USDC stablecoin issuer Circle has announced plans to launch Arc, its own enterprise-focused Layer 1 blockchain, according to an Aug. 12 statement.

According to the firm:

“Arc aims to establish itself as foundational infrastructure for regulated money movement, supporting a globally distributed financial system.”

Circle said Arc will integrate fully with its existing platform while maintaining interoperability with dozens of other partner blockchains.

Arc’s public testnet is scheduled for release between September and December 2025.

Circle’s Arc

Arc will serve as a high-performance base for stablecoin payments, foreign exchange (FX), and capital markets applications.

The network will be compatible with the Ethereum Virtual Machine and will use USDC as its default gas token. It also introduces a built-in stablecoin FX engine, sub-second settlement finality, and optional privacy features.

According to the blockchain network’s litepaper, Arc’s performance targets include 3,000 transactions per second (TPS) with under 350 milliseconds finality using 20 validators. Notably, the network could reach 10,000 TPS and under 100 milliseconds of finality with four validators.

Arc will also integrate confidential transfers, enabling hidden amounts with visible addresses, alongside selective disclosure via a “view key.”

Meanwhile, its MEV mitigation roadmap includes encrypted mempools, batch processing, and multi-proposer setups.

Arc will support Circle’s USYC, an interest-bearing stablecoin backed by short-term US Treasury securities. It will also offer fast bridging via Circle’s CCTP and Gateway, a built-in currency trading system for approved institutions, and AI-powered treasury management tools.

Beyond stablecoins, Arc is designed to host regulated real-world assets such as tokenized equities, bonds, private credit, and institutional-grade funds.

Circle plans to partner with licensed asset issuers, custodians, and fund administrators to ensure these assets are legally compliant, fully collateralized, and integrated with traditional financial obligations.

Community pushback

Despite its ambitious design, Arc has faced pushback from crypto community members.

Columbia Business School adjunct professor Omid Malekan argued that launching another Layer 1 is unnecessary, especially for stablecoins, which may struggle without diverse assets or strong DeFi ecosystems.

Adam Cochran, partner at venture capital firm Cinneamhain Ventures, also criticized the characterization of Arc as a Layer 1 blockchain.

According to him, the network is more accurately a consortium chain operated by a set of pre-approved, private validators. These validators, he noted, have the authority to reverse transactions through “dispute protocols.”

Moreover, he also argued that using USDC as the root token removes the economic incentives needed for validators to act independently, making a decentralized Layer 1 model unfeasible. As a result, he said, the design necessitates a closed, consortium-based structure.

Cochran concluded:

“Blockchains exist because exploitative middlemen, like banks and transfer agents, take undue fees and apply undue censorship. This industry was built to fix that in peer-to-peer systems, not by just building new banks.”

Mentioned in this article

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

Ripple CTO David Schwartz has joined a heated debate after Custodia Bank CEO Caitlin Long criticized Ripple, the XRP Ledger (XRPL), and its stablecoin RLUSD in a podcast clip shared on X. Long questioned XRP’s decentralization, likened Ripple’s early funding to an ICO, and argued the blockchain had fallen short of its adoption goals among banks and other institutions. Her remarks drew quick pushback from XRP community member Vet, who disputed her claims, prompting Schwartz to invite Long to a direct, fact-based discussion.

Caitlin Long Criticizes Ripple And XRP

Caitlin Long, CEO of Custodia Bank, did not hold back in her view of Ripple and XRP in a recent episode of the Gold Goats ‘n Guns podcast. In her remarks in the podcast, Long noted that Ripple’s early funding model, which she described as the first of the ICOs, has permanently hindered institutional trust in XRP. She said Ripple had been active longer than most blockchain projects but had not made significant progress in replacing traditional banking systems like SWIFT. 

According to her, the company’s move to issue RLUSD through its own regulated financial entities is a notable pivot away from relying solely on the XRPL as a global settlement layer. Although she acknowledged that US regulatory pressure under the Biden administration had affected Ripple’s operations, she maintained that the base layer network was unlikely to become the backbone of international payments.

With this in mind, Long predicted that when the US Treasury eventually decides on a blockchain for tokenizing T-bills, it will most likely choose Ethereum over Ripple due to the former’s maturity and better adoption.

XRP Community And CTO Fire Back

Her comments prompted a detailed rebuttal from prominent XRP community member Vet, who dismissed Long’s claims as misinformed. As noted by Vet, Ripple never conducted an ICO, XRP was worthless when it was created, and all 100 billion tokens were created in a genesis account. Vet also defended the XRPL’s decentralization, pointing to over 1,000 nodes and more than 100 independent validators run by individuals and businesses worldwide. 

He noted that Ethereum, on the other hand, was launched via an ICO. In addition, Vet highlighted Ripple’s continued integration of the XRPL in its payment products and the fact that RLUSD is issued on the ledger. He cited growing business use cases, ongoing technical amendments, and the XRPL’s historic role as the first blockchain with a native decentralized exchange and tokenization capabilities.

Following Vet’s response, David Schwartz also took to X to directly address Caitlin Long’s claims. Although he noted that the community member had already provided “some basic ones” to start the factual discussion, the Ripple CTO invited Long to an open conversation about Ripple, RLUSD, the XRPL, and XRP. 

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

A groundbreaking study from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) claims that the US currently controls Bitcoin mining, controlling 75.4% of the world’s hash power. “The US has solidified its position as the largest global mining hub (75.4% of reported activities),” CCAF reports, based on a survey of 49 mining companies representing almost half of the Bitcoin network’s hashrate.

This concentration corresponds to approximately 600 exhahash (EH/s) per second of global 796 EH/s, but raises urgent concerns. What risk does Bitcoin mining pose for the future of new assets as dangerously centralized in the US?

U.S. Secretary of Commerce and former CEO of Canter Fitzgerald, Howard Lutnick recently shared insights into the Trump administration’s vision of positioning the US as a Bitcoin superpower. “It’s like gold for me. It’s a product,” Lutnick highlighted a fixed supply of 21 million coins in Bitcoin in an interview with Frank Colva of Bitcoin magazine. He outlined plans to “turbocharge” US mining through the Department of Commerce investment accelerator, which streamlines permits miners to build off-grid power plants. “You can build your own power plant next to the (data center), so think about it a little,” he said.

This professional business stance has fueled the US mining boom, but CCAF’s findings suggest a downside: centralization. For years, Bitcoiner was worried about China’s rule. This peaked at 65-75% of the global hashrate before the mining ban in June 2021. “In 2019, China dominated global Bitcoin mining, accounting for 65-75% of the total Bitcoin network.” Natural Communication Research notes. When China banned mining, hashrates were globally dispersed, with many operations relocating to the US and being drawn into states with abundant energy and favorable policies. This shift caused a 50% market correction, but paved the way for a 130% rise towards the end of the year, indicating market resilience.

China’s historic hashrate concentration never led to network abuse, but it was a constant concern. The same risks are emerging as the US currently owns 75% of its hashrate. The Trump administration is Bitcoin-friendly, but future administrations will become hostile and can take advantage of centralized hashrates to control the network. Unlike China’s ban, future US governments may attempt to regulate or manipulate mining using enforcement power like mining in censorship transactions to use threats amplified by concentrations of mining.

The US federal structure provides potential protections. A division of authority between the state and the federal government could allow resistance to federal government overreach. In states with important mining activities, officials and the public may argue that manipulating the industry harms the value of Bitcoin and affects investors. Such resistance can maintain the integrity of the network.

The weakening of the US financial sanctions regime may be in our interests. Following the 2022 seizure of the Russian Treasury, a nation that misaligned with US policies will reduce US bond purchases and undermine the Fiat Rail, which has been abused by sanctions. The Trump administration could move towards tariffs to manage goods rather than money flow, reducing the threat of financial censorship. Centralized hashrates could be a soft target for federal intervention, so this pivot will buy Bitcoin time.

Nevertheless, American Bitcoiners must be kept aggressive. Embed the adoption of Bitcoin in the economy widely can thwart censorship, as attacks on the network hurt individual wealth and drive backlash. History also shows that miners adapt when evacuated – China’s ban proved that – but the government learns. Future US administrations may not ban mining, try to control it, and leverage centralization.

The Bitcoin industry is facing a critical time. In the US, it is 75.4% of the hashrate, and even a low 50% estimate shows a large, looming concentration risk. Should we diversify globally or should we lean on the mining advantage in America? As Lutnick’s vision unfolds, Bitcoiner needs to ensure that this sovereign money remains resilient, regardless of who holds power.

Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr has raised concerns about the finality of Bitcoin transactions, stating that the widely accepted six-block confirmation rule no longer holds.

According to him, transaction finalization now takes over a week, casting doubt on Bitcoin’s resistance to censorship.

Finality refers to the point where reversing a transaction becomes practically impossible due to the immense computational power required. Traditionally, this threshold was reached once six blocks were added after the original transaction.

Why Bitcoin transactions are taking longer to finalize

Dashjr argues that the traditional standard no longer applies due to the increasing centralization of Bitcoin mining pools. In a Feb. 8 X post, he explained that he attempted to update the six-block confirmation target in Bitcoin Knots, a Bitcoin Core alternative.

However, his calculations indicated that due to Antpool’s significant share of the network hashrate, achieving 95% security now requires over 800 blocks—equivalent to approximately 5.5 days.

Data from the HashRate Index shows that Antpool controls about 16.67% of Bitcoin’s total hash power, trailing Foundry USA at 33.12%. Other major pools include F2Pool (8.87%), MARA Pool (6.06%), and SecPool (5.19%).

However, Dashjr disputes these figures, asserting that several pools, such as Braiins and possibly ViaBTC, act as proxies for Antpool, making its influence far greater. He also noted that many miners unknowingly contribute to potential network reorganizations by operating under centralized pools.

Industry concerns

Industry experts have echoed these concerns, warning that the increasing dominance of a few mining pools exposes Bitcoin to potential censorship and even a 51% attack.

Bob Burnett, CEO of Barefoot Mining, said that if a single entity controls a significant portion of the network’s hash power, it could manipulate the blockchain by reorganizing transactions.

He noted:

“At a minimum, [the threat] is existential to Bitcoin being censorship resistant and it also means immutability takes a very long time to achieve.”

Considering this, Burnett proposed that retail investors play a role in restoring decentralization.

He suggested pressuring publicly traded mining firms to spread their hash power across smaller pools, ensuring no single entity controls over 15% of Bitcoin’s network. If miners refuse, he believes investors should divest their stocks and publicly call out non-compliant firms to maintain Bitcoin’s decentralized nature.

Meanwhile, not everyone agrees that this issue is as severe as Dashjr claims. Daniel Roberts, the co-founder of Iris Energy Ltd, downplayed these concerns, suggesting that Bitcoin’s design allows it to self-regulate over time.

Roberts added:

“Bitcoin may not perfect, and we should continue to try and improve it, but these types of issues are generally either self-correcting or built into the design intentionally.”

Mentioned in this article