If blockchain is regarded as a product, an interesting phenomenon can be discovered:

Most public chains start from a 'technically correct' perspective;

while @Plasma , is more like starting from 'how people use it'.

These two ways of thinking determine that they head in completely different directions.

1. Traditional public chain thinking: first set up the stage, then wait for people to come up

Traditional public chains often follow a familiar path:

  • First emphasize architecture, performance, and degree of decentralization

  • Then attract developers, project parties, and funds

  • Finally, it's the turn of ordinary users

In this way of thinking, users are the 'latecomers'.

They are assumed to adapt to the system,

Learn the rules, understand the limitations.

This is reasonable in the tech circle,

But not friendly in the real world.

2. Plasma's product philosophy: Let users walk smoothly first, then discuss how complex the system is

Plasma's starting point is exactly the opposite.

It does not focus on 'how much you understand',

But placed in:

Was your experience smooth this time?

  • Is the process intuitive?

  • Are there any unnecessary steps in the operation?

  • Is the cost predictable?

These issues do not seem 'high-end',

But determine whether users will return.

3. Traditional public chains require users to bear risks, Plasma attempts to absorb risks.

In many public chains,

Risks are clearly handed to users:

  • Mistakes are self-responsible,

  • Mistakes are irreversible,

  • Cost fluctuations are borne by oneself.

$XPL The design is obviously doing something else:

Try to keep risks within the system.

It does not eliminate risks,

But reduces the probability of ordinary people facing risks.

4. Traditional public chains pursue scale narratives, Plasma values usage density more.

Many chains' success indicators are:

TVL, ecosystem quantity, project scale.

While Plasma is more like asking:

Will a user use it more than once a day?

High frequency, stable, repetitive use,

Is harder than one-time scale,

And more real.

5. Traditional public chains want users to 'understand', Plasma chooses to let users 'trust'.

Understanding is a cognitive behavior,

Trust is an experiential behavior.

Traditional public chains often win understanding through explanation,

Plasma tends to accumulate trust through results.

When users receive stable feedback multiple times,

Trust naturally forms,

Understanding is just a matter of time.#Plasma