2026-01-20 17:22:48

Blockchain has opened the doors to global finance, but the high transaction fees have always been a bottleneck. Compared to traditional payment applications that are almost free, the cost of each transfer in Web3 can be quite painful, which is also the biggest obstacle for the adoption of DeFi and stablecoin applications.

Recently, I came across an interesting idea—some teams have launched a native Layer1 solution based on stablecoins, enabling zero-fee instant transfers of assets like USDT. It sounds a bit exaggerated, but the white paper is quite detailed: EVM compatibility ensures seamless migration for developers, and the privacy layer uses zk-SNARKs variants, with security backing from institutions like Fireblocks. The tokenomics are not complicated—transaction fee burning creates deflation, and holders can earn rewards.

On the technical side, the core highlights are the zero-fee transfer layer and flexible asset lifecycle management, allowing for customizable storage durations. Practical data shows that after integration with a certain cross-border payment platform, the cost per transaction dropped from $4-5 to zero, and privacy protection has also improved significantly. The cross-chain bridge functionality connects multiple public chains, solving liquidity issues.

In terms of risk management, the distributed node architecture keeps failure rates very low. Currently, the total locked value in this ecosystem has exceeded $2 billion. Considering the rapid expansion of the global stablecoin market, such infrastructure indeed has the potential to become a bridge between traditional finance and DeFi. While some fluctuations are normal after launch, the long-term logic is still worth paying attention to.

View Original

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

14 Likes

Reward
14
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ChainWatcher

· 20h ago

Zero fees sound great, but I always feel like something's off. Honestly, a locked-in amount of 2 billion sounds pretty intimidating, but I don't know how many actual users there are. Fireblocks' endorsement does give some confidence, but how does this kind of team usually make a profit? A detailed white paper doesn't necessarily mean the product is reliable; I've seen too many projects fail. Cross-border payments dropping from $4-5 to zero is the real necessity.

View OriginalReply0

WalletAnxietyPatient

· 20h ago

Zero-fee transfers sound great, but the real question is how long you can stick with it once it's live.

View OriginalReply0

DeepRabbitHole

· 21h ago

Zero fees sound good, but how does this logic work... can it really lead to deflation?

View OriginalReply0

MetaMasked

· 21h ago

Zero-fee transfers sound great, but can this system really handle large-scale transactions? It seems like it still needs time for validation.

View OriginalReply0

ProofOfNothing

· 21h ago

Zero fees? Sounds too perfect, a bit scary. Honestly, dropping from $4-5 to zero sounds a bit outrageous; it depends on how the real environment turns out. Fireblocks endorsement definitely adds points, but I need to study zk-SNARKs variants further. 20 billion TVL sounds substantial, but I'm worried it might just be the prelude to another rug pull. DeFi still needs time and practical applications to prove itself.

View OriginalReply0

OnchainHolmes

· 21h ago

Zero fees? Sounds great, but can this combination of EVM compatibility and zk-SNARKs truly stabilize the 2 billion locked value? Wait, does Fireblocks' endorsement really prove security? We need to see actual operational data to believe it. Reducing from $4-5 to zero is indeed impressive, but we must be cautious of the long-term risks of the deflationary model. The white paper is detailed, but the key is how it performs after the mainnet launch. Volatility is inevitable, but no rug pulls. Cross-chain bridges connecting multiple public chains sound simple, but can they truly guarantee liquidity depth? Such infrastructure aims to be a bridge between DeFi and traditional finance, but it still needs to pass the market’s real test. The privacy layer upgrade is a highlight, but can distributed nodes really keep failure rates that low? Data will tell. The expansion of the stablecoin market is a fact, but how sustainable is the zero-fee transfer model? Token deflation mechanisms seem straightforward, but whether holders'收益来源 is stable enough requires a deeper understanding. Reaching a total lock-up of over 2 billion is a milestone, but compared to other Layer1s, the ecosystem’s maturity still needs more time.

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseLandlord

· 21h ago

Zero fees? That’s a bold claim, and I’m a bit skeptical... but the data here does seem to suggest something --- Another Layer 1 to rescue the market, this time focusing on stablecoins, but Fireblocks’ endorsement still carries some weight --- The hype of directly returning from $4-5 to zero is pretty loud. Can the details stand up to scrutiny? --- A locked-in amount of 2 billion sounds like a lot, but how much of it can actually be used? --- I just want to know if this zk-SNARKs privacy solution is really solid enough, or if it’s just another paper promise --- Cross-chain bridges directly connect liquidity... sounds smooth, but in reality, who’s going to get cut this round? --- The dream of zero fees has been ongoing, but every time I wake up, I’m slapped awake by gas fees --- I agree that EVM compatibility at least reduces developer migration costs, but the rest depends on how they refine it later --- With such a hot stablecoin track, infrastructure is definitely needed, but the risks also multiply --- A deflationary model combined with profit sharing—this tokenomics design is quite thoughtful, but can it really hold up?

View OriginalReply0