Stablecoins have quietly become the most consistent product-market fit in crypto. Payments, remittances, treasury management, on-chain trading

The Stablecoin Thesis Revisited: Is L1 Specialization the Future?

I’ve been revisiting the stablecoin thesis lately, and I keep coming back to one question: what if general-purpose blockchains aren’t the endgame for everything?

Stablecoins have quietly become the most consistent product-market fit in crypto. Payments, remittances, treasury management, on-chain trading — real usage, real volume, real demand. But if stablecoins are the core financial primitive, does it make sense for them to live on chains optimized for everything at once?

Maybe not.

We’ve spent years building multipurpose L1s that try to support DeFi, gaming, NFTs, AI agents, and more — all competing for blockspace. But stablecoin flows are different. They demand predictability, low fees, deep liquidity, and settlement guarantees. They’re less about experimentation and more about reliability.

That’s why L1 specialization feels like a serious direction, not just a narrative.

When I look at @plasma $XPL #plasma, what stands out is the focus. Anchoring to Bitcoin security while optimizing specifically for stablecoin infrastructure reframes the conversation. Instead of being another “Ethereum alternative,” it becomes purpose-built financial plumbing.

Specialization could mean better UX, clearer economic models, and infrastructure tailored to cross-border payments and high-frequency settlement.

The question isn’t whether stablecoins matter. They already do.

The real question is whether the next phase of growth requires chains designed around them from day one.

If stablecoins are the killer app, maybe specialized L1s are the logical evolution.

@Plasma $XPL #plasma