In the past two years, a very clear feeling has emerged: stablecoins have completely evolved into something else.

They are no longer just a tool for DeFi import and export, nor are they merely a supporting infrastructure for traders. Now, what stablecoins are doing is real-world work—payroll for companies, cross-border transfers, merchant settlements, and in some places, even serving as an "alternative" outside the local currency.

But the problems that come with this are also evident: we are using public chains designed for complex financial operations to handle a very basic need—stability, smoothness, and uninterrupted service. This mismatch is quite apparent.

That's why some teams are starting to think in reverse: instead of modifying existing public chains, they ask a more straightforward question—if we were to design a chain from scratch specifically for stablecoin settlement, what would its architecture look like?

On the surface, the technical choices don't seem extraordinary. EVM compatibility, Reth clients, PlasmaBFT consensus—these components are all quite standard when considered individually. But once integrated into the core requirement of "stablecoin settlement," everything becomes clearer.

Because the biggest concern in settlement isn't how high the throughput numbers are, but rather uncertainty. When will the money you sent actually be settled? Is it possible for it to be reversed? Could it get stuck at some point? The significance of sub-second finality lies here—it directly addresses the most critical trust issue in settlement.

Even more interesting is the design thinking at the application layer. Prioritizing stablecoins as the top priority is even reflected in the gas mechanism. Paying transaction fees with stablecoins, and even having more optimized fee schemes—these seemingly small changes actually reinforce the positioning of "stablecoin settlement" at the product level.