Points of Focus

• Institutions are building proprietary chains, limiting cross-adoption and creating fragmentation.
• zkSync founder Alex Gluchowski argues Ethereum is emerging as the neutral coordination layer.
• Structural constraints including privacy, control, and long-term security complicate the ‘Ethereum-only’ thesis.

At the DC Blockchain Summit 2026, comments from zkSync founder Alex Gluchowski highlighted a growing structural divide in crypto infrastructure. As major institutions build proprietary blockchain networks, Gluchowski argued they are unlikely to adopt each other’s systems, limiting the chances of a unified institutional stack. In this environment, he positioned Ethereum as the only viable neutral layer capable of connecting competing networks without forcing participants to give up control.

The argument is gaining traction across recent institutional discussions and developer ecosystems, particularly within zkSync and Ethereum scaling circles. Stripe is developing Tempo, JPMorgan Chase operates its own blockchain network, and Circle is advancing Arc. Each system is built around internal priorities such as settlement control, liquidity management, and regulatory compliance.

zkSync founder: “Ethereum is the only option” for institutions

“Tempo is a venture by Stripe. Obviously Stripe, as a large payments processor, wants to have their own network . . . And of course, all of [these organizations] will try to get everyone else on their network. But… pic.twitter.com/yhPvmcQYiW

— Etherealize (@Etherealize_io) April 4, 2026

Institutional fragmentation isn’t optional

The push toward proprietary chains isn’t just strategic positioning. It reflects operational constraints. Financial institutions can’t expose sensitive transaction data, counterparties, or balances on public infrastructure without violating regulatory and competitive boundaries. Systems handling high-frequency settlement or margin calls also require deterministic performance, where external network congestion can’t interfere with critical operations.

These constraints explain why institutions continue to build closed or semi-permissioned systems instead of adopting shared infrastructure. As discussed within the zkSync ecosystem, including statements from its founder Alex Gluchowski, real-world financial systems operate under strict requirements around privacy, control, and auditability that most public networks weren’t originally designed to meet.

Why Ethereum is positioned as the coordination layer

Gluchowski’s argument centers on a coordination problem rather than a technology preference. If large institutions refuse to operate on each other’s infrastructure, a neutral layer becomes necessary for interoperability.

Ethereum’s positioning comes from its ability to act as shared settlement infrastructure without being controlled by any single entity. More importantly, private systems alone can’t access global liquidity or composability benefits. Without a common layer, these networks risk becoming isolated databases rather than interconnected financial systems.

This perspective reframes Ethereum’s role from a standalone blockchain to a coordination layer across competing systems.

Long-term security adds another constraint

Beyond interoperability, institutions are also evaluating infrastructure based on long-term cryptographic resilience. Research published by Circle highlights growing concerns around post-quantum risks, where future computing capabilities could break existing encryption standards.

Circle announced the quantum-resistant roadmap for its L1 blockchain Arc, adopting a phased approach to full-stack quantum resistance across wallets, private state, validators, and infrastructure. The mainnet will introduce post-quantum signatures with an opt-in model. Circle… pic.twitter.com/dDCudfOWbm

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) April 6, 2026

Some projections suggest meaningful threats could emerge by around 2030, introducing risks such as “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks on stored data, a concern already highlighted by organizations like National Institute of Standards and Technology and European Telecommunications Standards Institute.

For institutions managing long-lived assets, this creates an additional requirement. Infrastructure decisions made today must remain secure over decades, not just current market cycles. This increases the complexity of adopting any single system without a clear upgrade path.

Ethereum’s neutral layer thesis faces institutional reality

While the ‘Ethereum as neutral layer’ thesis addresses coordination, it doesn’t fully resolve institutional requirements. Proprietary systems offer advantages in performance, compliance enforcement, and operational control that shared networks may struggle to match.

This creates a structural tension. Ethereum may serve as a settlement and interoperability layer, but core financial operations could remain on institution-controlled infrastructure.

Rather than a single-chain future, the emerging model points toward a layered system where private execution environments coexist with neutral settlement layers.