The internet of value is broken. The current multi-chain landscape is a collection of isolated state machines, not a unified network. Moving value between Ethereum and Solana requires complex, trust-minimized bridges like Across or Wormhole, introducing systemic risk and user friction.
history-of-money-and-the-crypto-thesis
Blog
Why The Internet of Value Requires a New Network Layer
Legacy financial rails like SWIFT and Visa are closed, slow, and expensive. The internet of value demands a neutral, open, and programmable protocol layer—a role only public blockchains like Ethereum and Solana can fulfill.
introduction
THE PREMISE
Introduction
The internet of value is a flawed reality, constrained by a fragmented and insecure network layer built for data, not assets.
Web2's TCP/IP is insufficient. The internet's core protocol transmits data packets with no intrinsic value, enabling perfect copies. Blockchains must transmit unique, stateful assets, a problem TCP/IP was never designed to solve. This mismatch creates the bridging and composability crisis.
The new network layer is a settlement mesh. It must provide a universal, verifiable ledger for asset provenance and state changes across domains. Projects like LayerZero and Chainlink CCIP are early attempts to build this canonical state layer, treating each blockchain as a module in a larger system.
key-trends
THE STATE OF THE STACK
Executive Summary
Today's internet is a network of information, not value. Moving assets requires patching together custodians, banks, and slow settlement layers. This is the core architectural flaw.
01
The Problem: The Settlement Speed Mismatch
Information moves at light speed; value moves at the speed of banking days. This creates a multi-trillion dollar opportunity cost in locked capital and stifles innovation.\n- Visa processes ~65,000 TPS; Ethereum settles ~15 TPS.\n- Cross-border payments take 2-5 days and cost ~6.5% on average.
2-5 Days
Settlement Lag
~6.5%
Avg. Cost
02
The Solution: Programmable Finality
Blockchains provide a global, shared settlement layer with deterministic finality. Smart contracts (e.g., Uniswap, Aave) turn this layer into a programmable financial primitive.\n- Enables atomic composability: loans, trades, and transfers in one transaction.\n- Reduces counterparty risk via non-custodial execution.
$50B+
DeFi TVL
Atomic
Composability
03
The New Abstraction: Intents Over Transactions
Users shouldn't specify low-level 'how' (transactions), but high-level 'what' (intents). Systems like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across abstract away complexity.\n- Better UX: Sign a goal, not a transaction list.\n- Better Execution: Solvers compete to fulfill your intent optimally.
~20%
Better Prices
Gasless
User Experience
04
The Interop Challenge: Fragmented Liquidity
Value trapped in siloed chains (Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche) defeats the 'Internet' premise. Bridges and interoperability protocols (LayerZero, Wormhole, Polygon AggLayer) are the new BGP.\n- Security Spectrum: From light clients to optimistic verification.\n- Current Risk: Bridge hacks account for ~$2.5B+ in losses.
$2.5B+
Bridge Exploits
100+
Active Chains
05
The Infrastructure Pivot: Rollups as the New Norm
Monolithic chains can't scale the trilemma. The future is modular: Ethereum for security, rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) for execution.\n- Throughput: Rollups push ~100-4000 TPS vs. L1 ~15 TPS.\n- Cost: Fees reduced by 10-100x for users.
10-100x
Cheaper Fees
~4000 TPS
Peak Capacity
06
The Endgame: Universal Settlement
The Internet of Value isn't one chain to rule them all. It's a network of specialized layers (settlement, execution, data availability) seamlessly connected. The winning stack provides security as a service and liquidity as a utility.\n- Key Players: Celestia, EigenLayer, Cosmos IBC.\n- Metric: Capital efficiency approaches theoretical limits.
~100%
Capital Efficiency
Universal
Composability
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVE
The Core Thesis: Neutrality is Non-Negotiable
The internet of value requires a neutral network layer to prevent capture and enable permissionless innovation.
The internet failed. It centralized around protocol-level gatekeepers like AWS and Google, who extract rent and censor transactions. This is the inevitable outcome of a network where the application and infrastructure layers are controlled by the same entity.
Blockchains are the new infrastructure. They provide a neutral settlement substrate where value transfer rules are transparent and immutable. This neutrality is the prerequisite for a global, open financial system that cannot be shut down.
Current L1s are not neutral enough. Ethereum's high base-layer fees and governance capture risks create de facto gatekeeping. Solana's reliance on Jito's MEV infrastructure demonstrates how critical services can recentralize. True neutrality requires separating execution from core consensus.
Evidence: The $2.3B in MEV extracted on Ethereum in 2023 proves that even decentralized networks create extractive, non-neutral intermediaries when the stack is monolithic. A new layer must bake neutrality into its architecture from day one.
THE INTERNET OF VALUE
Legacy Rails vs. The New Protocol Layer
A comparison of traditional financial infrastructure against modern blockchain-based settlement layers, highlighting the architectural shift required for native value transfer.
| Architectural Feature | Legacy Financial Rails (SWIFT, ACH) | Public Blockchain Layer (Ethereum, Solana) | Intent-Centric Layer (UniswapX, Across) |
|---|---|---|---|
Settlement Finality | 1-5 business days | < 13 seconds (Ethereum) | < 1 minute (optimistic) |
Transaction Cost (Base) | $25-50 (SWIFT cross-border) | $1-20 (variable gas) | $0 (gas sponsorship model) |
Native Programmability | |||
Atomic Composability | |||
Counterparty Risk | High (correspondent banks) | None (cryptographic settlement) | Minimal (solver competition) |
Operating Hours | 9am-5pm, Mon-Fri | 24/7/365 | 24/7/365 |
Developer Access | Gated API (KYC) | Permissionless (RPC endpoint) | Permissionless (intent standard) |
Value Representation | IOU (database entry) | Native Token (on-chain state) | Derived Claim (signed intent) |
deep-dive
THE NETWORK LAYER
Why Public Blockchains Are The Only Fit
The internet of value requires a public, neutral settlement layer because private networks fail at interoperability and credibly neutral finality.
Sovereign value systems require finality. Private ledgers, like those from banks or corporations, are just databases with branding. Their settlement is a promise, not a cryptographic proof. Public blockchains like Ethereum provide credibly neutral finality, a state where asset ownership is globally verifiable without trusting a central operator.
Interoperability is a coordination problem. Private networks create walled gardens. Moving value between JP Morgan's Onyx and a Goldman Sachs ledger requires bespoke, permissioned bridges. Public blockchains solve this with permissionless interoperability protocols like LayerZero and Wormhole, which treat all participants as untrusted and enable composable asset movement.
The network effect is the moat. A payments network's value is the square of its users. Private networks fragment liquidity. Public blockchains aggregate it, creating a global liquidity pool where protocols like Uniswap and Aave bootstrap instantly. This is why Visa's blockchain initiatives struggle to gain traction against the open DeFi ecosystem.
Evidence: The Total Value Locked (TVL) in public DeFi exceeds $50B. The combined TVL of all private, permissioned enterprise blockchains is negligible. The market votes with capital for public, open networks.
counter-argument
WHY NOT JUST UPGRADE THE INTERNET?
Steelmanning The Opposition
Critics argue the existing internet stack, with upgrades, is sufficient for value transfer. Here's their strongest case.
01
The Legacy Stack Is Good Enough
Proponents of incrementalism argue that existing protocols (TCP/IP, HTTPS) with financial rails (SWIFT, FedNow, Visa) can be enhanced for digital value. They point to centralized efficiency and regulatory clarity as unbeatable advantages.
- Settlement Finality: Traditional systems offer instant, legally final settlement within their jurisdiction.
- Proven Scale: Processes trillions in daily volume with sub-second latency for card payments.
- Consumer Protection: Chargebacks and regulated entities provide a safety net users expect.
Trillions
Daily Volume
<1s
Auth Latency
02
Layer-2s & App-Chains Fragment Liquidity
Skeptics contend that blockchain's own scaling solutions (Optimism, Arbitrum, Polygon) and app-specific chains (dYdX, Aave) create a worse user experience than a unified legacy system. The internet of value becomes a maze of isolated islands.
- Fragmented UX: Users must manage multiple wallets, bridges, and gas tokens.
- Bridge Risk: Over $2.5B has been stolen from cross-chain bridges, a vulnerability legacy rails don't have.
- Liquidity Silos: Capital is trapped in individual chains, reducing efficiency and increasing slippage.
$2.5B+
Bridge Exploits
10+
Major Chains
03
Regulatory Arbitrage Is A Ticking Clock
The argument that crypto's permissionless nature is a permanent advantage is naive. Global regulatory frameworks (MiCA, US legislation) are closing in. True mass adoption requires compliance, eroding crypto's foundational ethos.
- Inevitable KYC/AML: Most value transfer will flow through regulated, identified gateways, replicating the existing system.
- Stablecoin Capture: State-backed digital currencies (CBDCs) and regulated stablecoins (USDC) will dominate, controlled by licensed entities.
- Protocol Liability: Founders and DAOs face increasing legal pressure, forcing centralization.
100+
Jurisdictions
CBDCs
In Development
04
The 'Blockchain Trilemma' Remains Unsolved
Decades of research haven't cracked the fundamental trade-off. You can only optimize for two of: Decentralization, Security, Scalability. Legacy systems 'solve' this by opting for centralized scalability and security, which works for most users.
- Scalability Ceilings: Even high-throughput chains (Solana, Sui) face centralization pressures and reliability issues.
- Security Costs: Truly decentralized security (e.g., Ethereum L1) is prohibitively expensive for micro-transactions.
- User Abstraction Failures: Attempts to hide complexity (account abstraction, intents) often reintroduce central trust assumptions.
Pick 2
Of 3
$1M+
Daily Security Cost
future-outlook
THE NETWORK LAYER
The Next Phase: Abstraction and Aggregation
The current multi-chain reality demands a new network layer that abstracts complexity and aggregates liquidity, moving beyond simple bridging.
The Internet of Value is a misnomer. Today's landscape is a fragmented archipelago of isolated chains like Ethereum, Solana, and Avalanche. Users and developers face a combinatorial explosion of complexity when moving assets or logic across these sovereign domains.
Simple bridges are insufficient. They solve point-to-point transfers but ignore the broader problem of fragmented liquidity and execution. The next network layer must provide unified liquidity access and intent-based routing, abstracting the underlying chain from the user's desired outcome.
Aggregation becomes the protocol. Projects like Across and UniswapX demonstrate this shift. They don't just bridge; they source liquidity from multiple pools and bridges, executing the optimal route for the user's intent. The network layer is the intent-solver marketplace.
The endpoint is user abstraction. The winning stack will make the chain itself invisible. Users express an intent ("swap X for Y"), and the network layer, via protocols like CowSwap or Socket, handles routing, fee optimization, and settlement across any chain. The chain is an implementation detail.
takeaways
ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVES
Key Takeaways for Builders
The internet of value demands a new network layer because TCP/IP is fundamentally incompatible with the requirements of native digital property.
01
The Problem: TCP/IP is a Copy Machine
The internet's core protocol is built for data replication, not value transfer. This creates a fundamental mismatch requiring expensive, trust-laden intermediaries for every transaction.
- Settlement Risk: Every payment app (PayPal, Venmo) is a centralized ledger.
- Friction Cost: Intermediation adds ~2-4% fees and 1-3 day settlement delays.
- Innovation Ceiling: New financial primitives (e.g., flash loans, programmable money) are impossible.
2-4%
Friction Cost
1-3 days
Settlement Lag
02
The Solution: A Stateful Settlement Layer
Blockchains provide a global, shared state machine where ownership is a protocol primitive, not a database entry. This is the new network layer.
- Native Property: Assets are bearer instruments on the wire, eliminating counterparty risk.
- Programmable Finality: Settlement is deterministic and can trigger arbitrary logic (smart contracts).
- Composability: Money becomes a programmable API, enabling novel applications like Uniswap and Aave.
~12 sec
Ethereum Block Time
$50B+
DeFi TVL
03
The Problem: The Scalability Trilemma
No single blockchain can optimize for decentralization, security, and scalability simultaneously. This forces trade-offs that fragment liquidity and user experience.
- Monolithic Bottleneck: High demand on L1s (Ethereum) leads to $50+ gas fees.
- Fragmented Ecosystem: Users and assets are siloed across 50+ major chains.
- Security Dilution: New chains often sacrifice decentralization for throughput.
50+
Major Chains
$50+
Peak L1 Gas
04
The Solution: Modular & Intent-Centric Architectures
The future is specialized layers (data availability, execution, settlement) and new abstraction paradigms that hide complexity from users.
- Modular Stacks: Celestia for data, EigenLayer for security, Arbitrum for execution.
- Intent-Based UX: Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap let users declare what they want, not how to do it, optimizing execution across venues.
- Unified Liquidity: Bridges like LayerZero and Across abstract away the underlying chain.
100k+
TPS (Modular)
-90%
User Ops
05
The Problem: Web2's Extractive Data Economy
Platforms like Google and Facebook monetize user data and attention by controlling identity and social graphs, creating misaligned incentives and privacy violations.
- Captive Value: User-generated value is captured and sold by intermediaries.
- Walled Gardens: Innovation is gated by platform APIs and terms of service.
- Zero Ownership: Users have no portable reputation or social capital.
$500B+
Ad Revenue
0%
User Share
06
The Solution: Verifiable Credentials & Tokenized Graphs
The new network layer enables user-owned identity and portable social capital, flipping the economic model.
- Self-Sovereign Identity: Protocols like Worldcoin (proof of personhood) and ENS provide portable, chain-agnostic identity.
- Tokenized Networks: Social graphs and reputation (e.g., Farcaster, Lens Protocol) are owned by users, not corporations.
- New Business Models: Direct creator monetization, ad-revenue sharing, and community-owned platforms.
User-Owned
Data Model
Portable
Social Graph
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall