2026-01-08 15:31:19

The competition in the current blockchain space around performance, user experience, and compliance is becoming increasingly fierce. A project recently launched a three-layer modular design, attempting to break the current deadlock through architectural innovation — claiming to be the only network that combines privacy, composability, and compliance.

How is this architecture constructed? The bottom layer focuses on consensus and data availability, introducing MIPS-powered pre-validators technology, which claims to eliminate the traditional 7-day fault window of Optimism. The middle layer provides an EVM-compatible environment, allowing DeFi and RWA applications to migrate directly using existing development tools and smart contract standards, significantly reducing integration costs. The top layer targets privacy scenarios, employing the Phoenix transaction model to achieve end-to-end privacy protection.

What's even more interesting is its approach to compliance. It has obtained licenses for MTF, ECSP, and brokerage from NPEX, enabling all applications within the ecosystem to automatically gain compliance accreditation without applying for regulatory licenses one by one — something not seen in existing public chains. The native token spans the entire stack, responsible for staking, governance, and gas fee settlements.

Essentially, this is using a layered architecture to address the long-standing triangle paradox in Web3 — where high performance makes compliance difficult, and privacy makes composability challenging. This approach is 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.

18 Likes

Reward
18
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SmartContractPhobia

· 01-09 23:19

Is it modularization or a three-tier architecture? It sounds impressive, but can it really be implemented? The compliance license is indeed new, but it's hard to say how long it will last. Pre-validators instantly eliminate the 7-day failure window; it depends on actual performance. I'm paying attention to the RWA line; DeFi has been a mess for a long time. No matter how good it sounds, it all depends on whether the ecosystem has users. Privacy, performance, and compliance all at once—this is too idealistic. I haven't heard of the Phoenix model. Is there an audit report? This guy can't be exploited again, right? Modularization is already everywhere; I really can't see where the innovation is. Is the NPEX license really that valuable? Bro, please explain.

View OriginalReply0

AlgoAlchemist

· 01-09 01:42

Bro, this architecture design is really impressive. The three-layer separation approach solves many pain points. I'm a bit skeptical about obtaining the license. Can it really automatically endorse? Or is it just another marketing gimmick? If this 7-day fault window can really be eliminated instantly, the pressure on Optimism will be huge. EVM compatibility is everywhere now, but the key is whether that privacy layer can truly be usable. Feels like another big project hype; let's wait for mainnet data before making any judgments. What are the technical details of the MIPS pre-validator? How does it work? Is there an audit report? If compliance really gets implemented, the crypto community will go crazy, but I still have some doubts. I'm tired of hearing about modular architecture theories; let's see how well it's actually implemented. How is the tokenomics designed? Will it turn out to be another shitcoin? How exactly does this Phoenix transaction model work? Is there a big-name endorsement? If it can truly handle performance, privacy, and compliance simultaneously, it should have already appeared by now.

View OriginalReply0

ForkThisDAO

· 01-08 16:00

Compliance licenses are indeed a fresh topic, but can they really be implemented? This architecture sounds good, but I'm worried it's just empty talk. How much can it be optimized in 7 days? That’s the real benchmark. Wait, does the NPEX license get recognized domestically? Modularization is everywhere now, where’s the differentiation? Has anyone used it? How’s the experience? Don’t want to get ripped off again. Can the contradiction between privacy and compliance truly be reconciled? It’s a bit uncertain. Is the Phoenix model reliable? Never heard of this thing. The triangle paradox sounds nice, but where’s the money? Where’s the ecosystem? Another claim of being the only one. This phrase is getting tired.

View OriginalReply0

DogeBachelor

· 01-08 15:54

7-day downtime window is gone? This architecture is quite something Can this Phoenix model truly achieve privacy and composability... it feels a bit too ideal Automatic endorsement of compliance licenses, if that's real, it would be revolutionary Modular and modular, now everyone claims to be modular Token interoperability across the full stack is pretty good, no more multi-chain dancing Are MIPS pre-validators reliable? Has anyone run the tests? I only believe in EVM compatibility; at least this has been verified The triangle paradox always needs someone to break through first, but usually it's just PPT plans... If compliance really gets implemented, that would indeed be disruptive Wait, how recognized are NPEX licenses in different regions? Feels like just hyping up a big pie, everything needs to be all-encompassing I’d laugh if RWA is directly migrated; reality isn’t that simple If you ask me, such projects should first look at community enthusiasm before deciding, don’t be fooled by the architecture

View OriginalReply0

CryptoComedian

· 01-08 15:49

Laughing and then crying, another project claiming to solve the triangle paradox, but no one seems to think about the four-corner paradox. The compliance license sounds good, but when it comes to implementation, it still depends on whether it can be realized. However, it is indeed quite magical. I don't believe 7 days to 0 seconds, but the architectural thinking is indeed more comprehensive than most projects. That's the part that should be taken seriously. Another boast about uniqueness, is compliance truly a innovation or policy arbitrage? Time will tell. Privacy plus compliance, this combination is about wanting and needing and still wanting more. In the end, often nothing is achieved. With such complicated layered structures, have they really been implemented or is it still PPT? The first rule of the leek self-rescue guide is: don't trust the architecture diagram.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketSunriser

· 01-08 15:44

Compliance licenses are indeed a new area, but how many can truly be implemented? Are you really daring enough to call it the "only" solution? The 7-day window has been shortened, but how is security guaranteed? MIPS pre-validators sound good, but whether they run stably still depends on the specifics. These days, everyone claims to solve the triangle paradox—waiting to be proven wrong. If RWA can truly be migrated at low cost, there is some room for imagination. Automatic license endorsement... it seems regulatory authorities might not buy into this approach. I support modular design, but the trade-off between composability and privacy is probably hidden in the details. Token interoperability across the full stack sounds like a universal glue, but in reality, we haven't seen truly effective solutions yet. Will stronger compliance measures inadvertently undermine the significance of privacy? Are the performance, privacy, and compliance triad a false dilemma, or is this time really different?

View OriginalReply0