14 posts tagged with "Layer-1"

When Fantom rebooted as Sonic Labs in late 2024, the blockchain world noticed the 400,000 TPS and sub-second finality. But buried in the technical specs was a strategic shift that could rewrite how Layer-1 protocols capture value: vertical integration. While most chains chase developers with grants and hope for ecosystem growth, Sonic is building—and buying—the applications themselves.

The announcement came in February 2026 via a post on X: Sonic Labs would acquire and integrate "core protocol applications and primitives" to drive revenue directly to the S token. It's a radical departure from the permissionless-at-all-costs ethos that has dominated DeFi since Ethereum's rise. And it's forcing the industry to ask: What's the point of being a neutral infrastructure layer if all the value flows to applications built on top of you?

The $2 Million Question: Where Does Value Actually Accrue?​

Since Sonic's mainnet launch in September 2025, its Fee Monetization (FeeM) program has distributed over $2 million to dApp developers. The model is simple: developers keep 90% of the network fees their applications generate, 5% gets burned, and the remainder flows to validators. It's the YouTube revenue-sharing playbook applied to blockchain.

But here's the tension. Sonic generates transaction fees from DeFi activity—trading, lending, stablecoin transfers—yet the protocols capturing that activity (DEXes, lending protocols, liquidity pools) often have no financial stake in Sonic's success. A trader swapping tokens on Sonic pays fees that enrich the dApp developer, but the protocol itself sees minimal upside beyond marginal gas fees. The real value—the trading spreads, the lending interest, the liquidity provisioning—accrues to third-party protocols.

This is the "value leakage" problem plaguing every L1. You build fast, cheap infrastructure, attract users, and watch as DeFi protocols siphon off the economic activity. Sonic's solution? Own the protocols.

Building the DeFi Monopoly: What Sonic Is Acquiring​

According to Sonic Labs' February 2026 roadmap, the team is evaluating strategic ownership of the following DeFi primitives:

• Core trading infrastructure (likely a native DEX competing with Uniswap-style AMMs)
• Battle-tested lending protocols (Aave and Compound-style markets)
• Capital-efficient liquidity solutions (concentrated liquidity, algorithmic market-making)
• Scalable stablecoins (native payment rails similar to MakerDAO's DAI or Aave's GHO)
• Staking infrastructure (liquid staking derivatives, restaking models)

The revenue from these vertically integrated primitives will fund S token buybacks. Instead of relying on transaction fees alone, Sonic captures trading spreads, lending interest, stablecoin issuance fees, and staking rewards. Every dollar flowing through the ecosystem compounds inward, not outward.

It's the inverse of Ethereum's neutrality thesis. Ethereum bet on being the world computer—permissionless, credibly neutral, and indifferent to what's built on top. Sonic is betting on being the integrated financial platform—owning critical infrastructure, controlling value flow, and internalizing profit margins.

The DeFi Vertical Integration Playbook: Who Else Is Doing This?​

Sonic isn't alone. Across DeFi, the largest protocols are swinging back toward vertical integration:

• Uniswap is building Unichain (an L2) and its own wallet, capturing MEV and sequencer revenue instead of letting Arbitrum and Base take it.
• Aave launched GHO, a native stablecoin, to compete with DAI and USDC while earning protocol-controlled interest.
• MakerDAO is forking Solana to build NewChain, seeking performance improvements and infrastructure ownership.
• Jito merged staking, restaking, and MEV extraction into a single vertically integrated stack on Solana.

The pattern is clear: any sufficiently large DeFi application eventually seeks its own vertically integrated solution. Why? Because composability—the ability to plug into any protocol on any chain—is great for users but terrible for value capture. If your DEX can be forked, your liquidity can be drained, and your revenue can be undercut by a competitor offering 0.01% lower fees, you don't have a business—you have a public utility.

Vertical integration solves this. By owning the trading venue, the stablecoin, the liquidity layer, and the staking mechanism, protocols can bundle services, cross-subsidize features, and lock in users. It's the same playbook that turned Amazon from a bookstore into AWS, logistics, and streaming video.

The $295K DeFAI Hackathon: Testing AI Agents as Protocol Builders​

While Sonic acquires DeFi primitives, it's also running experiments to see if AI agents can build them. In January 2025, Sonic Labs partnered with DoraHacks and Zerebro (an autonomous AI agent) to launch the Sonic DeFAI Hackathon with $295,000 in prizes.

The goal: create AI agents capable of performing both social and on-chain actions—autonomously managing liquidity, executing trades, optimizing yield strategies, and even deploying smart contracts. Over 822 developers registered, submitting 47 approved projects. By March 2025, 18 projects had pushed the boundaries of what AI-blockchain integration could achieve.

Why does this matter for vertical integration? Because if AI agents can autonomously manage DeFi protocols—rebalancing liquidity pools, adjusting lending rates, executing arbitrage—then Sonic doesn't just own the infrastructure. It owns the intelligence layer running on top of it. Instead of relying on external teams to build and maintain protocols, Sonic could deploy AI-managed primitives that optimize themselves in real-time.

At ETHDenver 2026, Sonic previewed Spawn, an AI platform for building Web3 apps from natural language. A developer types "Build me a lending protocol with variable interest rates," and Spawn generates the smart contracts, front-end, and deployment scripts. If this works, Sonic could vertically integrate not just protocols but protocol creation itself.

The Counterargument: Is Vertical Integration Anti-DeFi?​

Critics argue that Sonic's strategy undermines the permissionless innovation that made DeFi revolutionary. If Sonic owns the DEX, the lending protocol, and the stablecoin, why would independent developers build on Sonic? They'd be competing with the platform itself—like building a ride-sharing app when Uber owns the operating system.

There's precedent for this concern. Amazon Web Services hosts competitors (Netflix, Shopify) but also competes with them through Amazon Prime Video and Amazon Marketplace. Google's search engine promotes YouTube (owned by Google) over Vimeo. Apple's App Store features Apple Music over Spotify.

Sonic's response? It remains an "open and permissionless network." Third-party developers can still build and deploy applications. The FeeM program still shares 90% of fees with builders. But Sonic will no longer rely solely on external teams to drive ecosystem value. Instead, it's hedging: open to innovation from the community, but ready to acquire or build critical infrastructure if the market doesn't deliver.

The philosophical question is whether DeFi can survive long-term as a purely neutral infrastructure layer. Ethereum's TVL dominance (over $100 billion) suggests yes. But Ethereum also benefits from network effects no new L1 can replicate. For chains like Sonic, vertical integration might be the only path to competitive moats.

What This Means for Protocol Value Capture in 2026​

The broader DeFi trend in 2026 is clear: revenue growth is broadening, but value capture is concentrating. According to DL News' State of DeFi 2025 report, fees and revenue increased across multiple verticals (trading, lending, derivatives), but a relatively small set of protocols—Uniswap, Aave, MakerDAO, and a few others—took the majority share.

Vertical integration accelerates this concentration. Instead of dozens of independent protocols splitting value, integrated platforms bundle services and internalize profits. Sonic's model takes this a step further: instead of hoping third-party protocols succeed, Sonic buys them outright or builds them itself.

This creates a new competitive landscape:

1. Neutral infrastructure chains (Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum) bet on permissionless innovation and network effects.
2. Vertically integrated chains (Sonic, Solana with Jito, MakerDAO with NewChain) bet on controlled ecosystems and direct revenue capture.
3. Full-stack protocols (Flying Tulip, founded by Yearn's Andre Cronje) unify trading, lending, and stablecoins into single applications, bypassing L1s entirely.

For investors, the question becomes: Which model wins? The neutral platform with the largest network effects, or the integrated platform with the tightest value capture?

The Road Ahead: Can Sonic Compete With Ethereum's Network Effects?​

Sonic's technical specs are impressive. 400,000 TPS. Sub-second finality. $0.001 transaction fees. But speed and cost aren't enough. Ethereum is slower and more expensive, yet it dominates DeFi TVL because developers, users, and liquidity providers trust its neutrality and security.

Sonic's vertical integration strategy is a direct challenge to Ethereum's model. Instead of waiting for developers to choose Sonic over Ethereum, Sonic is making the choice for them by building the ecosystem itself. Instead of relying on third-party liquidity, Sonic is internalizing it through owned primitives.

The risk? If Sonic's acquisitions flop—if the DEX can't compete with Uniswap, if the lending protocol can't match Aave's liquidity—then vertical integration becomes a liability. Sonic will have spent capital and developer resources on inferior products instead of letting the market decide winners.

The upside? If Sonic successfully integrates core DeFi primitives and funnels revenue to S token buybacks, it creates a flywheel. Higher token prices attract more developers and liquidity. More liquidity increases trading volume. More trading volume generates more fees. More fees fund more buybacks. And the cycle repeats.

Conclusion: The Missing Link in L1 Value Creation?​

Sonic Labs calls vertical integration "the missing link in L1 value creation." For years, chains competed on speed, fees, and developer experience. But those advantages are temporary. Another chain can always be faster or cheaper. What's harder to replicate is an integrated ecosystem where every piece—from infrastructure to applications to liquidity—feeds into a cohesive value capture mechanism.

Whether this model succeeds depends on execution. Can Sonic build or acquire DeFi primitives that match the quality of Uniswap, Aave, and Curve? Can it balance permissionless innovation with strategic ownership? Can it convince developers that competing with the platform is still worth it?

The answers will shape not just Sonic's future, but the future of L1 value capture itself. Because if vertical integration works, every chain will follow. And if it fails, Ethereum's neutral infrastructure thesis will have won decisively.

For now, Sonic is placing the bet: owning the stack beats renting liquidity. The DeFi world is watching.

BlockEden.xyz offers high-performance RPC infrastructure for Sonic, Ethereum, and 15+ chains. Explore our API marketplace to build on infrastructure designed for speed, reliability, and vertical integration.

Sources​

• Sonic Labs Plans Vertical Integration To Boost Sonic Token | CoinMarketCap
• Sonic Labs wants to 'vertically integrate' core apps to drive value to S token, hints at acquisitions | The Block
• Sonic Labs Launches Fee Monetization System to Incentivize Builders and Validators - Crypto Economy
• Fee Monetization | Sonic Documentation
• Winners Announced — Sonic DeFAI Hackathon
• $295,000 in Prizes — DeFAI Hackathon on Sonic
• Vertical Integration: The Missing Link in L1 Value Creation
• State of DeFi 2025 – DL News
• DeFi Is Following The SaaS And Fintech Playbooks - ARK Invest

When Citadel Securities, the trading giant that handles 47% of all U.S. retail equities volume, announces a blockchain partnership, the market pays attention. When it's joined by the New York Stock Exchange's parent company, the world's largest securities depository, Google Cloud, and Cathie Wood's ARK Invest—all backing a single blockchain—it signals something unprecedented.

LayerZero Labs' February 10, 2026 unveiling of Zero, a Layer-1 blockchain targeting 2 million transactions per second, represents more than another scalability play. It's Wall Street's most explicit bet yet that the future of global finance runs on permissionless rails.

From Cross-Chain Messaging to Institutional Infrastructure​

LayerZero built its reputation solving blockchain's "walled garden" problem. Since its inception, the protocol has connected 165+ blockchains through its omnichain messaging infrastructure, enabling seamless asset and data transfer across previously incompatible networks. Developers building cross-chain applications have relied on LayerZero's Ultra Light Nodes (ULNs)—smart contracts that validate messages using block headers and transaction proofs—to bridge siloed ecosystems.

But cross-chain messaging, while foundational, wasn't designed for the demands of institutional trading infrastructure. When Citadel Securities processes over 1.7 billion shares daily, or when DTCC settles $2.5 quadrillion in securities annually, milliseconds matter. Traditional blockchain architectures, even high-performance ones, couldn't deliver the throughput, finality, or reliability Wall Street requires.

Zero represents LayerZero's evolution from connectivity layer to settlement infrastructure. The announcement positions it squarely in the race to become the blockchain backbone for tokenized securities, 24/7 trading, and real-time settlement—a market estimated to exceed $30 trillion by 2030.

The Heterogeneous Architecture Breakthrough​

Zero's core innovation lies in what LayerZero calls its "heterogeneous architecture"—a fundamental rethinking of how blockchains divide labor. Traditional blockchains force every validator to replicate identical work: download blocks, execute transactions, verify state transitions. This redundancy prioritizes security but creates throughput bottlenecks.

Zero decouples execution from verification. Block Producers execute transactions, assemble blocks, and generate zero-knowledge proofs. Block Validators simply verify these proofs—a computationally lighter task that can run on consumer-grade hardware. By leveraging Jolt, LayerZero's proprietary ZK proving technology, validators confirm transaction validity in seconds without downloading full blocks.

This separation unlocks three compounding advantages:

Massive parallelization: Different zones can execute different transaction types simultaneously—EVM smart contracts, privacy-focused payments, high-frequency trading—all settling on the same network.

Hardware accessibility: When validators need only verify proofs rather than execute transactions, network participation doesn't require enterprise-grade infrastructure. This lowers centralization risk while maintaining security.

Real-time finality: Traditional ZK systems batch transactions to amortize proving costs. Jolt's efficiency enables real-time proof generation, finalizing transactions in seconds rather than minutes.

The result: a claimed 2 million TPS capacity across unlimited zones. If accurate, Zero would process transactions 100,000 times faster than Ethereum and significantly outpace even high-performance chains like Solana.

Three Zones, Three Use Cases​

Zero launches in fall 2026 with three initial permissionless zones, each optimized for distinct institutional needs:

1. General Purpose EVM Zone​

Fully compatible with Solidity smart contracts, this zone enables developers to deploy existing Ethereum applications without modification. For institutions experimenting with DeFi protocols or tokenized asset management, EVM compatibility lowers migration barriers while offering order-of-magnitude performance improvements.

2. Privacy-Focused Payments Infrastructure​

Financial institutions moving trillions on-chain need confidentiality guarantees. This zone embeds privacy-preserving technology—likely leveraging zero-knowledge proofs or confidential computing—to enable compliant private transactions. DTCC's interest in "enhancing the scalability of its tokenization and collateral initiatives" suggests use cases in institutional settlement where transaction details must remain confidential.

3. Canonical Trading Environment​

Designed explicitly for "trading across all markets and asset classes," this zone targets Citadel Securities' and ICE's core businesses. ICE has explicitly stated it's "examining applications tied to 24/7 trading and tokenized collateral"—a direct challenge to the traditional market structure that closes at 4 PM ET and settles on T+2 timelines.

This heterogeneous approach reflects a pragmatic recognition: there is no one-size-fits-all blockchain. Rather than forcing all use cases through a single virtual machine, Zero creates specialized execution environments optimized for specific workloads, unified by shared security and interoperability.

The Institutional Alignment​

Zero's partner roster reads like a financial infrastructure who's who, and their involvement isn't passive:

Citadel Securities made a strategic investment in ZRO, LayerZero's native token, and is "providing market structure expertise to evaluate how its technology could apply to trading, clearing and settlement workflows." This isn't a proof-of-concept pilot—it's active collaboration on production infrastructure.

DTCC, which processes virtually all U.S. equities and fixed income settlements, sees Zero as a scalability unlock for its DTC Tokenization Service and Collateral App Chain. When the organization settling $2.5 quadrillion annually investigates blockchain rails, it signals institutional settlement moving on-chain at scale.

Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), owner of the NYSE, is preparing "trading and clearing infrastructure to support 24/7 markets and the potential integration of tokenized collateral." Traditional exchanges close daily; blockchains don't. ICE's participation suggests the boundary between TradFi and DeFi infrastructure is dissolving.

Google Cloud is exploring "blockchain-based micropayments and resource trading for AI agents"—a glimpse at how Zero's high throughput could enable machine-to-machine economies where AI agents autonomously transact for compute, data, and services.

ARK Invest didn't just invest in ZRO tokens; it took an equity stake in LayerZero Labs. Cathie Wood joined the company's advisory board—her first such role in years—and publicly stated, "Finance is moving on-chain, and LayerZero is a core innovation platform for this multi-decade shift."

This isn't crypto-native VCs betting on retail adoption. It's Wall Street's core infrastructure providers committing capital and expertise to blockchain settlement.

Interoperability at Launch: 165 Blockchains Connected​

Zero doesn't launch in isolation. By leveraging LayerZero's existing omnichain messaging protocol, Zero connects to 165 blockchains from day one. This means liquidity, assets, and data from Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, Polygon, Arbitrum, and 160+ other networks can seamlessly interact with Zero's high-throughput zones.

For institutional use cases, this interoperability is critical. A tokenized Treasury bond issued on Ethereum can serve as collateral for a derivative traded on Zero. A stablecoin minted on Solana can settle payments in Zero's privacy zone. Real-world assets tokenized across fragmented ecosystems can finally compose in a unified, high-performance environment.

LayerZero's cross-chain infrastructure uses Decentralized Verifier Networks (DVNs)—independent entities that validate messages between chains. Applications can define their own security thresholds, selecting specific DVNs and setting verification requirements. This modular security model lets risk-averse institutions customize trust assumptions rather than accepting protocol defaults.

The Timing: Why Now?​

Zero's announcement arrives at a pivotal moment in crypto's institutional adoption curve:

Regulatory clarity is emerging. The U.S. GENIUS Act establishes stablecoin frameworks. MiCA brings comprehensive crypto regulation to the EU. Jurisdictions from Singapore to Switzerland have clear custody and tokenization rules. Institutions no longer face existential regulatory uncertainty.

Tokenized asset experiments are maturing. BlackRock's BUIDL fund, Franklin Templeton's OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund, and JP Morgan's Onyx have proven that institutions will move billions on-chain—if the infrastructure meets their standards.

24/7 markets are inevitable. When stablecoins enable instant settlement and tokenized securities trade around the clock, traditional market hours become artificial constraints. Exchanges like ICE must either embrace continuous trading or cede ground to crypto-native competitors.

AI agents need payment rails. Google's interest in micropayments for AI compute isn't speculative. As large language models and autonomous agents proliferate, they need programmable money to pay for APIs, datasets, and cloud resources without human intervention.

Zero positions itself at the intersection of these trends: the infrastructure layer enabling Wall Street's blockchain migration.

The Competitive Landscape​

Zero enters a crowded field. Ethereum's rollup-centric roadmap, Solana's high-throughput architecture, Avalanche's subnet model, Cosmos' application-specific chains—all target institutional use cases with varying degrees of success.

What differentiates Zero is institutional commitment depth. When DTCC and Citadel actively collaborate on design—not just run pilots—it signals conviction that this infrastructure will handle production workflows. When ICE prepares to integrate tokenized collateral, it's architecting for real capital flows, not proof-of-concept demos.

The heterogeneous architecture also matters. Ethereum forces institutions to choose between mainnet security or L2 scalability. Solana prioritizes speed but lacks specialized execution environments. Zero's zone model promises customization without fragmentation—privacy payments, EVM contracts, and trading infrastructure sharing security and liquidity.

Whether Zero delivers on these promises remains to be seen. 2 million TPS is an ambitious target. Real-time ZK proving at scale is unproven. And institutional adoption, even with heavyweight backing, faces regulatory, operational, and cultural barriers.

What This Means for Developers​

For blockchain developers, Zero presents intriguing opportunities:

EVM compatibility means existing Solidity contracts can deploy to Zero with minimal modifications, tapping into order-of-magnitude higher throughput without rewriting application logic.

Omnichain interoperability enables developers to build applications that compose liquidity and data across 165+ chains. A DeFi protocol could aggregate liquidity from Ethereum, settle trades on Zero, and distribute yields to users on Solana—all in a single transaction flow.

Institutional partnerships create distribution channels. Applications built on Zero gain access to DTCC's settlement networks, ICE's trading infrastructure, and Google Cloud's developer ecosystem. For teams targeting enterprise adoption, these integrations could accelerate go-to-market timelines.

Specialized zones allow applications to optimize for specific use cases. A privacy-preserving payment app doesn't need to compete for block space with high-frequency trading; each operates in its specialized environment while benefiting from shared security.

For teams building blockchain infrastructure that demands institutional-grade reliability, BlockEden.xyz's RPC services provide the low-latency, high-uptime connectivity that production applications require—whether you're deploying on established chains today or preparing for next-generation networks like Zero.

The Road to Fall 2026​

Zero's fall 2026 launch gives LayerZero Labs eight months to deliver on extraordinary promises. Key milestones to watch:

Testnet performance: Can the heterogeneous architecture actually sustain 2 million TPS under adversarial conditions? Jolt's ZK proving must demonstrate real-time finality at scale, not in controlled demos.

Validator decentralization: Consumer-grade hardware accessibility is critical to Zero's security model. If validation concentrates among institutions with resources to optimize infrastructure, the permissionless ethos weakens.

Regulatory engagement: DTCC and ICE's participation assumes blockchain settlement aligns with securities regulations. Clarity on tokenized asset frameworks, custody standards, and cross-border transactions will determine whether Zero handles real capital flows or remains a sandbox.

Developer adoption: Institutional backing attracts attention, but developers drive network effects. Zero must demonstrate that its zones offer meaningful advantages over deploying to existing high-performance chains.

Interoperability resilience: Cross-chain bridges are crypto's most attacked infrastructure. LayerZero's DVN security model must prove robust against exploits that have drained billions from competitor protocols.

The Bigger Picture: Finance Meets Programmability​

Cathie Wood's "multi-decade shift" framing is apt. Zero's announcement represents more than a blockchain launch—it's a signal that Wall Street's core infrastructure providers now view permissionless, programmable blockchains as the future of finance.

When DTCC explores blockchain settlement, it's not digitizing existing workflows—it's reconceiving what settlement infrastructure could be. Real-time clearing. Tokenized collateral moving frictionlessly across counterparties. Smart contracts automating margin calls and position reconciliation. These capabilities don't just make finance faster; they enable entirely new market structures.

When ICE prepares for 24/7 trading, it's not just extending hours—it's acknowledging that global markets don't sleep, and the constraints of physical trading floors no longer apply.

When Google Cloud enables AI agent micropayments, it's recognizing that the future economy includes machine participants executing millions of micro-transactions that traditional payment rails can't support.

Zero is the infrastructure bet that these use cases demand institutional-grade throughput, finality, and interoperability—capabilities that, until now, no blockchain could credibly claim.

Conclusion​

LayerZero's Zero Network is the most explicit convergence of Wall Street and Web3 infrastructure to date. With 2 million TPS capacity, heterogeneous architecture, and partnerships spanning Citadel Securities to Google Cloud, it positions itself as the blockchain backbone for tokenized finance.

Whether Zero succeeds depends on execution. Ambitious TPS claims must withstand production loads. Institutional partnerships must translate to real capital flows. And the blockchain must prove it can maintain security and decentralization while serving institutions accustomed to five-nines uptime and microsecond latencies.

But the direction is unmistakable: finance is moving on-chain, and the world's largest financial institutions are betting that high-performance, interoperable, heterogeneous blockchains are how it gets there.

Zero's fall 2026 launch will be a defining moment—not just for LayerZero, but for the broader question of whether blockchain infrastructure can meet institutional finance's uncompromising standards.

---

Sources:

• LayerZero Announces Zero Blockchain - BusinessWire
• Citadel Securities backs LayerZero - CoinDesk
• Citadel Securities and Cathie Wood back Zero - Fortune
• Zero: The Decentralized Multi-Core World Computer - LayerZero
• Citadel and Ark Invest back LayerZero - The Block
• LayerZero Announces Zero: 2 Million TPS - Crypto Economy

When former Ant Group CTO Alex Zhang and his blockchain engineering team left the company in July 2024, they didn't join another fintech giant. They built Pharos Network—a Layer-1 blockchain targeting the convergence of traditional finance and DeFi with a singular focus: unlocking the $10 trillion real-world asset (RWA) market projected for 2030.

Pharos isn't another EVM clone promising marginally faster transactions. It's a purpose-built infrastructure for "RealFi" (Real-World Finance)—blockchain systems directly tied to tangible assets like private credit, tokenized treasuries, real estate, and corporate bonds. The technical foundation: 30,000 TPS with sub-second finality, powered by Smart Access List Inferring (SALI)—a novel parallel execution engine that statically or dynamically infers state access patterns to execute disjoint transactions simultaneously.

With $8 million in seed funding from Lightspeed Faction and Hack VC, a $10 million RealFi incubator backed by Draper Dragon, and a Q1 2026 mainnet launch on the horizon, Pharos represents a bet that institutional finance's migration on-chain won't happen on Ethereum's L2s or Solana's high-speed infrastructure—it'll happen on a compliance-first, RWA-optimized chain designed by the team that built Ant Chain, the blockchain powering Alibaba's $2+ trillion annual GMV.

The RealFi Thesis: Why $10 Trillion Moves On-Chain by 2030​

RealFi isn't crypto speculation—it's the tokenization of finance itself. The sector currently stands at $17.6 billion, with projections reaching $10 trillion by 2030—a 54× growth multiplier. Two forces drive this:

Private credit tokenization: Traditional private credit markets (loans to mid-market companies, real estate financing, asset-backed lending) are opaque, illiquid, and accessible only to accredited institutions. Tokenization transforms these into programmable, 24/7 tradeable instruments. Investors can fractionalize exposure, exit positions instantly, and automate yield distribution via smart contracts. Over 90% of RWA growth in 2025 came from private credit.

Tokenized treasuries and institutional liquidity: Stablecoins unlocked $300 billion in on-chain liquidity, but they're just USD-backed IOUs. Tokenized U.S. Treasuries (like BlackRock's BUIDL fund) bring yield-bearing government debt on-chain. Institutions can collateralize DeFi positions with AAA-rated assets, earn risk-free returns, and settle trades in minutes instead of T+2. This is the bridge bringing institutional capital—pension funds, endowments, sovereign wealth—to blockchain.

The bottleneck? Existing chains aren't designed for RWA workflows. Ethereum's base layer is too slow and expensive for high-frequency trading. Solana lacks built-in compliance primitives. L2s fragment liquidity. RWA applications need:

• Sub-second finality for real-time settlement (matching TradFi expectations)
• Parallel execution to handle thousands of concurrent asset transfers without congestion
• Modular compliance allowing permissioned assets (e.g., accredited-investor-only bonds) to coexist with permissionless DeFi
• Interoperability with legacy financial rails (SWIFT, ACH, securities depositories)

Pharos was architected from day one to satisfy these requirements. The team's experience tokenizing real assets at Ant Group—projects like Xiexin Energy Technology and Langxin Group RWA—informed every design decision.

SALI: Rethinking Parallel Execution for Financial Markets​

Blockchains struggle with parallelization because transactions often conflict—two transfers touching the same account can't execute simultaneously without causing double-spends or inconsistent state. Traditional chains serialize conflicting transactions, creating bottlenecks.

Pharos solves this with Smart Access List Inferring (SALI)—a method to statically or dynamically infer which state entries a contract will access, allowing the execution engine to group transactions with disjoint access patterns and execute them in parallel without conflicts.

Here's how SALI works:

Static analysis (compile-time inference): For standard ERC-20 transfers, the smart contract's logic is deterministic. A transfer from Alice to Bob only touches balances[Alice] and balances[Bob]. SALI analyzes the contract code before execution and generates an access list: [Alice's balance, Bob's balance]. If another transaction touches Carol and Dave, those two transfers run in parallel—no conflict.

Dynamic inference (runtime profiling): Complex contracts (like AMM pools or lending protocols) have state access patterns that depend on runtime data. SALI uses speculative execution: tentatively run the transaction, record which storage slots were accessed, then retry in parallel if conflicts are detected. This is similar to optimistic concurrency control in databases.

Conflict resolution and transaction ordering: When conflicts arise (e.g., two users swapping in the same Uniswap-style pool), SALI falls back to serial execution for conflicting transactions while still parallelizing non-overlapping ones. This is dramatically more efficient than serializing everything.

The result: 30,000 TPS with sub-second finality. For context, Ethereum processes ~15 TPS (base layer), Solana peaks at ~65,000 TPS but lacks EVM compatibility, and most EVM L2s top out at 2,000-5,000 TPS. Pharos matches Solana's speed while maintaining EVM compatibility—critical for institutional adoption, since most DeFi infrastructure (Aave, Uniswap, Curve) is EVM-native.

SALI's edge becomes clear in RWA use cases:

• Tokenized bond trading: A corporate bond issuance might involve thousands of simultaneous buys/sells across different tranches. SALI parallelizes trades in tranche A while executing tranche B trades concurrently—no waiting for sequential settlement.
• Automated portfolio rebalancing: A DAO managing a diversified RWA portfolio (real estate, commodities, private credit) can execute rebalancing across 20+ assets simultaneously, instead of batching transactions.
• Cross-border payments: Pharos can settle hundreds of international transfers in parallel, each touching different sender-receiver pairs, without blockchain congestion delaying finality.

This isn't theoretical. Ant Chain processed over 1 billion transactions annually for Alibaba's supply chain finance and cross-border trade settlement. The Pharos team brings that battle-tested execution expertise to public blockchain.

Dual VM Architecture: EVM + WASM for Maximum Compatibility​

Pharos supports both the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and WebAssembly (WASM)—a dual-VM architecture enabling developers to deploy Solidity contracts (EVM) or high-performance Rust/C++ contracts (WASM) on the same chain.

Why does this matter for RWA?

EVM compatibility attracts existing DeFi ecosystems: Most institutional DeFi integrations (Aave institutional lending, Uniswap liquidity pools, Compound borrowing) run on Solidity. If Pharos forced developers to rewrite contracts in a new language, adoption would stall. By supporting EVM, Pharos inherits the entire Ethereum tooling ecosystem—MetaMask, Etherscan-style explorers, Hardhat deployment scripts.

WASM enables performance-critical financial applications: High-frequency trading bots, algorithmic market makers, and real-time risk engines need lower-level control than Solidity provides. WASM compiles to near-native machine code, offering 10-100× speed improvements over EVM bytecode for compute-intensive tasks. Institutional traders deploying sophisticated strategies can optimize execution in Rust while still interoperating with EVM-based liquidity.

Modular compliance via WASM contracts: Financial regulations vary by jurisdiction (SEC rules differ from MiCA, which differs from Hong Kong's SFC). Pharos allows compliance logic—KYC checks, accredited investor verification, geographic restrictions—to be implemented as WASM modules that plug into EVM contracts. A tokenized bond can enforce "only U.S. accredited investors" without hardcoding compliance into every DeFi protocol.

This dual-VM design mirrors Polkadot's approach but optimized for finance. Where Polkadot targets general-purpose cross-chain interoperability, Pharos targets RWA-specific workflows: custody integrations, settlement finality guarantees, and regulatory reporting.

Modular Architecture: Application-Specific Networks (SPNs)​

Pharos introduces Subnet-like Partitioned Networks (SPNs)—application-specific chains that integrate tightly with the Pharos mainnet while operating independently. Each SPN has:

• Its own execution engine (EVM or WASM)
• Its own validator set (for permissioned assets requiring approved node operators)
• Its own restaking incentives (validators can earn rewards from both mainnet and SPN fees)
• Its own governance (token-weighted voting or DAO-based decision-making)

SPNs solve a critical RWA problem: regulatory isolation. A tokenized U.S. Treasury fund requires SEC compliance—only accredited investors, no privacy coins, full AML/KYC. But permissionless DeFi (like a public Uniswap fork) can't enforce those rules. If both run on the same monolithic chain, compliance leakage occurs—a user could trade a regulated asset into a non-compliant protocol.

Pharos's SPN model allows:

Permissioned SPN for regulated assets: The tokenized Treasury SPN has a whitelist of validators (e.g., Coinbase Custody, Fireblocks, BitGo). Only KYC-verified wallets can transact. The SPN's governance is controlled by the asset issuer (e.g., BlackRock) and regulators.

Permissionless mainnet for public DeFi: The Pharos mainnet remains open—anyone can deploy contracts, trade tokens, or provide liquidity. No KYC required.

Bridge between SPNs and mainnet: A regulated SPN can expose specific assets (e.g., yield-bearing stablecoins collateralized by Treasuries) to the mainnet via a compliance-checked bridge. This enables capital efficiency: institutions bring liquidity from the permissioned world into permissionless DeFi, but only through audited, regulated pathways.

This architecture mirrors Cosmos's app-chains but with financial compliance baked in. Avalanche's subnets offer similar isolation, but Pharos adds restaking incentives—validators secure both mainnet and SPNs, earning compounded rewards. This economic alignment ensures robust security for high-value RWA applications.

The $10 Million RealFi Incubator: Building the Application Layer​

Infrastructure alone doesn't drive adoption—applications do. Pharos launched "Native to Pharos", a $10+ million incubator backed by Draper Dragon, Lightspeed Faction, Hack VC, and Centrifuge. The program targets early-stage teams building RWA-focused DeFi applications, with priority given to projects leveraging:

Deep parallel execution: Applications exploiting SALI's throughput—like high-frequency trading desks, automated portfolio managers, or real-time settlement layers.

Modular compliance design: Tools integrating Pharos's SPN architecture for regulatory-compliant asset issuance—think bond platforms requiring accredited investor verification.

Cross-border payment infrastructure: Stablecoin rails, remittance protocols, or merchant settlement systems using Pharos's sub-second finality.

The inaugural cohort's focus areas reveal Pharos's thesis:

Tokenized private credit: Platforms enabling fractional ownership of corporate loans, real estate mortgages, or trade finance. This is where 90% of RWA growth occurred in 2025—Pharos wants to own this vertical.

Institutional DeFi primitives: Lending protocols for RWA collateral (e.g., borrow against tokenized Treasuries), derivatives markets for commodities, or liquidity pools for corporate bonds.

Compliance-as-a-Service (CaaS): Middleware enabling other chains to plug into Pharos's compliance infrastructure—think Chainalysis for AML, but on-chain and cryptographically verifiable.

Centrifuge's participation is strategic—they pioneered on-chain private credit with $500+ million in assets financed. Integrating Centrifuge's credit infrastructure with Pharos's high-throughput execution creates a formidable RealFi stack.

The Ant Group Legacy: Why This Team Matters​

Pharos's credibility stems from its pedigree. Alex Zhang, Pharos CEO, was Ant Chain's CTO—overseeing blockchain systems processing over 1 billion transactions annually for Alibaba's ecosystem. Ant Chain powers:

• Supply chain finance: Automating invoice factoring and trade finance for small businesses
• Cross-border remittances: Settlement between Alipay and international partners
• Digital identity: Blockchain-based KYC for financial services

This isn't academic blockchain research—it's production-grade infrastructure supporting $2+ trillion in annual transaction volume. The Pharos core team tokenized real assets like Xiexin Energy Technology and Langxin Group RWA while at Ant Group, giving them firsthand experience with regulatory navigation, custody integration, and institutional workflows.

Additional team members come from Solana (high-performance execution), Ripple (cross-border payments), and OKX (exchange-grade infrastructure). This blend—TradFi regulatory expertise meets crypto-native performance engineering—is rare. Most RWA projects are either:

• TradFi-native: Strong compliance but terrible UX (slow finality, expensive fees, no composability)
• Crypto-native: Fast and permissionless but regulatory-hostile (can't onboard institutions)

Pharos bridges both worlds. The team knows how to satisfy SEC registration (Ant Chain's experience), architect high-throughput consensus (Solana background), and integrate with legacy financial rails (Ripple's payment networks).

Mainnet Timeline and Token Generation Event (TGE)​

Pharos plans to launch its mainnet and TGE in Q1 2026. The testnet is live, with developers building RWA applications and stress-testing SALI's parallel execution.

Key milestones:

Q1 2026 mainnet launch: Full EVM + WASM support, SALI-optimized execution, and initial SPN deployments for regulated assets.

Token Generation Event (TGE): The PHAROS token will serve as:

• Staking collateral for validators securing the mainnet and SPNs
• Governance rights for protocol upgrades and SPN approval
• Fee payment for transaction processing (similar to ETH on Ethereum)
• Restaking rewards for validators participating in both mainnet and application-specific networks

Incubator cohort deployments: First batch of "Native to Pharos" projects launching on mainnet—likely including tokenized credit platforms, compliance tooling, and DeFi primitives for RWAs.

Institutional partnerships: Integrations with custody providers (BitGo, Fireblocks), compliance platforms (Chainalysis, Elliptic), and asset originators (private credit funds, real estate tokenizers).

The timing aligns with broader market trends. Bernstein's 2026 outlook predicts stablecoin supply reaching $420 billion and RWA TVL doubling to $80 billion—Pharos is positioning as the infrastructure capturing this growth.

The Competitive Landscape: Pharos vs. Ethereum L2s, Solana, and Cosmos​

Pharos enters a crowded market. How does it compare to existing RWA infrastructure?

Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base): Strong developer ecosystems and EVM compatibility, but most L2s prioritize scalability over compliance. They lack native regulatory primitives—permissioned asset issuance requires custom smart contract logic, fragmenting standards. Pharos's SPN architecture standardizes compliance at the protocol level.

Solana: Unmatched throughput (65,000 TPS) but no native EVM support—developers must rewrite Solidity contracts in Rust. Institutional DeFi teams won't abandon EVM tooling. Pharos offers Solana-like speed with EVM compatibility, lowering migration barriers.

Avalanche subnets: Similar modular architecture to Pharos's SPNs, but Avalanche positions itself as general-purpose. Pharos is laser-focused on RWA—every design choice (SALI parallelization, dual VM, compliance modules) optimizes for financial markets. Specialization could win institutional adoption where general-purpose chains struggle.

Cosmos app-chains: Strong interoperability via IBC (Inter-Blockchain Communication), but Cosmos chains are fragmented—liquidity doesn't aggregate naturally. Pharos's mainnet + SPN model keeps liquidity unified while allowing regulatory isolation. Capital efficiency is higher.

Polymesh: A compliance-first blockchain for securities, but Polymesh sacrifices composability—it's a walled garden for tokenized equities. Pharos balances compliance (via SPNs) with DeFi composability (via the permissionless mainnet). Institutions can access decentralized liquidity without abandoning regulatory frameworks.

Pharos's edge is purpose-built RealFi architecture. Ethereum L2s retrofit compliance onto systems designed for decentralization. Pharos designs compliance into the consensus layer—making it cheaper, faster, and more reliable for regulated assets.

Risks and Open Questions​

Pharos's ambitions are bold, but several risks loom:

Regulatory uncertainty: RWA tokenization remains legally murky in most jurisdictions. If the SEC cracks down on tokenized securities or the EU's MiCA regulations become overly restrictive, Pharos's compliance-first design could become a liability—regulators might demand centralized control points that conflict with blockchain's decentralization ethos.

Liquidity fragmentation: SPNs solve regulatory isolation but risk fragmenting liquidity. If most institutional capital remains on permissioned SPNs with limited bridges to the mainnet, DeFi protocols can't access that capital efficiently. Pharos needs to balance compliance with capital velocity.

Validator decentralization: SALI's parallel execution requires high-performance nodes. If only enterprise validators (Coinbase, Binance, Fireblocks) can afford the hardware, Pharos risks becoming a consortium chain—losing blockchain's censorship resistance and permissionless properties.

Competition from TradFi incumbents: JPMorgan's Canton Network, Goldman Sachs' Digital Asset Platform, and BNY Mellon's blockchain initiatives are building private, permissioned RWA infrastructure. If institutions prefer working with trusted TradFi brands over crypto-native chains, Pharos's public blockchain model might struggle to gain traction.

Adoption timeline: Building the $10 trillion RWA market takes years—maybe decades. Pharos's mainnet launches in Q1 2026, but widespread institutional adoption (pension funds tokenizing portfolios, central banks using blockchain settlement) won't materialize overnight. Can Pharos sustain development and community momentum through a potentially long adoption curve?

These aren't fatal flaws—they're challenges every RWA blockchain faces. Pharos's Ant Group lineage and institutional focus give it a fighting chance, but execution will determine success.

The $10 Trillion Question: Can Pharos Capture RealFi's Future?​

Pharos's thesis is straightforward: real-world finance is migrating on-chain, and the infrastructure powering that migration must satisfy institutional requirements—speed, compliance, and interoperability with legacy systems. Existing chains fail one or more tests. Ethereum is too slow. Solana lacks compliance primitives. L2s fragment liquidity. Cosmos chains struggle with regulatory standardization.

Pharos was built to solve these problems. SALI parallelization delivers TradFi-grade throughput. SPNs enable modular compliance. Dual VM architecture maximizes developer adoption. The Ant Group team brings production-tested expertise. And the $10 million incubator seeds an application ecosystem.

If the $10 trillion RWA projection materializes, Pharos is positioning itself as the layer capturing that value. The Q1 2026 mainnet launch will reveal whether Ant Group's blockchain veterans can replicate their TradFi success in the decentralized world—or if RealFi's future belongs to Ethereum's ever-expanding L2 ecosystem.

The race for the $10 trillion RealFi market is on. Pharos just entered the starting grid.

---

Sources:

• Pharos | Fastest EVM Layer-1 | Unify Web2 and Web3 at Internet Scale
• A Comprehensive Technical Deep Dive into Pharos Network Architecture | Pharos Blog
• Pharos Launches $10M+ RealFi Incubator With Dragon Draper, and Lightspeed | Benzinga
• Layer 1 blockchain developer Pharos raises $8 million in seed funding | The Block
• Institutional Interest in Real-World Assets (RWAs) Explodes, Foreseeing a $10 Trillion Market by 2030
• Real World Asset (RWA) Tokenization: The $10 Trillion Bridge Between TradFi and DeFi | Propeller Industries
• RWA Tokenization: $10 Trillion Market by 2030 | Prolitus
• Former Ant Group engineers launch Pharos Foundation governance engine | Bitcoin Ethereum News
• Pharos Foundation Launches for 2026 Mainnet and TGE | Phemex News
• Why Pharos Stands out in RWA Layer 1 — Interview with Pharos | Medium
• Pharos Project Introduction, Team, Financing and News | RootData
• Blockchain Infrastructure and Financial Integration in 2026 | AInvest

Most blockchain infrastructure projects fail not because of bad technology, but because they solve the wrong problem. Developers don't need another generic L1 or yet another EVM rollup template. They need infrastructure that makes launching application-specific chains as easy as deploying a smart contract—while preserving the composability and liquidity of a unified ecosystem.

This is the 0-to-1 rollup problem: how do you go from concept to production-ready blockchain without assembling validator sets, fragmenting liquidity across isolated chains, or forcing users to bridge assets through a maze of incompatible ecosystems?

Initia's answer is audacious. Instead of building another isolated blockchain, the Binance Labs-backed project is constructing an orchestration layer that lets developers launch EVM, MoveVM, or WasmVM rollups as "Minitias"—interwoven L2s that share security, liquidity, and interoperability from day one. With 10,000+ TPS, 500ms block times, and a 50 million token airdrop launching before mainnet, Initia is betting that the future of blockchain isn't choosing between monolithic and modular—it's making modularity feel like a unified experience.

The Modular Blockchain Fragmentation Crisis​

The modular blockchain thesis promised specialization: separate execution, data availability, and consensus into distinct layers, allowing each to optimize independently. Celestia handles data availability. Ethereum becomes a settlement layer. Rollups compete on execution efficiency.

The reality? Fragmentation chaos.

As of early 2026, there are 75+ Bitcoin L2s, 150+ Ethereum L2s, and hundreds of Cosmos app-chains. Each new chain requires:

• Validator coordination: Recruiting and incentivizing a secure validator set
• Liquidity bootstrapping: Convincing users and protocols to move assets onto yet another chain
• Bridge infrastructure: Building or integrating cross-chain messaging protocols
• User onboarding: Teaching users how to manage wallets, gas tokens, and bridge mechanics across incompatible ecosystems

The result is what Vitalik Buterin calls "the rollup fragmentation problem": applications are isolated, liquidity is scattered, and users face nightmarish UX navigating 20+ chains to access simple DeFi workflows.

Initia's thesis is that fragmentation isn't an inevitable cost of modularity—it's a coordination failure.

The 0-to-1 Rollup Problem: Why App-Chains Are Too Hard​

Consider the journey of building an application-specific blockchain today:

Option 1: Launch a Cosmos App-Chain​

Cosmos SDK gives you customizability and sovereignty. But you need to:

• Recruit a validator set (expensive and time-consuming)
• Bootstrap token liquidity from zero
• Integrate IBC manually for cross-chain communication
• Compete for attention in a crowded Cosmos ecosystem

Projects like Osmosis, dYdX v4, and Hyperliquid succeeded, but they're exceptional. Most teams lack the resources and reputation to pull this off.

Option 2: Deploy an Ethereum L2​

Ethereum's rollup frameworks (OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, ZK Stack) simplify deployment, but:

• You inherit Ethereum's execution environment (EVM-only)
• Shared sequencers and interoperability standards are still experimental
• Liquidity fragmentation remains—each new L2 starts with empty liquidity pools
• You compete with Base, Arbitrum, and Optimism for developer and user attention

Option 3: Build on an Existing Chain​

The easiest path is deploying a dApp on an existing L1 or L2. But you sacrifice:

• Customization: You're constrained by the host chain's VM, gas model, and governance
• Revenue: Transaction fees flow to the base layer, not your application
• Sovereignty: Your application can be censored or throttled by the host chain

This is the 0-to-1 problem. Teams that want customizability and sovereignty face prohibitive bootstrapping costs. Teams that want easy deployment sacrifice control and economics.

Initia's solution: give developers the customizability of app-chains with the integrated experience of deploying a smart contract.

Initia's Architecture: The Orchestration Layer​

Initia isn't a monolithic blockchain or a generic rollup framework. It's a Cosmos SDK-based L1 that serves as an orchestration layer for application-specific L2s called Minitias.

Three-Layer Architecture​

1. Initia L1 (Orchestration Layer)

   • Coordinates security, routing, liquidity, and interoperability across Minitias
   • Validators stake INIT tokens to secure both L1 and all connected Minitias
   • Acts as a settlement layer for optimistic rollup fraud proofs
   • Provides shared economic security without requiring each Minitia to bootstrap its own validator set

2. Minitias (Application-Specific L2s)

   • Customizable Cosmos SDK rollups that can use EVM, MoveVM, or WasmVM
   • Achieve 10,000+ TPS and 500ms block times (20x faster than Ethereum L2s)
   • Publish state commitments to Initia L1 and data to Celestia's DA layer
   • Retain full sovereignty over gas models, governance, and application logic

3. Celestia DA Integration

   • Minitias post transaction data to Celestia for off-chain storage
   • Reduces data availability costs while maintaining fraud-proof security
   • Enables scalability without bloating the L1 state

The OPinit Stack: VM-Agnostic Optimistic Rollups​

Initia's rollup framework, OPinit Stack, is built entirely with Cosmos SDK but supports multiple virtual machines. This means:

• EVM Minitias can run Solidity smart contracts and inherit Ethereum tooling compatibility
• MoveVM Minitias leverage Move's resource-oriented programming for safer asset handling
• WasmVM Minitias offer flexibility for Rust-based applications

This is blockchain's first true multi-VM orchestration layer. Ethereum's rollups are EVM-only. Cosmos app-chains require separate validator sets for each chain. Initia gives you Cosmos-level customizability with Ethereum-level simplicity.

Interwoven Security: Shared Validators Without Full L2 Nodes​

Unlike Cosmos's shared security model (which requires validators to run full nodes for every secured chain), Initia's optimistic rollup security is more efficient:

• Validators on Initia L1 don't need to run full Minitia nodes
• Instead, they verify state commitments and resolve fraud proofs if disputes arise
• This reduces validator operational costs while maintaining security guarantees

The fraud-proof mechanism is simplified compared to Ethereum L2s:

• If a Minitia submits an invalid state root, anyone can challenge it with a fraud proof
• The L1 governance resolves disputes by re-executing transactions
• Invalid state roots trigger rollbacks and slashing of the sequencer's staked INIT

Unified Liquidity and Interoperability: The Enshrined IBC Advantage​

The breakthrough feature of Initia's architecture is enshrined IBC (Inter-Blockchain Communication) across Minitias.

How IBC Solves Cross-Chain Messaging​

Traditional cross-chain bridges are fragile:

• They rely on multisig committees or oracles that can be hacked or censored
• Each bridge is a custom integration with unique trust assumptions
• Users must manually bridge assets through multiple hops

IBC is Cosmos's native cross-chain messaging protocol—a light-client-based system where chains verify each other's state transitions cryptographically. It's the most battle-tested bridge protocol in blockchain, processing billions in cross-chain volume without major exploits.

Initia enshrines IBC at the L1 level, meaning:

• All Minitias automatically inherit IBC connectivity to each other and to the broader Cosmos ecosystem
• Assets can transfer seamlessly between EVM Minitias, MoveVM Minitias, and WasmVM Minitias without third-party bridges
• Liquidity isn't fragmented—it flows natively across the entire Initia ecosystem

Cross-VM Asset Transfers: A First in Blockchain​

Here's where Initia's multi-VM support becomes transformative. A user can:

1. Deposit USDC into an EVM Minitia running a DeFi lending protocol
2. Transfer that USDC via IBC to a MoveVM Minitia running a prediction market
3. Move earnings to a WasmVM Minitia for a gaming application
4. Bridge back to Ethereum or other Cosmos chains via IBC

All of this happens natively, without custom bridge contracts or wrapped tokens. This is cross-VM interoperability at the protocol level—something Ethereum's L2 ecosystem is still trying to achieve with experimental shared sequencers.

MoveVM + Cosmos IBC: The First Native Integration​

One of Initia's most technically significant achievements is integrating MoveVM natively with Cosmos IBC. Move is a programming language designed for asset-centric blockchains, emphasizing resource ownership and formal verification. It powers Sui and Aptos, two of the fastest-growing L1s.

But Move-based chains have been isolated from the broader blockchain ecosystem—until now.

Initia's MoveVM integration means:

• Move developers can build on Initia and access IBC liquidity from Cosmos, Ethereum, and beyond
• Projects can leverage Move's safety guarantees for asset handling while composing with EVM and Wasm applications
• This creates a competitive advantage: Initia becomes the first chain where Move, EVM, and Wasm developers can collaborate on the same liquidity layer

The 50 Million INIT Airdrop: Incentivizing Early Adoption​

Initia's token distribution reflects lessons learned from Cosmos's struggles with chain fragmentation. The INIT token serves three purposes:

1. Staking: Validators and delegators stake INIT to secure the L1 and all Minitias
2. Governance: Token holders vote on protocol upgrades, parameter changes, and ecosystem funding
3. Gas Fees: INIT is the native gas token for the L1; Minitias can choose their own gas tokens but must pay settlement fees in INIT

Airdrop Allocation​

The airdrop distributes 50 million INIT (5% of the 1 billion total supply) across three categories:

• 89.46% to testnet participants (rewarding early builders and testers)
• 4.50% to partner ecosystem users (attracting Cosmos and Ethereum users)
• 6.04% to social contributors (incentivizing community growth)

Claiming Window and Mainnet Timeline​

The airdrop is claimable for 30 days after mainnet launch. Unclaimed tokens are forfeited, creating scarcity and rewarding active participants.

The tight claiming window signals confidence in rapid mainnet adoption—teams don't wait 30 days to claim airdrops unless they're uncertain about the network's viability.

Initia vs. Ethereum L2 Scaling: A Different Approach​

Ethereum's L2 ecosystem is evolving toward similar goals—shared sequencers, cross-L2 messaging, and unified liquidity. But Initia's architecture differs fundamentally:

Feature	Ethereum L2s	Initia Minitias
VM Support	EVM-only (with experimental Wasm/Move efforts)	Native EVM, MoveVM, WasmVM from day one
Interoperability	Custom bridges or experimental shared sequencers	Enshrined IBC at L1 level
Liquidity	Fragmented across isolated L2s	Unified via IBC
Performance	2-10s block times, 1,000-5,000 TPS	500ms block times, 10,000+ TPS
Security	Each L2 submits fraud/validity proofs to Ethereum	Shared validator set via L1 staking
Data Availability	EIP-4844 blobs (limited capacity)	Celestia DA (scalable off-chain)

Ethereum's approach is bottoms-up: L2s launch independently, and coordination layers (like ERC-7683 cross-chain intents) are added retroactively.

Initia's approach is tops-down: the orchestration layer exists from day one, and Minitias inherit interoperability by default.

Both models have trade-offs. Ethereum's permissionless L2 deployment maximizes decentralization and experimentation. Initia's coordinated architecture maximizes UX and composability.

The market will decide which matters more.

Binance Labs' Strategic Investment: What It Signals​

Binance Labs' pre-seed investment in October 2023 (before Initia's public emergence) reflects strategic alignment. Binance has historically invested in infrastructure that complements its exchange ecosystem:

• BNB Chain: The exchange's own L1 for DeFi and dApps
• Polygon: Ethereum L2 scaling for mass adoption
• 1inch, Injective, Dune: DeFi and data infrastructure that drives trading volume

Initia fits this pattern. If Minitias succeed in abstracting away blockchain complexity, they lower the barrier for consumer applications—games, social platforms, prediction markets—that drive retail trading volume.

The follow-on $7.5M seed round in February 2024, led by Delphi Ventures and Hack VC, validates this thesis. These VCs specialize in backing long-term infrastructure plays, not hype-driven token launches.

The 0-to-1 Use Case: What Developers Are Building​

Several projects are already deploying Minitias on Initia's testnet. Key examples include:

Blackwing (Perpetual DEX)​

A derivatives exchange that needs high throughput and low latency. Building as a Minitia allows Blackwing to:

• Customize gas fees and block times for trading-specific workflows
• Capture MEV revenue instead of losing it to the base layer
• Access Initia's liquidity via IBC without bootstrapping its own

Tucana (NFT and Gaming Infrastructure)​

Gaming applications need fast finality and cheap transactions. A dedicated Minitia lets Tucana optimize for these without competing for blockspace on a generalized L1.

Noble (Stablecoin Issuance Layer)​

Noble is already a Cosmos chain issuing native USDC via Circle. Migrating to a Minitia preserves Noble's sovereignty while integrating with Initia's liquidity layer.

These aren't speculative projects—they're live applications solving real UX problems by deploying app-specific chains without the traditional coordination overhead.

The Risks: Can Initia Avoid Cosmos's Pitfalls?​

Cosmos's app-chain thesis pioneered sovereignty and interoperability. But it fragmented liquidity and user attention across hundreds of incompatible chains. Initia's orchestration layer is designed to solve this, but several risks remain:

1. Validator Centralization​

Initia's shared security model reduces Minitia operational costs, but it concentrates power in L1 validators. If a small set of validators controls both the L1 and all Minitias, censorship risk increases.

Mitigation: INIT staking must distribute broadly, and governance must remain credibly neutral.

2. Cross-VM Complexity​

Bridging assets between EVM, MoveVM, and WasmVM environments introduces edge cases:

• How do EVM contracts interact with Move resources?
• What happens when a Wasm module references an asset on a different VM?

If IBC messaging fails or introduces bugs, the entire interwoven model breaks.

3. Adoption Chicken-and-Egg Problem​

Minitias need liquidity to attract users. But liquidity providers need users to justify providing liquidity. If early Minitias fail to gain traction, the ecosystem risks becoming a ghost town of unused rollups.

4. Competition from Ethereum L2s​

Ethereum's L2 ecosystem has momentum: Base (Coinbase), Arbitrum (Offchain Labs), and Optimism (OP Labs) have established developer communities and billions in TVL. Shared sequencers and cross-L2 standards (like OP Stack interoperability) could replicate Initia's unified UX within the Ethereum ecosystem.

If Ethereum solves fragmentation before Initia gains traction, the market opportunity shrinks.

The Broader Context: Modular Blockchain's Evolution​

Initia represents the next phase of modular blockchain architecture. The first wave (Celestia, EigenDA, Polygon Avail) focused on data availability. The second wave (OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, ZK Stack) standardized rollup deployment.

The third wave—represented by Initia, Eclipse, and Saga—focuses on orchestration: making modular chains feel like a unified ecosystem.

This evolution mirrors cloud computing's journey:

• Phase 1 (2006-2010): AWS provides raw infrastructure (EC2, S3) for technical users
• Phase 2 (2011-2015): Platform-as-a-Service (Heroku, Google App Engine) abstracts complexity
• Phase 3 (2016-present): Serverless and orchestration layers (Kubernetes, Lambda) make distributed systems feel monolithic

Blockchain is following the same pattern. Initia is the Kubernetes of modular blockchains—abstracting infrastructure complexity while preserving customizability.

BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade API infrastructure for Initia, Cosmos, and 20+ blockchain networks. Explore our services to build Minitias on foundations designed for cross-chain interoperability.

Conclusion: The Race to Unify Modular Blockchain​

The blockchain industry is converging on a paradox: applications need specialization (app-chains) but users demand simplicity (unified UX). Initia's bet is that the solution isn't choosing between these goals—it's building infrastructure that makes specialization feel integrated.

If Initia succeeds, it could become the default deployment platform for application-specific blockchains, the same way AWS became the default for web infrastructure. Developers get sovereignty and customizability without coordination overhead. Users get seamless cross-chain experiences without bridge nightmares.

If it fails, it will be because Ethereum's L2 ecosystem solved fragmentation first, or because coordinating multi-VM environments proves too complex.

The 50 million INIT airdrop and mainnet launch will be the first real test. Will developers migrate projects to Minitias? Will users adopt applications built on Initia's orchestration layer? Will liquidity flow naturally across EVM, MoveVM, and WasmVM ecosystems?

The answers will determine whether modular blockchain's future is fragmented or interwoven.

---

Sources:

• Binance Labs Investment Announcement
• Layer 1 project Initia emerges from stealth with Binance Labs investment | The Block
• Introducing the First MoveVM Compatible with Cosmos IBC | Medium
• Initia: A Cosmos L1 for Interwoven Rollup Deployment | DAIC Capital
• Initia Technical Architecture | DAIC Capital
• What is Initia Network (INIT) - A Comprehensive Overview
• Initia set to airdrop 50 million tokens | The Block
• Initia Tokenomics - Initia Docs
• The Interwoven Stack: Optimistic Rollup Modules | Medium
• Initia First Look: A Network for Interwoven Rollups - Figment

AI agents now outnumber human financial services workers 96-to-1, yet they remain "unbanked ghosts" unable to hold wallets, sign transactions, or build credit history. Warden Protocol is betting that the missing piece isn't smarter AI—it's blockchain infrastructure that treats agents as first-class economic citizens.

Berachain launched in February 2025 with unprecedented hype. Pre-deposit campaigns attracted $3.1 billion before mainnet went live. The chain's native Proof of Liquidity (PoL) mechanism promised to solve DeFi's liquidity fragmentation problem. Meme culture and serious technology seemed perfectly aligned.

Twelve months later, the numbers tell a sobering story. TVL peaked at $3.35 billion and has since collapsed to approximately $393 million - an 88% decline. The BERA token crashed over 90% from its $2.70 high. And controversy around investor refund clauses has raised questions about who really benefits from this "community-first" chain.

Was Berachain a failed experiment, or is the underlying innovation still sound? Let's examine the evidence.

The Promise: Proof of Liquidity Explained​

Berachain's core innovation was Proof of Liquidity (PoL), a consensus mechanism that ties network security to DeFi participation. Unlike Proof of Stake where tokens sit idle in validator contracts, PoL requires liquidity to be actively deployed in the ecosystem.

The Three-Token Model:

• BERA: The gas token used to pay transaction fees. Inflationary by design.
• BGT (Bera Governance Token): Non-transferable governance token earned by providing liquidity. The only way to direct validator emissions.
• HONEY: Native stablecoin backed by USDC, central to the DeFi ecosystem.

The theory was elegant. Validators need BGT delegations to earn rewards. Users earn BGT by providing liquidity to approved "reward vaults." Protocols compete for BGT emissions by offering the best yields. This creates a flywheel where liquidity provision directly strengthens network security.

How It Works in Practice:

1. Users deposit assets into liquidity pools (e.g., BERA-HONEY on Kodiak)
2. LP tokens go into "reward vaults" to earn BGT
3. Users delegate BGT to validators
4. Validators with more BGT delegations earn more block rewards
5. Protocols can "bribe" BGT holders to direct emissions to their pools

The system essentially gamifies liquidity provision, turning passive yield farming into active governance participation.

The Reality: What the Numbers Show​

TVL Trajectory:

Date	TVL	Notes
Pre-launch	$3.1B	Boyco pre-deposit campaigns
February 2025	$3.35B	Peak TVL shortly after mainnet
Q2 2025	~$1.5B	Gradual decline begins
January 2026	$393M-$646M	Current range depending on source

The 88% TVL collapse raises immediate questions. Was the pre-deposit liquidity mercenary capital that left once incentives dried up? Did the PoL mechanism fail to create sustainable liquidity?

BERA Token Performance:

• Launch price: ~$2.70 (intraday high)
• Current price: ~$0.25-0.30
• Decline: Over 90%

The token crash was amplified by Berachain's design choice to make BERA inflationary. Unlike deflationary tokens that benefit holders during bear markets, BERA's continuous emission creates constant sell pressure.

DeFi Ecosystem Metrics:

Despite the TVL collapse, the ecosystem shows signs of genuine activity:

• Infrared Finance: $1.52 billion in peak TVL, leading liquid staking derivative provider
• Kodiak: $1.12 billion peak TVL, primary DEX for BERA trading pairs
• Concrete: ~$800 million TVL, yield aggregation platform
• BEX (Berachain DEX): Native exchange with concentrated liquidity features

These protocols collectively processed billions in volume. The question is whether current activity levels are sustainable without artificial incentives.

The Controversies​

The Brevan Howard Refund Clause:

Perhaps no controversy damaged Berachain's community perception more than the revelation about investor protections. Brevan Howard Digital, which invested $25 million, reportedly negotiated a refund clause allowing them to recover their investment if BERA dropped below certain thresholds.

Critics pointed out the asymmetry: institutional investors got downside protection while retail users absorbed the full risk. The "community-first" narrative felt hollow when insiders had safety nets unavailable to regular participants.

Airdrop Distribution:

The BERA airdrop allocated only 3-5% of supply to testnet participants who had supported the project for years. Complaints about "low effort allocation" spread across social media. Users who spent months testing the network felt shortchanged compared to investors who simply wrote checks.

The Balancer Exploit:

In March 2025, a $12.8 million exploit hit Balancer-based pools on Berachain. While not a flaw in PoL itself, the security incident undermined confidence in the nascent ecosystem. Funds were eventually frozen and partially recovered, but the damage to reputation was done.

What's Actually Working​

Despite the problems, Berachain introduced innovations worth acknowledging:

Genuine DeFi Composability:

The PoL system created deep integrations between protocols. Infrared's liquid staking derivatives (iBGT, iBERA) plug directly into Kodiak's liquidity pools, which feed into Concrete's yield strategies. This composability is more sophisticated than typical chain architectures.

Active Governance:

BGT delegation isn't theoretical - protocols actively compete for emissions. The bribing market creates transparent price discovery for liquidity direction. Users know exactly what their governance participation is worth.

Novel Economic Experiments:

Berachain effectively created a "liquidity layer" that other chains lack. The data from this experiment - what works, what fails - has value regardless of price performance.

Developer Activity:

The ecosystem attracted legitimate builders. Projects like Infrared Finance developed sophisticated liquid staking mechanisms. Kodiak built concentrated liquidity features competitive with Uniswap V3. This technical foundation isn't erased by price declines.

The Bear Case​

Critics make several compelling arguments:

Mercenary Capital Problem Unsolved:

PoL was supposed to create "sticky" liquidity by tying it to governance. In practice, capital still left when yields dropped. The mechanism added complexity without fundamentally changing incentive alignment.

Token Design Failures:

Making BERA inflationary while BGT is non-transferable created structural sell pressure. Users earning BGT often sold their BERA emissions immediately, accelerating the price decline.

Complexity Barrier:

The three-token system confused newcomers. Understanding BERA vs. BGT vs. HONEY required significant education. Many users simply provided liquidity without understanding the governance implications.

Sustainability Questions:

With incentives exhausted and TVL collapsed, can Berachain attract organic activity? The chain must prove it offers something beyond yield farming opportunities available elsewhere.

Comparison: Berachain vs. Traditional L1s​

Metric	Berachain	Arbitrum	Solana	Avalanche
Consensus	PoL	PoS (Ethereum)	PoS + PoH	PoS
Peak TVL	$3.35B	$3.2B	$8B+	$2.5B
Current TVL	~$400M	~$2.5B	~$5B	~$1B
Native Stablecoin	HONEY	None	None	None
Liquidity Incentive	Built into consensus	External	External	External

Berachain's PoL is genuinely novel, but the results suggest the innovation hasn't translated into sustainable competitive advantage.

What Happens Next​

Berachain faces a critical juncture. The project can either:

Scenario 1: Rebuild Around Core Users

Focus on the protocols and users who stayed through the collapse. Infrared, Kodiak, and Concrete have proven commitment. Building from a smaller but more genuine base could create sustainable growth.

Scenario 2: Pivot PoL Mechanism

Adjust the tokenomics to reduce sell pressure. Possible changes include making BGT partially transferable, reducing BERA inflation, or adding burn mechanisms.

Scenario 3: Ecosystem Stagnation

Without new catalysts, Berachain becomes another ghost chain with interesting technology but no adoption. The meme culture that drove initial interest won't sustain long-term development.

Key Metrics to Watch:

• Organic TVL growth: Is capital coming without artificial incentives?
• Developer retention: Are teams still building on Berachain?
• BGT accumulation: Are users engaging with governance or just farming and dumping?
• HONEY adoption: Is the native stablecoin gaining real utility?

Lessons for the Industry​

Berachain's year-one results offer broader lessons:

1. Pre-deposit campaigns create artificial baselines

$3.1 billion in pre-launch liquidity looked impressive but set unrealistic expectations. Chains should be measured by post-incentive activity, not peak mercenary capital.

2. Novel consensus mechanisms need time

Proof of Liquidity represents genuine innovation. Dismissing it based on one year of volatile markets may be premature. The mechanism needs multiple market cycles to prove its thesis.

3. Tokenomics matter as much as technology

PoL's technical design may be sound, but the inflationary BERA token undermined price performance. Economic design deserves equal attention to consensus mechanisms.

4. Community trust is fragile

The Brevan Howard refund clause and airdrop controversies damaged trust that technology can't rebuild. Transparency about investor terms should be standard practice.

Conclusion​

Berachain's first year delivered both innovation and disappointment. Proof of Liquidity represents a genuine attempt to solve DeFi's liquidity fragmentation. The three-token model created deep protocol composability. Developers built sophisticated applications.

But the numbers don't lie. An 88% TVL collapse and 90% token crash indicate something went wrong. Whether the failure lies in market conditions, tokenomics, or the PoL mechanism itself remains debatable.

The technology isn't dead - Infrared Finance still processes significant volume, and the governance system functions as designed. But Berachain must prove it can attract organic activity without the artificial boost of launch incentives.

One year is too short to declare final judgment on a novel consensus mechanism. But it's long enough to acknowledge that the initial execution fell short of the promise. The next twelve months will determine whether Berachain becomes a cautionary tale or a comeback story.

---

BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade RPC infrastructure across 25+ blockchain networks, enabling developers to build applications on established and emerging chains. As the L1 landscape evolves, reliable node access remains essential for production applications. Explore our API marketplace for multi-chain development infrastructure.

Eleven people. $330 billion in monthly trading volume. $106 million in revenue per employee—more than Nvidia, more than Tether, more than OnlyFans. These numbers would be remarkable for any company in any industry. That they belong to a decentralized exchange built on a custom Layer-1 blockchain challenges everything we thought we knew about how crypto infrastructure should be built.

Hyperliquid didn't just outperform dYdX, GMX, and every other perpetual DEX. It rewrote the playbook for what's possible when you reject venture capital, build from first principles, and optimize ruthlessly for performance over headcount.

In two days, 1.37 billion PLUME tokens worth $23 million will flood the market—representing 40% of the current circulating supply. For most crypto projects, this would spell disaster. But for Plume Network, the RWA-focused Layer 1 that controls half of all real-world asset holders in crypto, it's shaping up to be the defining moment for whether tokenized finance can withstand institutional-grade volatility.

The unlock scheduled for January 21, 2026, isn't just another vesting event. It's a referendum on whether the $35 billion RWA sector has matured enough to separate speculation from substance—and whether Plume's 280,000 holders represent genuine utility or paper hands waiting for an exit.

The Numbers That Make This Unlock Different​

Most token unlocks follow a predictable pattern: insiders dump, price crashes, retail gets burned. Plume's situation defies this narrative in several ways.

The January 21 release splits almost evenly between Core Contributors (667 million tokens, $11.24 million) and Investors (700 million tokens, $11.8 million). This dual unlock structure matters because it creates competing incentives. While investors might seek immediate liquidity, core contributors betting on Plume's 2026 roadmap have reasons to hold.

Here's the context that makes Plume unusual: the network already commands 279,692 RWA holders—roughly 50% of all RWA holders across every blockchain combined. When CEO Chris Yin points to "$200 million in RWAs held across 280,000 users," he's describing something the crypto industry rarely sees: measurable utility rather than speculative positioning.

The token has already dropped 65% from its 60-day high, suggesting much of the unlock pressure may already be priced in. Historical patterns show that large unlocks typically trigger pre-event selling as markets front-run dilution. The question now becomes whether the selloff was oversized relative to Plume's actual fundamentals.

Why Plume Commands the RWA Market​

Plume Network launched its Genesis mainnet in June 2025 with $150 million in deployed real-world assets and integrations with institutional heavyweights including Blackstone, Invesco, Curve, and Morpho. In six months, total value locked swelled past $578 million.

The network's architecture differs fundamentally from general-purpose Layer 1s. Plume built specifically for RWAfi (real-world asset finance), creating native infrastructure for tokenizing everything from private credit and U.S. Treasuries to art, commodities, and even uranium. The ecosystem now includes over 200 projects, with blue-chip DeFi protocols like Morpho, Curve, and Orderly providing lending, trading, and yield opportunities for tokenized assets.

Three developments in late 2025 positioned Plume for institutional adoption:

SEC Transfer Agent Approval: Plume secured regulatory approval to handle tokenized securities on-chain and integrate with U.S. traditional finance infrastructure including DTCC's settlement network.

Dinero Protocol Acquisition: By acquiring Dinero in October 2025, Plume expanded its product suite to include institutional-grade yield products for ETH, SOL, and BTC—diversifying beyond pure RWA tokenization.

Abu Dhabi Global Market License: The December 2025 ADGM license opens Middle Eastern markets for tokenization services targeting real estate and commodities, with a physical office in Abu Dhabi planned for 2026.

The Securitize Alliance: BlackRock's Backing by Proxy​

Perhaps the most significant signal for Plume's trajectory is its strategic partnership with Securitize, the tokenization platform that powers BlackRock's $2.5 billion BUIDL fund.

Securitize isn't just any partner—it's the dominant force in institutional tokenization, controlling 20% of the RWA market with over $4 billion in tokenized assets. The platform has SEC-registered entities across transfer agent, broker-dealer, alternative trading system, investment advisor, and fund administration functions. In October 2025, Securitize filed to go public at a $1.25 billion valuation through a SPAC merger, signaling mainstream finance's embrace of tokenization infrastructure.

The Plume-Securitize collaboration deploys institutional-grade assets on Plume's Nest staking protocol. The first pilots—Hamilton Lane private funds—launched in early 2026, with a target of $100 million in capital deployment. Hamilton Lane manages over $800 billion in assets, and its tokenized funds on Plume provide exposure to direct equities, private credit, and secondary transactions.

This partnership effectively connects BlackRock's tokenization infrastructure (via Securitize) to Plume's 280,000-strong holder base—the largest RWA community in crypto. When institutional capital meets retail distribution at this scale, the traditional playbook for token unlock dynamics may not apply.

What RWA's 3-5x Growth Projection Means for Token Economics​

CEO Chris Yin projects the RWA market will grow 3-5x in 2026, expanding beyond crypto-native use cases to institutional adoption. If correct, this growth could fundamentally alter how the market interprets Plume's unlock.

The current on-chain RWA market sits at approximately $35 billion, with private credit ($18.4 billion) and tokenized U.S. Treasuries ($8.6 billion) dominating the landscape. McKinsey projects the broader tokenization market could reach $2 trillion by 2030, while more conservative estimates suggest $500 billion to $3 trillion for public tokenized assets.

For Plume specifically, this growth thesis translates to concrete metrics:

• Holder Expansion: If RWA holders triple from the current 514,000 across all chains, and Plume maintains its 50% market share, the network could see 700,000+ holders by year-end.
• TVL Growth: From $578 million currently, a 3x sector expansion could push Plume's TVL toward $1.5-2 billion—assuming proportional capital flows.
• Fee Revenue: Higher TVL and transaction volume directly translate to protocol revenue, creating a fundamental value case independent of token speculation.

The unlock's impact must be measured against this growth trajectory. A 40% supply increase matters less if the demand side is expanding 3-5x simultaneously.

Historical Precedents: When Unlocks Don't Destroy Value​

Data from token unlock analysis reveals a counterintuitive pattern: unlocks releasing more than 1% of circulating supply typically trigger notable price movements, while the direction depends on broader market conditions and project fundamentals.

Consider Arbitrum's billion-dollar cliff unlock in March 2024—1.11 billion ARB tokens representing an 87% increase in circulating supply. While the event created significant volatility, ARB didn't collapse. The lesson: liquid markets with genuine utility can absorb supply shocks that would destroy speculative tokens.

Plume's situation offers several mitigating factors:

1. Pre-priced Dilution: The 65% drawdown from recent highs suggests aggressive positioning against the unlock already occurred.

2. Linear Vesting Structure: Unlike cliff unlocks that dump everything at once, Plume's allocation includes linear vesting components that spread supply increases over time.

3. Institutional Holder Base: With Securitize-connected institutional capital and Hamilton Lane funds on the platform, a significant portion of holders likely have longer investment horizons than typical crypto speculators.

4. Exchange Supply Dynamics: Reports indicate large investors have been reducing exchange supply, suggesting confidence in Plume's ecosystem rather than preparation for mass selling.

The RWA Competitive Landscape​

Plume doesn't operate in a vacuum. The RWA sector has attracted serious competition:

Ondo Finance has positioned itself as the primary on-ramp for bringing institutional yield on-chain, with USDY backed by short-term U.S. Treasuries and bank deposits. Its Ondo Global Markets platform recently launched for non-U.S. investors.

BlackRock's BUIDL remains the largest tokenized Treasury product at $2.5+ billion AUM, now accessible across nine blockchain networks including Ethereum, Solana, and Arbitrum.

Centrifuge, Maple, and Goldfinch continue capturing private credit market share, though with smaller holder bases than Plume.

What distinguishes Plume is its full-stack approach: rather than focusing on a single asset class, the network provides infrastructure for the entire RWA lifecycle—from tokenization through trading, lending, and yield generation. The Arc tokenization engine, SkyLink cross-chain distribution, and Nexus on-chain data highway create an integrated ecosystem that competitors would need years to replicate.

What to Watch on January 21​

The unlock itself is mechanical—tokens will release regardless of market conditions. The meaningful signals will come from:

Immediate Price Action: A sharp drop followed by quick recovery would suggest the market views the unlock as a temporary supply shock rather than fundamental weakness. Continued decline might indicate institutional sellers executing pre-planned distributions.

Exchange Flows: On-chain watchers will track whether unlocked tokens move to exchanges (selling pressure) or remain in non-custodial wallets (holding).

Nest Staking Activity: If unlocked tokens flow into Plume's Nest protocol rather than exchanges, it signals holder conviction in staking yields over immediate liquidity.

Securitize Deployment Updates: Any announcements about Hamilton Lane fund expansion or new institutional partnerships would provide fundamental counterweight to supply concerns.

The Bigger Picture: RWA's Institutional Moment​

Beyond Plume's specific unlock dynamics, January 2026 represents an inflection point for tokenized real-world assets. The convergence of clearer regulatory frameworks (SEC approvals, MiCA in Europe, ADGM licenses), increasing enterprise-grade deployment (BlackRock, Hamilton Lane, Apollo), and improving interoperability is pushing blockchain from experimental applications to financial market infrastructure.

When traditional financial institutions with $800+ billion under management tokenize funds on a network with 280,000 retail holders, the old dichotomy between "institutional finance" and "crypto" starts breaking down. The question isn't whether RWAs will become a major crypto narrative—that's already happened. The question is whether native RWA chains like Plume will capture this growth or lose ground to multi-purpose L1s and L2s adding RWA features.

Plume's unlock will provide the first major stress test for this thesis. If the network's holder base, institutional partnerships, and utility metrics prove resilient against 40% supply dilution, it validates the argument that tokenized finance has matured beyond speculation.

If not, the RWA sector will need to reckon with whether its fundamentals-driven narrative was always just another crypto story waiting for the right unlock to unravel.

---

For developers building in the RWA and tokenization space, reliable blockchain infrastructure is essential. BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade RPC nodes and API services across multiple chains, enabling seamless integration with tokenization protocols and DeFi applications.

When the former CTO of Ant Chain and the Chief Security Officer of Ant Financial's Web3 division left one of the world's largest fintech companies to start a blockchain from scratch, the industry took notice. Their bet? That the $24 billion tokenized real-world asset market is about to explode into the trillions—and existing blockchains aren't ready for it.

Pharos Network, the high-performance Layer 1 they're building, just closed an $8 million seed round led by Lightspeed Faction and Hack VC. But the more interesting number is the $1.5 billion RWA pipeline they've announced with Ant Digital Technologies, their former employer's Web3 arm. This isn't a speculative DeFi play—it's an institutional-grade infrastructure bet backed by people who've already built financial systems processing billions of transactions.

The Ant Group DNA: Building for Scale They've Already Seen​

Alex Zhang, Pharos's CEO, spent years as CTO of Ant Chain, overseeing blockchain infrastructure that processed transactions for hundreds of millions of users across Alibaba's ecosystem. Co-founder and CTO Meng Wu was responsible for security at Ant Financial's Web3 division, protecting some of the most valuable financial infrastructure in Asia.

Their diagnosis of the current blockchain landscape is blunt: existing networks weren't designed for the financial industry's actual requirements. Solana optimizes for speed but lacks the compliance primitives institutions need. Ethereum prioritizes decentralization but can't deliver the sub-second finality that real-time payments demand. The "institutional Solana" doesn't exist yet.

Pharos aims to fill that gap with what they call a "full-stack parallel blockchain"—a network designed from the ground up for the specific demands of tokenized assets, cross-border payments, and enterprise DeFi.

The Technical Architecture: Beyond Sequential Processing​

Most blockchains process transactions sequentially, like a single-file line at a bank. Even Ethereum's recent upgrades and Solana's parallel processing treat the blockchain as a unified system with fundamental throughput limits. Pharos takes a different approach, implementing what they call "Degree of Parallelism" optimization—essentially treating the blockchain like a GPU rather than a CPU.

The Three-Layer Design:

• L1-Base: Provides data availability with hardware acceleration, handling the raw storage and retrieval of blockchain data at speeds traditional networks can't match.

• L1-Core: Implements a novel BFT consensus that allows multiple validator nodes to propose, validate, and commit transactions concurrently. Unlike classical BFT implementations requiring fixed leader roles and round-based communication, Pharos validators operate in parallel.

• L1-Extension: Enables "Special Processing Networks" (SPNs)—customized execution environments for specific use cases like high-frequency trading or AI model execution. Think of it as creating dedicated fast lanes for different types of financial activity.

The Execution Engine:

The heart of Pharos is its parallel execution system combining LLVM-based intermediate representation conversion with speculative parallel processing. The technical innovations include:

• Smart Access List Inference (SALI): Static and dynamic analysis to identify which state entries a contract will access, enabling transactions with non-overlapping state to execute simultaneously.

• Dual VM Support: Both EVM and WASM virtual machines, ensuring Solidity compatibility while enabling high-performance execution for contracts written in Rust or other languages.

• Pipelined Block Processing: Inspired by superscalar processors, dividing the block lifecycle into parallel stages—consensus ordering, database preloading, execution, Merkleization, and flushing all happen concurrently.

The result? Their testnet has demonstrated 30,000+ TPS with 0.5-second block times, with mainnet targets of 50,000 TPS and sub-second finality. For context, Visa processes roughly 1,700 TPS on average.

Why RWA Tokenization Needs Different Infrastructure​

The tokenized real-world asset market has grown from $85 million in 2020 to over $24 billion by mid-2025—a 245x increase in just five years. McKinsey projects $2 trillion by 2030; Standard Chartered estimates $30 trillion by 2034. Some analysts expect $50 trillion in annual RWA trading by decade's end.

But here's the disconnect: most of this growth has happened on chains that weren't designed for it. Private credit dominates the current market at $17 billion, followed by U.S. Treasuries at $7.3 billion. These aren't speculative tokens—they're regulated financial instruments requiring:

• Identity verification that satisfies KYC/AML requirements across jurisdictions
• Compliance primitives built into the protocol layer, not bolted on afterward
• Sub-second settlement for real-time payment applications
• Institutional-grade security with formal verification and hardware-backed protection

Pharos addresses these requirements with native zkDID authentication and on-chain/off-chain credit systems. When they talk about "bridging TradFi and Web3," they mean building the compliance rails into the infrastructure itself.

The Ant Digital Partnership: $1.5 Billion in Real Assets​

The strategic partnership with ZAN—Ant Digital Technologies' Web3 brand—isn't just a press release. It represents a $1.5 billion pipeline of renewable energy RWA assets slated for the Pharos mainnet at launch.

The collaboration focuses on three areas:

1. Node services and infrastructure: ZAN's enterprise-grade node operations supporting Pharos's validator network
2. Security and hardware acceleration: Leveraging Ant's experience with hardware-secured financial systems
3. RWA use case development: Bringing actual tokenized assets—not hypothetical ones—to the network from day one

The Pharos team has prior experience implementing tokenization projects including Xiexin Energy Technology and Langxin Group. They're not learning RWA tokenization on Pharos—they're applying expertise developed inside one of the world's largest fintech ecosystems.

From Testnet to Mainnet: The Q1 2026 Launch​

Pharos launched its AtlanticOcean testnet with impressive metrics: nearly 3 billion transactions across 23 million blocks since May, all with 0.5-second block times. The testnet introduced:

• Hybrid parallel execution based on DAG and Block-STM V1
• Official PoS tokenomics with a 1 billion token supply
• Modular architecture decoupling consensus, execution, and storage layers
• Integration with major wallets including OKX Wallet and Bitget Wallet

Mainnet is scheduled for Q1 2026, coinciding with the Token Generation Event. The foundation charter will be released after TGE, establishing the governance framework for what aims to be a truly decentralized network despite its institutional focus.

The project has attracted over 1.4 million testnet users—a significant community for a pre-mainnet network, suggesting strong interest in the RWA-focused narrative.

The Competitive Landscape: Where Does Pharos Fit?​

The RWA tokenization space is getting crowded. Provenance leads with over $12 billion in assets. Ethereum hosts major issuers like BlackRock and Ondo. Canton Network—backed by Goldman Sachs, BNP Paribas, and DTCC—processes over $4 trillion in tokenized transactions monthly.

Pharos's positioning is distinct:

• Versus Canton: Canton is permissioned; Pharos aims for trustless decentralization with compliance primitives
• Versus Ethereum: Pharos offers 50x the throughput with native RWA infrastructure
• Versus Solana: Pharos prioritizes institutional compliance over raw DeFi throughput
• Versus Plume Network: Both target RWA, but Pharos brings Ant Group's enterprise DNA and existing asset pipeline

The Ant Group pedigree matters here. Building financial infrastructure isn't just about technical architecture—it's about understanding regulatory requirements, institutional risk management, and the actual workflows of financial services. The Pharos team has built these systems at scale.

What This Means for the RWA Narrative​

The RWA tokenization thesis is straightforward: most of the world's value exists in illiquid assets that could benefit from blockchain's settlement efficiency, programmability, and global accessibility. Real estate, private credit, commodities, infrastructure—these markets dwarf cryptocurrency's entire market cap.

But the infrastructure gap has been real. Tokenizing a Treasury bill on Ethereum works; tokenizing $300 million in renewable energy assets requires compliance rails, institutional-grade security, and throughput that doesn't collapse under real-world transaction volumes.

Pharos represents a new category of blockchain: not a general-purpose smart contract platform optimizing for DeFi composability, but a specialized financial infrastructure layer designed for the specific requirements of tokenized real-world assets.

Whether they succeed depends on execution—literally. Can they deliver 50,000 TPS at mainnet? Will institutions actually deploy assets on the network? Does the compliance framework satisfy regulators across jurisdictions?

The answers will emerge through 2026. But with $8 million in funding, $1.5 billion in announced asset pipeline, and a team that's already built financial systems at Ant Group scale, Pharos has the resources and credibility to find out.

---

BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade blockchain infrastructure for the next generation of Web3 applications. As RWA tokenization transforms global finance, reliable node services and API access become critical infrastructure. Explore our API marketplace to build on foundations designed for institutional-grade applications.