It is believed by Christian Catalini, the creator of Meta’s Libra, that Stripe’s Tempo may be destined to fail, as permissionless networks represent the future.
An explanation of how Stripe’s Tempo blockchain fails a core principle of the crypto movement was provided by Christian Catalini, the co-creator of Meta’s now-defunct Libra project, via a post on X.
Catalini is convinced that if Stripe’s Tempo proves commercially successful, early crypto idealists will have to embrace a future where the original ethos of decentralization is lost. His point was illustrated by the example of Libra’s failure.
The Demise of Libra: What Really Derailed Meta’s Crypto Ambitions
It was noted by Catalini that in the technology and financial sectors, arriving at the market too soon is nearly equivalent to being incorrect. In his post, he wrote:
“Looking back on Libra, the stablecoin project I helped design inside Meta, I can confirm we weren’t just early; we were also comically, spectacularly wrong.”
It was noted by Catalini that a number of factors, besides the ill-fated timing, contributed to Libra’s ultimate failure. Among these was “Silicon Valley hubris—the belief that elegant code can simply wish away centuries of financial regulation.”
Additionally, ammunition for its opponents was provided by Facebook’s assertive promotion of Libra, which also garnered more notice.
A prevalent misconception that Libra failed because it could not meet regulatory guidelines was noted by Catalini. However, he wrote that the opposite is true, adding:
“The reality is that we were on the verge of becoming the most buttoned-up, regulator-friendly crypto project on the planet.”
The Flaw in the Code: Why Corporate Blockchains Fail Crypto’s Core Test
“The problem with corporate chains like Tempo isn’t a matter of code—it’s a matter of incentives. We already know the script.”
Catalini wrote:
A tech firm typically creates a blockchain and pledges impartiality. However, once a substantial market share is captured, the temptation to manipulate the rules to their advantage becomes nearly irresistible.
It was written by Catalini that “crypto’s purpose is to break this cycle of broken promises.” He also added:
“It’s the same fundamental economic truth we identified at MIT almost a decade ago: the only thing that truly separates crypto from the systems it aims to replace is that it’s permissionless.”
The permissionless aspect of the network was sacrificed by Libra engineers. Similarly, the network’s plan for non-custodial wallets had to be abandoned because, he explained, regulators required the ability to identify and fine responsible parties when things went wrong.
“A world where users truly control their own money is messy, borderless, and doesn’t fit that legacy blueprint. For them, killing self-custody wasn’t a choice, it was an obvious necessity based on the tools they understood.”
he explained
The Future of Crypto’s Core Ethos Hinges on Tempo’s Success
It was stated by Catalini that should corporate blockchains like Tempo and Circle’s Arc prove successful, it would indicate that “the crypto experiment was not a revolution, but a failed coup.” This is because while the backend technology will be different, the market structure will remain “eerily familiar,” he wrote.
Catalini characterized it as a change of monarchs while the seat of power remains the same, as fintech behemoths will succeed existing card networks and financial institutions. He additionally surmised that the markets in the West and the East will likely be controlled by at least two rival empires.
Catalini holds the view that if Libra’s demise is attributed entirely to unfortunate timing, Tempo’s success is almost certain, given the shift in regulatory position. In such a case, the original crypto idealists may ultimately have to embrace a more pragmatic, centralized reality.
“But if Libra’s ghost is a warning about a fundamental truth—that any system with a single architect is built on a fatal flaw—then Stripe is not writing a new story. It is merely staging an entertaining, and very expensive, sequel.”
However, he warned:
