Why Stripe, JP Morgan, and Circle Will Never Use Each Other’s Chains — and Why the Future Is L1 + L2

※ This article is published in its current form and will be updated in two days to match the final Daily Crypto Times (DCT) format.

Why Major Institutions Refuse to Run on Each Other’s Chains:
And Why the Future Converges on Ethereum L1 with Institution-Specific L2s

For deeper context, you may want to read the following previous articles:

• The Future of Digital Financial Infrastructure: Why L1 Fragmentation Fails and L2 Becomes the Best Business Model
• Ethereum’s Next Decade: The L2 Revolution Transforming Finance, AI, Gaming, and Social Networks
• What Bitcoin Doesn’t Have but Ethereum Does: The Real Meaning of Receipts and Blobs

Recently, zkSync founder Alex Gluchowski made a striking observation.

“Stripe wants everything to happen on Tempo. JP Morgan wants everything to happen on JP Morgan Chain. Circle wants everything to happen on Arc. Large institutions will never agree to run on another institution’s infrastructure. That’s why Ethereum is the only neutral option everyone can agree on.”

His statement highlights the real constraints institutions face when choosing blockchain infrastructure.

1) Why Major Institutions Refuse to Run on Each Other’s Networks

Stripe, JP Morgan, and Circle are all building their own chains. Yet none of them will ever operate on a competitor’s chain. The reasons are clear.

Loss of Control

Running on a competitor’s chain means surrendering control over upgrades, fees, and governance. No institution will place its core financial infrastructure under a rival’s authority.

Data Sovereignty Risks

For financial institutions, data is a strategic asset. Publishing data on a competitor’s chain means losing sovereignty over critical information.

Strategic Dependence

Institutions risk losing negotiation power, technological independence, and regulatory clarity if they rely on another institution’s infrastructure.

Regulatory and Audit Exposure

Responsibility becomes unclear when operating on a competitor’s chain, creating additional regulatory and audit risks.

In short, institutions will never use each other’s L1s. They need a neutral base layer — and that is Ethereum L1.

2) Does Ethereum L1’s Receipt Transparency Pose a Problem for Institutions?

Ethereum records all transaction execution results as receipts. At first glance, this may seem like a transparency risk. But in reality, institutions have little to worry about.

Receipts Do Not Contain Sensitive Data

Receipts only include success/failure status, gas usage, event logs, and internal calls. They do not include customer data, contract details, or proprietary business information.

Transparency Helps with Regulatory Compliance

Auditability is essential for institutions. Receipts provide immutable execution records that strengthen regulatory reporting.

Sensitive Data Stays on L2 or Off-Chain

Institutions process sensitive information on L2s, privacy layers, or off-chain databases. Only non-sensitive execution metadata touches L1.

In other words, Ethereum exposes only what is safe to expose.

3) The Realistic Model: Ethereum L1 + Institution-Specific L2s

If institutions cannot use each other’s L1s, only one architecture makes sense:

A neutral Ethereum L1 base layer, with each institution operating its own L2.

L1 as a Neutral, Trustworthy Foundation

Ethereum is not controlled by any corporation. It is the only globally trusted public infrastructure institutions can rely on.

Institutions Maintain Full Control on Their Own L2

Stripe can run Tempo (L2), JP Morgan can run its own L2, and Circle can run Arc (L2). Each institution keeps sovereignty while still connecting to a shared base layer.

Interoperability Comes Naturally Through L1 Settlement

Because all L2s settle on Ethereum L1, cross-institution messaging, payments, and data exchange become seamless and secure.

A Model Similar to Cloud Infrastructure

Just as companies use different cloud providers but share the same internet, institutions can run different L2s while sharing Ethereum L1 as the universal settlement layer.

Conclusion: The Future Is “Many L2s, One L1”

Alex Gluchowski’s point can be summarized simply:

Institutions will never use each other’s L1s.
Ethereum L1 is the only neutral foundation they can all trust.
And each institution will operate its own L2 on top of it.

This architecture balances competition, independence, and interoperability — and it explains why Ethereum is becoming the global digital financial backbone.

Younchan Jung
Researcher exploring structural shifts in AI, blockchain, and the on‑chain economy.

If you would like to read this article in Korean, please click the button below.

Read This Article in Korean →