, data access), per‐call APIs, content snippets etc., become practical. No need for subscriptions that overshoot usage or manual billing.
• Real-time monetization: content providers, SaaS, and API providers can charge exactly for usage (pay-per-use), rather than forcing flat fees or subscription tiers.
• Reduced friction, users (or agents) don’t need to manage credit cards, worry about payment setup every time. Once the protocol is integrated, payment becomes part of the request flow.

A New Opening for Web3

For years, the Web3 industry has been searching for its next big narrative after ICOs, IDOs, DeFi, metaverse, and gaming. AP2 may be it.

Autonomous AI agents, empowered by stablecoins and smart contracts, represent a real business use case,not speculation, not hype. This is the kind of adoption that could redefine decentralized finance and finally bridge Web3 into mainstream commerce.

It’s also a moment where the lessons of the past eight years in Web3 tokenization, governance, DeFi protocols—can be applied directly to the AI economy.

CalCompute is back like a boomerang. California wants to democratize AI – but what does that really mean?

Just a few days ago, on September 29, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 53 – the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act. The legislation introduces new transparency standards for operators of the largest LLM models: requiring public disclosure of security protocols, reporting of critical incidents, and protecting whistleblowers at AI companies.

AI regulation, while still controversial, is slowly becoming a global standard. Europe is sharpening its teeth – the AI Act is gaining force, and EU countries are gradually implementing its provisions. California, historically a pioneer in tech regulation (remember CCPA or net neutrality?), is once again charting its own course in the face of federal decision-making paralysis.

But there's one element of SB 53 that intrigues me far more than yet another compliance requirement – CalCompute.

A story that keeps coming back

CalCompute isn't a new idea. It first appeared in February 2024 as part of a far more controversial bill, SB 1047, authored by State Senator Scott Wiener. That bill was a lightning rod in the tech world – it aimed to impose strict regulations on creators of "frontier AI models," meaning models whose training costs exceed $100 million.

SB 1047 required:

• Pre-deployment safety testing
• Audits by independent firms
• Penalties reaching up to 30% of model training costs for repeat violations
• Legal liability for creators – including open-source developers

Reactions? Mixed. Elon Musk supported it. Nancy Pelosi called it "more harmful than helpful." Meta's Yann LeCun warned it would kill open-source models. Anthropic (creators of Claude) was cautiously positive, but with reservations.

In September 2024, Governor Newsom vetoed SB 1047. The reason? Too restrictive, too much legal uncertainty, risk of pushing innovation out of California.

But there was one thing in that bill everyone agreed on – CalCompute.

What exactly is CalCompute?

CalCompute is a project to create a public computing cluster – a supercomputer that would be accessible to:

• Academic researchers
• Startups without budgets for multi-million dollar infrastructure
• Community groups working on AI in the public interest
• Institutions focused on disaster forecasting or medical research

Why does this matter?

Training advanced AI models requires massive computing power, costing tens, often hundreds of millions of dollars. This creates a natural barrier to entry – only tech giants (OpenAI, Google, Meta, Anthropic) can afford it. Smaller players, even with brilliant ideas, are outmatched from the start.

CalCompute aims to change that. The idea is simple: democratize access to computing power so AI isn't the exclusive domain of a few Silicon Valley corporations.

The consortium is set to be established at the University of California, comprising representatives from academia, labor unions, AI experts, ethicists, and public interest advocates. By January 2026, they're expected to present a detailed plan: how much it will cost, how large the cluster should be, who will have access, and under what terms.

Why did CalCompute survive while SB 1047 failed?

Senator Wiener learned his lesson. After the SB 1047 veto, Governor Newsom convened a group of experts (including AI "godmother" Fei-Fei Li from Stanford), which released a report in June 2025. The conclusion? AI regulations are needed, but they must be empirical, flexible, and based on a "trust but verify" approach.

SB 53 is exactly that version 2.0 – taking the least controversial elements from SB 1047:

• Whistleblower protections
• CalCompute
• Transparency requirements (instead of harsh penalties)

And it leaves the door open for evolution – California's Department of Technology is required to annually update the regulations based on technological developments and stakeholder consultations.

Sounds great. But does it really?

The idea of AI democratization is brilliant. A world where not only OpenAI or Google decide what models are created and what they're used for is a better world. CalCompute could:

• Level the playing field for smaller players
• Enable research on AI in the public interest (medicine, climate, crisis management)
• Balance excessive concentration of power in Big Tech's hands

But there's also a flip side.

What happens when the government starts deciding who gets access to computing power and who doesn't? Who gets a slot on CalCompute's calendar – and according to what criteria?

Could the concept of "AI in the public interest" become, in practice, what those in power deem a "desirable" use of technology? Might a mechanism emerge where politically inconvenient projects have harder access to resources?

And there's an even more fundamental question: CalCompute could become the de facto standard for what AI can and cannot be.

If the public cluster gains dominance as the training infrastructure for AI, then the government – not the market, open-source community, or researchers – becomes the Oracle defining the boundaries of technology. Even with noble intentions, the path to control is short.

What's next?

SB 53 is just the beginning. This is pioneering regulation – the first of its kind in the US – but the world is watching. If CalCompute succeeds, we might see similar initiatives in other states or countries. If it fails – it will serve as a warning of how easily good intentions can morph into government overreach.

Questions worth asking:

• Does AI democratization require state infrastructure, or could it work better through open-source and community efforts?
• How do we ensure CalCompute doesn't become a tool of political control?
• Will California repeat past mistakes where regulations – instead of protecting – stifled innovation?

I'm a proponent of AI regulation. But I'm also skeptical of simple solutions to complex problems. CalCompute sounds good on paper, but the devil – as always – is in the implementation details.

California is experimenting. We're watching.

What do you think? Is CalCompute the future of democratic AI, or the beginning of something concerning?

How Crypto Fintech's Role is Transforming in the Era of AI Agent Adoption

The financial technology landscape is experiencing a seismic shift. As you read this, a new digital payment infrastructure is being built—one that fundamentally changes how humans interact with commerce.

This isn't about replacing human decision-making. It's about giving people unprecedented control over how they delegate and monitor transactions executed by AI agents on their behalf. Crypto fintech is emerging as the crucial bridge, the gateway that allows humans to remain in the loop while enabling AI agents to handle the execution.

The transformation isn't "humans vs. machines" or even "humans replaced by machines." It's about crypto fintech becoming the control layer, the interface where human intent meets machine execution. Where we, as humans, define the parameters, set the limits, grant permissions, and maintain ultimate authority, while AI agents handle the searching, comparing, negotiating, and transacting.

Always human-in-the-loop, but with a fundamentally new way of delegating and controlling the transactions that AI agents execute on our behalf.

The Convergence. When AI Meets Payments

This shift is happening because three simultaneous revolutions are converging: the emergence of capable AI agents that can act autonomously within defined parameters, the maturation of blockchain technology that enables programmable, transparent money, and the urgent need for payment systems that let humans delegate transactional authority without surrendering control.

Google is rolling out the Agent Payments Protocol (AP2) with backing from over 60 industry leaders. Coinbase is breathing life into the long-dormant HTTP 402 status code through their x402 protocol, enabling direct stablecoin payments where humans approve once and agents execute within bounds.

Meanwhile, Stripe is masterfully blending crypto infrastructure with traditional banking rails through their acquisition and expansion of Bridge, creating a seamless bridge between two worlds that were once thought irreconcilable.

On the AI front, Sam Altman demonstrated at OpenAI's Dev Day how AI agents will independently execute and complete tasks in external applications, introducing simple tools for their creation.

Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) has filled a critical gap, connecting and energizing the fintech, e-commerce, and software development communities that are now racing to implement agents for everyday businesses.

But from a fintech startup perspective, the most profound shift is how Stripe, Coinbase, and Google are completely blending crypto and traditional payment systems, creating an entirely new playing field for companies like ours.

The Great Blending. Custodial Meets Self-Custodial

Stripe Bridge. The Custodial Approach

Stripe's strategy with Bridge represents an elegant solution for bringing stablecoins into mainstream commerce while maintaining the user experience that traditional finance has perfected.

By acquiring Bridge for $1.1 billion, Stripe gained a platform that handles the complexity of blockchain infrastructure entirely behind the scenes.

Bridge operates in a custodial model, holding user stablecoin balances (USDC from Circle or USDB from Bridge itself) and enabling seamless conversions between stablecoins and regional fiat currencies.

Coinbase x402. Preserving Self-Custody

In stark contrast, Coinbase's approach with x402 and CDP Wallets maintains the crypto ethos of self-custody while still enabling the seamless experiences that modern commerce demands.

The x402 protocol revives HTTP status code 402 "Payment Required," turning it into a production-ready standard for stablecoin payments that work directly over HTTP.

What makes x402 revolutionary is its simplicity. A server responds with a 402 status, including payment details (amount, wallet address, blockchain network). The client signs the payment using their own wallet—mone.my or MetaMask—and retries the request with proof of payment.

Settlement happens on-chain in seconds with zero facilitator fees, and users maintain complete control of their private keys.

When combined with Google's Agent Payments Protocol, x402 enables something extraordinary. Users can grant spending authority to AI agents through web3 signed "mandates" without ever surrendering custody of their funds.

The agent can search, compare, and purchase—all while the user sleeps, but can only spend what was explicitly authorized, from the user's self-custodial wallet.

Polygon. The Aggregation Layer

Polygon is building critical infrastructure that sits between these approaches, focusing heavily on stablecoins as the medium of exchange for the agent economy.

Their aggregation layer enables efficient cross-chain transactions and lower fees, making it economically viable for AI agents to execute the micropayments and frequent transactions that will characterize machine-to-machine commerce.

Google's Master Play. Agent Payments Protocol (AP2)

Google isn't merely building another payment system—they're establishing the lingua franca for agentic commerce.

AP2, developed in collaboration with over 60 partners including Mastercard, American Express, PayPal, Coinbase, and major Southeast Asian platforms, provides a framework for secure, auditable payments initiated by AI agents.

The protocol addresses three critical questions that autonomous payments raise: Authorization (did the user actually permit this?), Authenticity (does this reflect genuine user intent?), and Accountability (who's responsible if something goes wrong?).

AP2's answer is a system of "mandates"—cryptographically signed, tamper-proof credentials that create an irrefutable audit trail.

But perhaps more significant is what Google is building this for. The company isn't standing still while ChatGPT reshapes how people search for information and make decisions.

In the coming days and weeks, we'll witness Google Search transform into an agentic conversational application, one that doesn't just find information but can act on it—including making purchases on your behalf.

The Real Impact on Traditional E-commerce

For traditional e-commerce businesses, the writing is on the wall. The Model Context Protocol isn't just another technical standard, it's potentially a new distribution channel. Possibly the most important one emerging since mobile apps.

With ChatGPT's growing share of product search and Google's transformation into an agentic platform, implementing MCP isn't optional—it's existential.

E-commerce businesses that don't expose their products and services through MCP servers risk becoming invisible to the next generation of discovery: AI agents shopping on behalf of users.

But MCP is gaining a crucial new capability. Payment Request Protocols. When combined with what the Ethereum network is consistently implementing, this gives AI agents true autonomy in executing transactions.

The Self-Custodial Future. Agents That Shop While You Sleep

Imagine this scenario: You open your mone.my wallet and sign an "Intent Mandate"—a web3 signed authorization that says "Find me Nike Air Max 270 in size 42, maximum price $100, from verified retailers only, valid for 30 days."

You approve a spending allowance of 100 USDC from your wallet. Then you close your laptop and go to sleep.

Your AI agent immediately gets to work. It queries MCP servers from dozens of retailers, comparing prices, checking inventory, and validating merchant reputations.

At 3 AM, it finds a perfect match, an authentic pair for $89 USDC at a verified retailer. The agent validates that this meets all your mandate constraints, generates a "Cart Mandate" with the specific purchase details, and executes the payment directly from your wallet using the x402 protocol.

When you wake up, you have a confirmation: product purchased, $89 USDC spent (saving you $11), order confirmed, tracking number provided, and complete blockchain receipt showing exactly what happened.

All while you were sleeping. All from your self-custodial wallet. All within the parameters you set.

This isn't science fiction—this is what AP2 + x402 + MCP enables today.

Redefining the Role of Fintech in the Agent Economy

This convergence completely transforms and redefines the role of fintech companies in the emerging agent economy.

We're no longer just building payment processors or wallet applications—we're creating the economic infrastructure that enables autonomous digital entities to participate in commerce on behalf of humans who remain in ultimate control.

The fintech companies that will thrive in this new paradigm are those that understand they're building for two types of users: humans who delegate authority, and agents that execute it.

The technical requirements are fundamentally different. Agents need microsecond response times, deterministic pricing, clear audit trails, and the ability to transact across potentially thousands of merchants per second.

Humans need intuitive controls, clear security boundaries, and the confidence that their digital representatives won't go rogue.

This positions fintech founders and builders as guides through uncharted territory, helping both businesses and consumers understand not just how to use these new tools, but how to think about delegation, authority, and trust in an increasingly automated world.

Crypto Is No Longer Taboo—It's Infrastructure

The narrative has shifted fundamentally. Crypto is no longer a speculative sideshow or a libertarian experiment. It's rapidly becoming the preferred foundation for digital payment rails, and for good reasons:

• Speed: Settlement in seconds, not days
• Cost: Minimal fees compared to traditional card networks
• Programmability: Smart contracts enable complex transaction logic
• Composability: Payment rails that can be built upon and extended
• Global: No borders, no foreign exchange friction
• Transparent: Immutable records of every transaction
• Machine-Native: Designed for programmatic access from the ground up

On September 15, Davide Crapis, one of Ethereum Foundation's leading researchers, tweeted: "Our mission: make Ethereum the preferred settlement and coordination layer for AI and the machine economy."

This isn't idle speculation. The Ethereum ecosystem is systematically building the infrastructure for autonomous agents through initiatives like Account Abstraction (ERC-4337), agent discovery and verification standards (ERC-8004), agent reputation systems (EIP-7951), and structured message signing (EIP-712).

Every one of these improvements is designed to make blockchain transactions more agent-friendly.

The Investors Are Paying Attention

Jeff Bezos famously said: "I'm interested in things that don't change. I want to put my energy into something where I can work hard, and that work will still be paying dividends for customers 10 years from now."

The shift toward programmable money and agent-native payment rails represents exactly that kind of fundamental change. The most influential investors in the technology sector have taken notice.

Ben Horowitz, co-founder of a16z, articulated it perfectly: "If you're an AI, you can't have a credit card. Crypto is like an economic network for AI."

This isn't about speculation or token prices—it's about infrastructure. AI agents can't navigate ACH transfers, credit card authorizations, or banking APIs designed for humans filling out web forms.

They need payment rails built for code: permissionless, programmable, and instant. That's what crypto provides.

What This Means for mone.my superapp.

In the face of these changes, a superapp like mone.my combining a self-custodial wallet with a marketplace of applications and games, takes on entirely new significance.

After years of costly experimentation and learning this emerging market, our team is connecting the puzzle pieces into one cohesive picture.

A picture of new fintech.

We're building at the intersection of three powerful trends. Self-custodial finance (users own their assets), agentic commerce (AI that transacts on your behalf), and programmable money (smart contracts and stablecoins).

The wallet isn't just a place to store value—it's the economic identity of your AI agents. The marketplace isn't just a collection of apps—it's an ecosystem of services that agents can discover, evaluate, and purchase from on your behalf.

The MCP servers we're implementing aren't just API endpoints—they're the storefronts of the agent economy. And the payment rails we're integrating—x402, AP2, self-custodial wallets—aren't just technical plumbing.

They're the foundation of autonomous commerce where humans retain control while agents execute.

The Path Forward

The transformation happening right now will reshape e-commerce, redefine fintech, and create entirely new categories of businesses.

The companies that will succeed are those that understand a fundamental truth. We're not just adding AI features to existing products. We're reimagining commerce itself for an era where your digital representative can negotiate, transact, and optimize on your behalf—24/7, across global markets, all while you maintain complete control.

The question isn't whether AI agents will change how we transact. The question is whether your business will be ready when they do.

The infrastructure is being built right now. The protocols are being finalized. The early adopters are already onboard.

The future of commerce isn't human-to-business. It's human-delegating-to-agent-to-business, powered by programmable money, operating at the speed of code, with humans always in control. And that future is already here.