2026-01-17 15:29:57

There is a lot of discussion about stablecoins, but most perspectives still focus on ordinary users. In fact, those who can truly drive industry change are often large institutions—their demands are completely different from retail investors.

For large institutions, transaction speed is just basic functionality. What they care about most are three things: whether costs can be accurately predicted, whether settlement is reliable, and whether the system is sufficiently neutral. Slow speed is not a problem, but the worst thing is "uncertainty."

This is precisely the pain point for many general-purpose public chains. Gas fees fluctuate wildly, confirmation times are unpredictable, and networks occasionally get congested. For individual users, it's an experience issue, but for institutions, it directly translates into risk.

Some new public chain ideas are quite interesting—they are clearly designed from an institutional perspective in a reverse manner. Finality at sub-second levels is not for show, but to ensure settlement can be truly trustworthy; optimizing gas costs around stablecoins to keep fees close to a fixed amount; plus Bitcoin anchoring, which is like giving the entire system a long-term credit endorsement.

The smarter part is that these designs do not burden users with complexity. The underlying coordination and security mechanisms are handled internally, so not everyone needs to participate in the game.

If many chains are building "more free experimental grounds," these projects actually aim to become "infrastructure that can be integrated into existing processes." It may not sound as glamorous, but it is more practical. When stablecoins truly enter institutional ledgers, everyone might realize—sometimes, the character of a chain is more important than technical parameters.

BTC-1,48%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

20 Likes

Reward
20
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

Blockchainiac

· 01-20 15:30

That's right, retail investors complain about speed every day, but they don't realize that institutions don't buy into that. The real bottleneck is "certainty"—predictable Gas fees, guaranteed settlement, and a system that doesn't jitter around—that's true productivity. The idea of reverse designing new public chains is indeed interesting; it feels like turning blockchain from a "Utopian experiment" into an "enterprise-grade tool." It may not sound as explosive, but it's more realistic. --- Only when institutions really come in will we understand what "game over" means. --- So, technical parameters aren't that important; the key is whether the system can be trusted—this is what the new public chain has realized. --- Haha, still paying attention to TPS and Gas like retail investors, but little do they know that institutions care about something else entirely. --- If the underlying risk control is well managed, the applications above can run smoothly—that's the real deal. --- Certainty > speed; this logic is too important for institutions. --- That's why some chains don't seem so "cool," but they tend to last longer.

View OriginalReply0

ApeWithAPlan

· 01-20 13:46

Really, retail investors keep shouting about speed, but institutions actually don't care about that at all. Uncertainty is the real nightmare—Gas fees jump from five dollars to fifty dollars in no time. Who the hell would dare to use it?

View OriginalReply0

ProposalDetective

· 01-18 12:42

Awake now, influencers are shouting about Web3 freedom all day long, but they don't realize that institutions are the real big spenders. Isn't this a classic retail investor illusion? Thinking that quick and cheap is everything, but financial institutions have long seen through it—stability and predictability are the true keys. Gas fees, for us, are annoying, but for institutions like Goldman, they represent a bloody risk. No wonder they are seeking alternative approaches. That's right, designing from the perspective of institutional needs is truly clever—more pragmatic than those shouting about the DeFi revolution. So, in the end, are the winners those projects that can integrate into the traditional financial system? It sounds more boring than pure decentralization, but maybe this is the reality.

View OriginalReply0

DeadTrades_Walking

· 01-18 06:53

Institutions really value stability, I've seen this clearly a long time ago. Retail investors shouting about speed and decentralization, institutions don't buy into that at all. --- Gas fees fluctuating wildly like this, no wonder big players are on the sidelines. Risk management is the core. --- The idea of reverse design is indeed brilliant; starting from institutional needs is much more appealing than blindly stacking parameters. --- It's just waiting for stablecoins to truly integrate into the mainstream, then we'll see how big the gap really is. --- The approach of approaching fixed fees is very friendly to market makers. --- Bitcoin anchoring basically means "I won't act recklessly," very smart. --- It's really just the difference between infrastructure and testing grounds; the former makes money, the latter just gains hype. --- Now people are talking about decentralization and freedom, but when it comes to compliance and liquidation, everyone will be stunned. --- Handling complexity at the underlying layer itself, so users just use it—that's product thinking. --- To put it simply, it's still a trust issue; predictability is more valuable than speed.

View OriginalReply0

Deconstructionist

· 01-17 15:57

In plain terms, retail investors spend all day discussing things that institutions don't care about. The real game is behind the scenes; stability and predictability are the lifelines. Those chasing flashy public chains, even institutions don't bother to look at them. --- And now they're promoting some kind of reverse design; it sounds nice, but in the end, it's just about who can cut the leeks. --- Can Bitcoin anchoring really serve as a credit endorsement? Honestly, what institutions want is real gold and silver guarantees, not consensus literature. --- Haha, someone finally said it: most chain designs are just self-indulgent; what institutions need is not freedom. --- This approach is actually about following the path of traditional finance, completely abandoning the dream of decentralization. --- Predictable costs > lightning-fast speed; this has indeed been exposed as the core issue. --- Yes, this is the way Web3 should win—don't fight traditional finance, embed right into it.

View OriginalReply0

potentially_notable

· 01-17 15:55

Haha, this is the real insight. Retail investors are still arguing about TPS, while large institutions have already started to focus on risk hedging. What institutions truly want is predictability, not flashy features. That's why some blockchains are designed to be so boring... maybe they're actually right.

View OriginalReply0

TheShibaWhisperer

· 01-17 15:52

Damn, someone finally said it. Retail investors are always arguing about speed, but what institutions actually care about isn't that, hilarious. What institutions want is stability—predictable costs, secure settlements. We totally have it backwards. Uncertainty is a nightmare for big institutions. Gas prices fluctuate wildly, confirmation times are unpredictable. For us, it's unplayable; for them, it directly means losing money. I hadn't really thought about this angle of new public chains—designing in reverse based on institutional needs? That's interesting. Gas approaching a fixed value? That's the real logic that can be commercially used, not flashy technical indicators. Bitcoin pegged to Ethereum with millisecond-level certainty is like insuring the entire system. Who wouldn't be tempted? The key is not to dump complexity on retail investors—that's impressive... finally, someone understands that user experience isn't just about stacking parameters. When institutions really start using stablecoins on a large scale, that will be the true moment Web3 is accepted. Sexiness doesn't really matter; being able to enter the ledger system is the real hard currency.

View OriginalReply0

defi_detective

· 01-17 15:42

Amazing, someone finally hit the nail on the head. Retail investors argue about TPS all day, but institutions actually don't care about that at all. Basically, it's about stability, plain and simple. Gas fees are predictable, settlements are guaranteed, and there's no fuss. The traditional financial mindset has completely crushed the ideals of "decentralized freedom." Those reverse-designed chains are indeed fierce, entirely competing with traditional finance. Once they truly integrate into institutional processes, they'll understand what it means to be hit with a dimensionality reduction attack.

View OriginalReply0

OptionWhisperer

· 01-17 15:40

Haha, finally someone has explained this clearly. Retail investors complain about speed every day, but institutions actually don't care about that at all. Basically, it's about "certainty" — they don't want to be spun around by Gas fees. The idea behind those new public chains is indeed clever — creating a trustworthy vault for institutions is much more reliable than flaunting parameter values. However... can Bitcoin anchoring truly serve as an endorsement? Or is it just another dependency trap?

View OriginalReply0

DefiSecurityGuard

· 01-17 15:35

⚠️ Wait a moment, I need to review the audit report before commenting on "Bitcoin anchoring." Predictive costs sound safe, but is it possible that it's a honeypot setup hiding risks?

View OriginalReply0