TBC (Turing Bit Chain)

$230 billion in total stablecoin market cap, $145 billion in the Tether empire, and cross-border payment experiences that settle in seconds. These figures depict a seemingly prosperous new world of on-chain finance. But an counterintuitive fact is: the support for this massive market still relies on a set of "borrowed" infrastructure. When the scale of stablecoins surpasses the GDP of many countries, the underlying public chain they depend on may become the biggest bottleneck for their future development.
Structural fragility behind prosperity: the "parasitic" dilemma of stablecoins
The narrative of stablecoins has shifted from "cryptocurrency transaction media" to "global financial infrastructure." Cross-border payments, a huge market with over $150 trillion in annual transaction volume, are being torn open by on-chain stablecoins. Traditional SWIFT networks typically take 3-5 days to complete a cross-border transfer and charge a comprehensive fee of up to 6.5% of the transaction amount. In contrast, blockchain-based stablecoin transfers can be completed in seconds, usually costing less than $0.01. This dimensionality reduction has directly driven the surge in crypto payment adoption in emerging markets like Southeast Asia and Africa.
However, this prosperity is built on a fragile foundation: most stablecoins "parasitize" on public chains that were not designed for them.
USDT and USDC are mainly issued on account model public chains like Ethereum and Tron. These chains' core design purpose is to support complex, state-shared smart contracts, not high-frequency, low-cost simple value transfers. This leads to a fundamental contradiction: the most core use case of stablecoins—payments—requires extremely high throughput, very low latency, and near-zero fees; yet, the underlying chains they rely on make significant performance compromises to support global state synchronization and complex smart contract execution.
The result is a strange cycle. Whenever stablecoin adoption rises due to a hot topic (such as surging remittances in emerging markets), the gas fees on the underlying public chains also spike. During the DeFi summer of 2021, simple USDT transfers on Ethereum once exceeded $50 in transaction fees. This directly contradicts the original goal of financial inclusion: users who need low-cost remittance services are instead blocked by high on-chain costs.
Deeper hidden risks lie in security and finality of settlement. Under the account model, complex smart contract interactions introduce endless possibilities but also enormous risks. Reentrancy attacks, contract bugs, oracle manipulations... these risks are incompatible with stablecoins' role as a "value measure." An asset intended to serve as "digital cash" operating in an environment full of unpredictable smart contract risks is itself a systemic mismatch.
Existing solutions—whether shifting to other high-performance L1s or relying on various L2 scaling schemes—are merely patches within the "parasitic" framework. They address some performance issues but cannot resolve the fundamental contradiction at the model level: the global state of the account model is inherently a serial processing bottleneck.