Spring链上分析
Web3创作者｜链上Alpha捕手｜BTC/ETH/BNB长期持有者｜聚焦长期价值，捕捉赚钱机会
Open Trade
LUNC Holder
Frequent Trader
2 Years
96 Following
13.1K+ Followers
3.0K+ Liked
475 Shared
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
Plasma zero-fee transfers are really appealing, but the ecosystem still needs to put in more effort. Recently, I bridged some USDT to the Plasma chain, originally just wanting to test the zero-fee transfers, but once I used it, I was hooked. I randomly filled in an address, clicked confirm, and the money arrived instantly. The gas showed 0, and the speed was stable within 1 second, even during peak times transferring hundreds of transactions without any issues. This experience directly left Tron and Solana behind—Tron still has to rent energy, and Solana often has to retry during peak periods due to instability. Plasma completely eliminates all the hassle, focusing on stablecoin payments, which is impressive. Bridging in is also quite smooth, taking about ten minutes from Ethereum, with fees in the dozens of dollars, and large amounts can be done in batches. Transactions are seamless; liquidity may not be as deep as Tron, but the mainnet has only been around for a few months, and being this stable is already beyond expectations. Transferring USDT and USDC on-chain is basically seamless, and off-exchange traders use it with extremely high efficiency, while merchant payment gateways are also starting to emerge, with rates low enough to be almost negligible. However, the ecosystem is still too thin. The DEX depth is shallow, swap slippage is visible to the naked eye, and there are hardly any lending or derivatives. Solana has memes and DeFi available at will, while Plasma has nothing to do after transferring funds, resulting in weak user stickiness. Validator concentration is high, and $XPL staking yields are decent, but in the long run, risks need to be diversified. Security is temporarily not a major issue, with the full suite of EVM-compatible tools available, but once a stablecoin issuer causes problems, systemic risks can amplify. Compared to Tron, Plasma has the advantage in speed and zero fees, but the gap in address ecosystem and TVL is significant, with high user migration costs. Solana's ecosystem is chaotic but diverse, making it better at retaining users. Plasma bets on a specialized route, perfecting payments, and if lending and RWA catch up in the future, it can turn around. Looking at it now, transfer parties absolutely value staying, while large DeFi still needs to rely on other chains. In summary, this chain accelerates rapidly, but the track is narrow, making it feel unsatisfying. I’ll continue to use it and observe; the zero-fee transfers are already appealing enough. @Plasma
$XPL #Plasma
$XPL #Plasma
Plasma's zero-fee instant transfer has completely conquered me, but this chain still hides several hard flaws.
I transferred a significant amount of USDT from Ethereum to the Plasma chain. I originally just wanted to test the waters, but once I started, I couldn't stop. The speed and zero-fee transactions on this chain amazed me, but as I dug deeper, there were some aspects that made me frown. Plasma claims to be a high-performance L1 built specifically for stablecoin payments, fully EVM compatible. Transferring USDT really incurs zero fees and arrives instantly. After only a few days of using the mainnet, I felt its power in the payment arena was formidable, but it still has some way to go, especially compared to old rivals like Tron and Solana, where the advantages are clear, but so are the shortcomings. Let's start with the transfer experience, which is definitely Plasma's strongest point. I bridged over from the Ethereum mainnet, which took about ten minutes—not fast, but once the assets were on the Plasma chain, the operation completely changed. I simply filled in an address, clicked confirm, and the money arrived in the other party's wallet with gas fees showing as 0, all within less than a second. Previously, when transferring USDT on Tron, while TRC20 energy rental could save a bit, I still had to calculate energy shortages and burn TRX, with occasional lags. Plasma has eliminated these troubles; you can transfer as much as you want without worrying about network congestion or reserving extra tokens for gas. $XPL is only used to incentivize validators when necessary, and ordinary users hardly feel its presence—this design is ruthless, directly hitting the pain points of payment. I specifically tested during peak times, transferring hundreds of small USDT to different addresses with a success rate of 100%, and the delay remained stable at under 800 milliseconds. The official statement claims that during the beta phase of the mainnet, it can maintain several thousand TPS, showing even stronger performance in stablecoin scenarios. In contrast, while Solana's theoretical TPS is impressive, it often has issues during actual peak times. Last year, during several major congestion events, transferring USDT could take several minutes or even fail, requiring priority fees for retries. Plasma is not taking the all-encompassing high-speed route like Solana, but instead has built a wide and stable highway for stablecoin payments, sacrificing some generality for an extreme experience. To be honest, I've become a bit addicted to the transfer process. The bridging experience was fairly smooth. Plasma uses an official multi-signature bridge plus some third-party aggregators, supporting USDT and USDC mainstream stablecoins for cross-chain transfers. I entered from the Ethereum bridge, which cost about several dozen dollars and took ten to twenty minutes, similar to most L2 bridges. Entering from BSC or Polygon was a bit faster, around five minutes. The reverse operation when exiting was also similar, and I did not encounter any asset stalling. The only thing that bothered me was that the liquidity pool of the bridge isn't deep enough, making the slippage noticeable for large cross-chain transactions. Transferring over 500,000 USDT requires batch operations; otherwise, you risk a loss of one to two percent. This aspect is far behind Tron, which has deep liquidity in its SunSwap, capable of handling any amount instantly. However, Plasma's mainnet has only been online for a few months, and achieving this level is already commendable; liquidity will gradually improve. The biggest soft spot currently is ecological development. EVM compatibility allows me to connect directly with MetaMask; just add the RPC, and there's zero learning cost in operation. However, there are very few things to play with on-chain. A few native DEXs have mediocre liquidity and depth compared to Uniswap, let alone PancakeSwap. There are basically no lending protocols, and derivatives are even less. I tried running some simple DeFi operations on-chain, such as swapping USDT for other coins, but the slippage was ridiculously high. While it was manageable for small amounts, losses were visible for transactions over ten thousand dollars. Compared to Solana, the ecosystem, while chaotic, is vibrant, and with the Jupiter aggregator, routing is smart, depth is high, and there are more options. Currently, Plasma feels more like a pure payment highway; you can transfer money with great ease, but if you want to do something else, you have to cross back to other chains. This has left me feeling conflicted: its focus is so intense that it has almost only the payment function left. The validator network has also caught my eye. The official says that decentralization is steadily increasing, currently with several dozen nodes mainly run by institutions and large community players. The staking rewards of $XPL are quite attractive, with annualized returns looking significantly higher than Ethereum staking, but the concentration is a bit high, with the top ten validators holding nearly half the power. This is understandable in the early stages, ensuring security, but in the long term, if decentralization does not progress quickly, it may be vulnerable to attacks or governance imbalance. Solana was also centralized in its early days, but gradually opened up; Plasma is likely to follow this path. However, at this stage, with all major assets placed on it, I would still keep a portion dispersed across multiple chains. In terms of security, there haven't been any major issues yet. The mainnet beta has run for several months without any reports of significant vulnerabilities or attacks. The codebase is open-source, and audit reports are available on the official website, having been reviewed by several well-known security firms. The benefits of EVM compatibility are vividly demonstrated here; developers have low migration costs, and existing tools can generally be used directly. However, being optimized specifically for stablecoins also brings potential risks: if the issuer of the stablecoin encounters problems, or if the proportion of USDT on-chain is too high, systemic risks may amplify. Tether has reserves controversy across multiple chains, and Plasma's deep binding to USDT effectively ties a portion of that risk as well. Tron is more mature in this regard, with a diverse ecosystem and stronger resilience to single risks. I also tried some emerging applications on-chain. There is a payment gateway project that is quite interesting, supporting direct Plasma transfers to pay merchants with extremely low rates, almost zero cost. This has huge destructive power in real-world scenarios, such as cross-border e-commerce, tipping, and streamer revenue sharing, saving a significant amount of intermediary fees. Many domestic OTC traders are already testing the waters, using Plasma to transfer USDT, with faster speeds and lower fees, significantly improving settlement efficiency. Compared to Solana’s Raydium or Serum, while trades are fast, gas fees fluctuate and can be painful. Plasma brings fees down to zero, effectively lifting the ceiling on payments. But the downside here is that being too focused on payments leads to insufficient generality. Currently, on-chain TVL is growing slowly, mainly relying on transfers and a small amount of holding, with insufficient user stickiness. Solana has meme trends, NFTs, and various DeFi plays that make users reluctant to leave once they arrive. Plasma has yet to find a second breakout point. If it can deepen scenarios like lending and RWA (Real World Assets) with stablecoins in the future, the ecosystem could take off. However, as it stands, the motivation for developers and project teams to migrate is insufficient. After all, while EVM compatibility is low-barrier, liquidity is lagging, making it seem pointless. The design of the $XPL token itself is standard. The total supply is fixed, allocated to the community, foundation, validator rewards, and ecological funds. The public sale price isn’t high, and the current circulating market cap is still in the early stages, with upward potential hinging on community building and adoption rates. I staked a portion for rewards, with simple operations yielding returns significantly higher than merely holding USDT. However, the actual utility of the token is currently limited, mainly relying on governance and staking incentives, with long-term value dependent on on-chain activity levels. Compared to Solana’s SOL, which has almost permeated every corner of its ecosystem, $XPL still has a long way to go. Let's also discuss the direct comparison with Tron. Tron has dominated the stablecoin transfer market over the years, with TRC20-USDT daily trading volumes consistently crushing other chains, offering low fees, fast speeds, and a mature address ecosystem. Plasma wants to grab a piece of this pie, with zero fees and faster confirmation times as its killer features, but the ecological gap is too vast. Tron has established DeFi such as JustLend and SunSwap with TVL in the billions, while Plasma currently doesn’t even reach the decimal point. The switching cost for users is high; everyone is accustomed to Tron addresses, making large-scale migration difficult in the short term. Unless Plasma can quickly expand at the merchant acceptance end or produce killer payment applications, Tron will remain firmly in its position. Solana, on the other hand, represents a different dimension of competition. Solana pursues extreme speed and a low-cost general platform, with a chaotic but vibrant ecosystem. Plasma doesn’t compete on TPS or memes; instead, it tightly focuses on stablecoin payments. In the long run, this could be a smart choice: payments are a necessity, with a huge market space. Once it occupies a dominant position, its moat will be much deeper than that of a general L1. However, in the short term, the most noticeable aspect for users is still the richness of the ecosystem. Solana allows users to find fun with ease, while Plasma leaves you with nothing to do after transferring money. What about Ethereum L2s? Base and Arbitrum have very low fees, but transferring stablecoins still incurs some gas costs, and delays have increased during peak times. Plasma’s zero fees, specifically targeting payments, could theoretically capture a portion of that market share. But L2s have the security backing of Ethereum, inheriting complete ecosystems, and have more developers, making it challenging for Plasma to attract users. I feel it is better suited as a dedicated payment chain, complementing mainstream ecosystems rather than directly replacing them. Overall, my biggest surprise with Plasma is the transfer experience, truly achieving seamless payments, which is almost unique among all current chains. The combination of speed, fees, and stability showcases the advantages of focusing on stablecoin scenarios. However, issues such as a thin ecosystem, insufficient liquidity, and weak generality are real challenges, and large operations and complex DeFi still rely on other chains. If the team can quickly build up the ecosystem and develop lending, payment gateways, and RWA scenarios with stablecoins, combined with the zero-fee advantage, it really could redefine the stablecoin circulation landscape. At this stage, it feels more like a newly launched supercar: the acceleration is astonishing, but the track is still too narrow, making it less thrilling to drive. I will continue to use it mainly for stablecoin transfers and payments, and I won’t fully invest in it in the short term. Once the ecosystem beefs up a bit and liquidity catches up, I’ll consider increasing my position. After all, the zero-fee transfers are enough for me to keep a portion of my USDT here.
The truth about payments obscured by the myth of high performance: How Plasma reconstructs on-chain settlement logic
Even if Solana's TPS looks fast on paper, as long as I still need to buy Sol specifically to act as Gas for transferring a few dollars worth of stablecoins, this sense of friction will forever prevent blockchain from truly entering the mainstream. Recently, while deeply running Plasma nodes and interaction processes, I found that everyone's pursuit of 'performance' might be going in the wrong direction. What truly determines the payment moat is not peak speed, but the extreme simplification of account abstraction and settlement mechanisms. Plasma directly uses stablecoins as the underlying payment fuel, which fundamentally reduces the so-called 'Web3 threshold' from the product level.
Compared to Tron, which I used to often rely on, although it supports a large number of U-type transfers, the rigidity of centralized nodes and the threshold of staking bandwidth that often reaches dozens of U is almost devastating for high-frequency small payments. When I practically used Plasma, I found that its execution layer based on Reth indeed has more flexibility in handling complex instructions. In contrast, today's Base or Arbitrum, while ecologically prosperous, still face efficiency issues when handling cross-border payments in this vertical scenario due to multi-signatures and fragmentation of cross-chain assets. The logic of Plasma is more like re-laying the foundation of the payment track, allowing settlement to be completed directly at the consensus layer, rather than relying on cumbersome contract nesting.
Of course, the current ecosystem still has serious flaws, such as insufficient cross-network liquidity depth, especially under extreme market fluctuations, where the response delays of third-party gateways can occasionally drive people crazy. But this is precisely why I am optimistic about it: it does not take the universal approach, but rather focuses intensely on payments. Compared to those who shout slogans on Twitter every day and can't even create a smooth transfer wallet, this type of project, which dares to simplify at the underlying logic, is closer to the original intention of cryptocurrencies. This attempt to solve the pain points of payments from a protocol level is much more meaningful than simply competing for TPS.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma
Even if Solana's TPS looks fast on paper, as long as I still need to buy Sol specifically to act as Gas for transferring a few dollars worth of stablecoins, this sense of friction will forever prevent blockchain from truly entering the mainstream. Recently, while deeply running Plasma nodes and interaction processes, I found that everyone's pursuit of 'performance' might be going in the wrong direction. What truly determines the payment moat is not peak speed, but the extreme simplification of account abstraction and settlement mechanisms. Plasma directly uses stablecoins as the underlying payment fuel, which fundamentally reduces the so-called 'Web3 threshold' from the product level.
Compared to Tron, which I used to often rely on, although it supports a large number of U-type transfers, the rigidity of centralized nodes and the threshold of staking bandwidth that often reaches dozens of U is almost devastating for high-frequency small payments. When I practically used Plasma, I found that its execution layer based on Reth indeed has more flexibility in handling complex instructions. In contrast, today's Base or Arbitrum, while ecologically prosperous, still face efficiency issues when handling cross-border payments in this vertical scenario due to multi-signatures and fragmentation of cross-chain assets. The logic of Plasma is more like re-laying the foundation of the payment track, allowing settlement to be completed directly at the consensus layer, rather than relying on cumbersome contract nesting.
Of course, the current ecosystem still has serious flaws, such as insufficient cross-network liquidity depth, especially under extreme market fluctuations, where the response delays of third-party gateways can occasionally drive people crazy. But this is precisely why I am optimistic about it: it does not take the universal approach, but rather focuses intensely on payments. Compared to those who shout slogans on Twitter every day and can't even create a smooth transfer wallet, this type of project, which dares to simplify at the underlying logic, is closer to the original intention of cryptocurrencies. This attempt to solve the pain points of payments from a protocol level is much more meaningful than simply competing for TPS.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma
The Ghost of Scaling Narratives Returns: Reviewing the Engineering Implementation and Interaction Records of the Plasma Architecture Between Monolithic Chains and Modularity
The Gas fees on the Ethereum mainnet have once again reached astonishingly low levels, which was unimaginable two years ago. However, this low cost is not due to a leap in the performance of the original architecture, but rather because liquidity has been forcibly divided into dozens of Layer 2 islands. Just this week, in order to test a cross-chain arbitrage logic, I had to revisit the scaling solution that was once elevated by Vitalik and then quickly fell from grace—Plasma. To be honest, before opening the document, I had a heavy bias, especially since today, with Optimistic Rollup and ZK Rollup almost dividing the world, bringing up Plasma sounds like digging up old papers. But after running through the interactions, and even checking on-chain data to verify data availability, I found this implementation logic quite interesting. It is not just reheating old food, but rather a violent reconstruction of the UTXO model under the current modular narrative.
Stablecoins don't need a 'grand narrative', just payment rails like Plasma.
Recently, the community has been focused on the performance limits of various ZK and Op technologies, but as someone who spends all day moving bricks across different chains as a 'senior graduate student', I increasingly feel that everyone is missing the point. Transferring USDT on Arbitrum or Base, even if Layer 2 is cheaper, those few cents in transaction fees and a few minutes or even longer finality delays still feel like driving a bullock cart on the highway in real payment scenarios. I have recently deeply practiced Plasma, and the logic of this 'decentralized payment gateway' is indeed more sincere than those nested L2s.
The most intuitive aspect is its Paymaster protocol. My account doesn't need to hold $XPL as Gas; I can directly transfer USDT and even achieve zero fees during high-frequency operations. This addresses the biggest pain point in Web3 adoption: you don't need to buy a bunch of inexplicable platform tokens at an exchange just to buy a bottle of water. Compared to Tron’s aging infrastructure, Plasma’s EVM compatibility makes DeFi combinations exceptionally smooth. If Tron is the 'wholesale market' for stablecoins, then Plasma is more like a 'premium supermarket' with built-in lightning settlement.
Of course, to objectively critique, the current ecosystem of projects, although the TVL is rising sharply, the interaction logic of cross-chain bridges is still a bit awkward, especially when switching from non-EVM chains; the UI feedback can occasionally lag behind. But what I value is its underlying Reth execution layer and second-level settlement capabilities; this hardware-level response speed is the real moat when handling large-scale clearances and cross-border payments. Compared to those who only talk about the unification of thousands of chains, while actual transfers still require confirmation through Twitter, Plasma's stable and extreme vertical approach is what I believe Web3 payments should look like.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
Recently, the community has been focused on the performance limits of various ZK and Op technologies, but as someone who spends all day moving bricks across different chains as a 'senior graduate student', I increasingly feel that everyone is missing the point. Transferring USDT on Arbitrum or Base, even if Layer 2 is cheaper, those few cents in transaction fees and a few minutes or even longer finality delays still feel like driving a bullock cart on the highway in real payment scenarios. I have recently deeply practiced Plasma, and the logic of this 'decentralized payment gateway' is indeed more sincere than those nested L2s.
The most intuitive aspect is its Paymaster protocol. My account doesn't need to hold $XPL as Gas; I can directly transfer USDT and even achieve zero fees during high-frequency operations. This addresses the biggest pain point in Web3 adoption: you don't need to buy a bunch of inexplicable platform tokens at an exchange just to buy a bottle of water. Compared to Tron’s aging infrastructure, Plasma’s EVM compatibility makes DeFi combinations exceptionally smooth. If Tron is the 'wholesale market' for stablecoins, then Plasma is more like a 'premium supermarket' with built-in lightning settlement.
Of course, to objectively critique, the current ecosystem of projects, although the TVL is rising sharply, the interaction logic of cross-chain bridges is still a bit awkward, especially when switching from non-EVM chains; the UI feedback can occasionally lag behind. But what I value is its underlying Reth execution layer and second-level settlement capabilities; this hardware-level response speed is the real moat when handling large-scale clearances and cross-border payments. Compared to those who only talk about the unification of thousands of chains, while actual transfers still require confirmation through Twitter, Plasma's stable and extreme vertical approach is what I believe Web3 payments should look like.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
The Ghost Return of Scalability Narrative: Reviewing the Engineering Implementation and Interaction Records of the Plasma Architecture in the Gap Between Monolithic Chains and Modularity
The gas fees on the Ethereum mainnet have once again reached astonishingly low levels, which was unimaginable two years ago. However, this low cost is not due to a leap in the original architecture's performance, but rather because liquidity has been forcibly divided into dozens of Layer 2 islands. Just this week, in order to test a cross-chain arbitrage logic, I had to revisit the scalability solution that was once lauded by Vitalik and quickly fell from grace—Plasma. To be honest, I approached the documentation with a heavy bias, especially since today Optimistic Rollups and ZK Rollups have almost divided the world. Reintroducing Plasma sounds like digging into old papers. However, after running through the interactions and even scanning on-chain data to verify data availability, I found this implementation logic quite interesting. It is not just reheating old leftovers but is a violent reconstruction of the UTXO model under the current modular narrative.
You may not understand art, but you must understand windows.
Fuyuan Zhou has not yet graduated, but galleries are already rushing to sign him;
miniARTX officially launched online today, and his work "Coral Realm" is the target for $CRL as the official online mining;
The industry expects his works to be valued at 4–5 times, plus an additional 14 times mechanism.
The multiple segments in the art sector have historically occurred repeatedly, and now it's just a faster way of sustaining.
This kind of combination doesn't happen every day. Whether to get on board or not, you decide for yourself.
The time is tonight at 20:00 for the dapp rush.
$ARTX #miniARTX #Artoken
Fuyuan Zhou has not yet graduated, but galleries are already rushing to sign him;
miniARTX officially launched online today, and his work "Coral Realm" is the target for $CRL as the official online mining;
The industry expects his works to be valued at 4–5 times, plus an additional 14 times mechanism.
The multiple segments in the art sector have historically occurred repeatedly, and now it's just a faster way of sustaining.
This kind of combination doesn't happen every day. Whether to get on board or not, you decide for yourself.
The time is tonight at 20:00 for the dapp rush.
$ARTX #miniARTX #Artoken
Don't be fooled by fake BTC L2 anymore: a deep dive into the underlying logic and harsh realities of Plasma
The current narrative around the Bitcoin secondary market has reached an extremely distorted critical point. The screen is filled with so-called BTC L2, but upon closer inspection, they are all EVM sidechains based on multi-signature wallets. This type of scaling, which is entirely based on trust assumptions, is a desecration of Bitcoin's decentralized spirit. I have recently been researching the technical implementation of Plasma, and its settlement approach based on state transition proofs is indeed much more solid than those marketing-driven projects. However, during actual interactions, the asynchronous feeling caused by mainnet confirmation delays still cannot be completely eliminated. While testing its cross-chain protocol, I found that once the mainnet Gas fees fluctuate drastically, the frequency of Plasma's state submissions shows noticeable lag, and this mechanical lag can easily trigger liquidation risks in extreme market conditions.
Compared to the currently popular projects, Plasma's advantage lies in its certain underlying respect for the UTXO model, rather than a simple direct translation. But the problem lies precisely here; due to the need to be compatible with the EVM account model, the computational cost incurred by the system when processing state compression far exceeds expectations. When I checked the core modules on its GitHub, I discovered that the logic of its data availability layer might experience temporary state synchronization blocking when responding to high-volume inscription attacks. If these small engineering flaws are not resolved, the high throughput it claims will just be an ideal number in the laboratory.
Most developers today are short-sighted, and projects that require deep foundational work tend to be underestimated by the market. However, I believe that this obsession with security is fundamental for long-term survival. Currently, Plasma still has several thorny issues in user experience, such as the generation speed of state transition proofs dropping under extreme load, causing the displayed balance on the front end to lag behind the actual block progress. If it can further optimize the Gas estimation model and resolve liquidity fractures during interactions, it might bring some genuine technological change to this restless ecosystem. Compared to Merlin's approach of simply piling up asset scale, I am more optimistic about this attempt to tackle security boundaries at the protocol layer, even though its current usability still resembles an unpolished prototype.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma
The current narrative around the Bitcoin secondary market has reached an extremely distorted critical point. The screen is filled with so-called BTC L2, but upon closer inspection, they are all EVM sidechains based on multi-signature wallets. This type of scaling, which is entirely based on trust assumptions, is a desecration of Bitcoin's decentralized spirit. I have recently been researching the technical implementation of Plasma, and its settlement approach based on state transition proofs is indeed much more solid than those marketing-driven projects. However, during actual interactions, the asynchronous feeling caused by mainnet confirmation delays still cannot be completely eliminated. While testing its cross-chain protocol, I found that once the mainnet Gas fees fluctuate drastically, the frequency of Plasma's state submissions shows noticeable lag, and this mechanical lag can easily trigger liquidation risks in extreme market conditions.
Compared to the currently popular projects, Plasma's advantage lies in its certain underlying respect for the UTXO model, rather than a simple direct translation. But the problem lies precisely here; due to the need to be compatible with the EVM account model, the computational cost incurred by the system when processing state compression far exceeds expectations. When I checked the core modules on its GitHub, I discovered that the logic of its data availability layer might experience temporary state synchronization blocking when responding to high-volume inscription attacks. If these small engineering flaws are not resolved, the high throughput it claims will just be an ideal number in the laboratory.
Most developers today are short-sighted, and projects that require deep foundational work tend to be underestimated by the market. However, I believe that this obsession with security is fundamental for long-term survival. Currently, Plasma still has several thorny issues in user experience, such as the generation speed of state transition proofs dropping under extreme load, causing the displayed balance on the front end to lag behind the actual block progress. If it can further optimize the Gas estimation model and resolve liquidity fractures during interactions, it might bring some genuine technological change to this restless ecosystem. Compared to Merlin's approach of simply piling up asset scale, I am more optimistic about this attempt to tackle security boundaries at the protocol layer, even though its current usability still resembles an unpolished prototype.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma
The Ultimate Game of Payment Tracks: A Deep Review of Plasma's Technical Purity and Real-World Compromise in the Stablecoin Battlefield
After deeply researching the white paper and technical documents of Plasma, and after nearly two weeks of intensive interaction regarding its testnet and early performance on the mainnet, I have developed a very complex impression. This impression is akin to seeing an engineer with extremely high academic achievements trying to refactor a muddy and violent market with the most elegant code—this is our current stablecoin payment track. We are accustomed to the extremely cheap and efficient USDT transfers on the Tron chain, despite its severe centralization, and we have also endured the inhumane interactions of Ethereum L2, which, despite claiming low fees, still requires ETH as gas. The emergence of Plasma, from an architectural perspective, is a dimensionality reduction attack on the existing logic of public chain payments, but from the granularity of product implementation, it still faces the huge physical friction of a cold start in liquidity.
Don't be fooled by high TPS; I ran a real experience of payment channels on Plasma all night long.
At three in the morning, staring at the constantly jumping logs on the terminal, this long-lost feeling of loneliness actually made me a bit excited. I don't believe in the million TPS touted in those white papers; I only trust the data produced by my own scripts. I'm used to the sluggish feeling of EVM-based Layer 2, which, although cheap, always feels like waiting in line. Suddenly switching back to Plasma's architecture, my first reaction was 'running naked.' Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying it's unsafe, but it's that lightness that comes from removing cumbersome nonce checks. When you send a transaction on Optimism, it feels like filling out a formal document and then waiting for the sorter to stamp it; here, the experience is more like directly tossing coins into a vending machine—clang, and the goods come out.
This geeky thrill comes at a price. The current wallet adaptations are truly hard to describe; when I tried to make multiple concurrent transfers, my local state almost crashed my memory. This is an old problem of sidechain architecture: while data availability is lighter, the burden on the client is heavier. You have to verify the block headers yourself to ensure there is no malicious double spending.
Compared to Solana's performance built on data centers or Monad, which hasn't even launched but is already being hyped as a parallel EVM, I believe this is how decentralized payments should be. Although the ecosystem is as desolate as Mars right now, this is precisely where the Alpha lies. Those VCs still debating the definition of Layer 3 might look down on this 'retro' tech stack, but the endgame of the payment track is often not about whose story is better told but rather whose wear and tear is lower. Even a tiny bit of slippage optimization is a huge profit margin in the face of high-frequency trading.
When I was conducting stress tests, I specifically observed the changes in fees. When the network was slightly congested, the fee rate curve remained surprisingly smooth. This is definitely a boon for teams looking to create on-chain games. Don't rush to FOMO; the current liquidity hasn't fully overflowed here yet. But this is a good time to ambush. By the time everyone realizes that this thing can run true Web3 payments, I estimate that it won't be so easy to enter and operate anymore.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma
At three in the morning, staring at the constantly jumping logs on the terminal, this long-lost feeling of loneliness actually made me a bit excited. I don't believe in the million TPS touted in those white papers; I only trust the data produced by my own scripts. I'm used to the sluggish feeling of EVM-based Layer 2, which, although cheap, always feels like waiting in line. Suddenly switching back to Plasma's architecture, my first reaction was 'running naked.' Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying it's unsafe, but it's that lightness that comes from removing cumbersome nonce checks. When you send a transaction on Optimism, it feels like filling out a formal document and then waiting for the sorter to stamp it; here, the experience is more like directly tossing coins into a vending machine—clang, and the goods come out.
This geeky thrill comes at a price. The current wallet adaptations are truly hard to describe; when I tried to make multiple concurrent transfers, my local state almost crashed my memory. This is an old problem of sidechain architecture: while data availability is lighter, the burden on the client is heavier. You have to verify the block headers yourself to ensure there is no malicious double spending.
Compared to Solana's performance built on data centers or Monad, which hasn't even launched but is already being hyped as a parallel EVM, I believe this is how decentralized payments should be. Although the ecosystem is as desolate as Mars right now, this is precisely where the Alpha lies. Those VCs still debating the definition of Layer 3 might look down on this 'retro' tech stack, but the endgame of the payment track is often not about whose story is better told but rather whose wear and tear is lower. Even a tiny bit of slippage optimization is a huge profit margin in the face of high-frequency trading.
When I was conducting stress tests, I specifically observed the changes in fees. When the network was slightly congested, the fee rate curve remained surprisingly smooth. This is definitely a boon for teams looking to create on-chain games. Don't rush to FOMO; the current liquidity hasn't fully overflowed here yet. But this is a good time to ambush. By the time everyone realizes that this thing can run true Web3 payments, I estimate that it won't be so easy to enter and operate anymore.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma
The Ghost of the Payment Track: Reviewing the True Power and Embarrassment of Plasma in the Era of Liquidity Fragmentation
Staring at the candlestick chart oscillating back and forth on the 15-minute level, the cup of coffee in my hand that has long gone cold seems to mock my current dilemma. These days, I haven't been focusing on the AI memes flying around, but rather putting my energy into a term that sounds like it has time-traveled from 2017. Yes, I've dug up Plasma again, specifically the new generation architecture equipped with $XPL . The current market is very restless, everyone is chasing high-throughput monolithic chains or frantically piling up modular solutions with DA layers, but I always feel that the underlying logic of payments and high-frequency interactions has been skewed by this “fat protocol” narrative. I spent a weekend thoroughly running through their testnet and mainnet interactions, and during this process, I even felt a bit dazed, as if I could see the original ambition when Vitalik proposed the Plasma scalability solution back in the day, but inevitably, I also ran into some maddening realities.
In the past few days, the market sentiment has been a bit too exuberant, with funds running chaotically in the AI and Meme sectors, making people anxious. I specifically avoided those noisy hotspots and revisited the infrastructure sector, and it really led me to discover some interesting things. Usually, when people transfer USDT, it's mostly monopolized by Tron, and they are used to enduring the not-so-cheap Gas fees and the cumbersome energy leasing mechanism. But after I deeply tested the mainnet of @Plasma , my only feeling is that Sun's moat may truly be filled. Their Paymaster mechanism is simply born for payments; I transferred several large amounts of USDT on-chain, and it actually achieved 0 friction. This experience is incredibly tempting for someone like me who often needs to transfer assets between exchanges and wallets.
Current public chains are all about high performance and parallel EVMs, boasting endlessly while the chain is full of zombies. Plasma, on the other hand, takes a very pragmatic approach, focusing solely on the issues of fiat currency deposits and withdrawals and stablecoin payments. I looked at its GitHub commit history, and the code update frequency is quite stable, not the kind of project that issues coins and then runs away. Moreover, the background of its financial backers consistently points to Bitfinex, which gives me a higher regard for its compliance. Everyone understands the current regulatory environment; purely decentralized projects find it hard to enter the sight of large funds, while chains with a hint of centralization but an excellent experience are more easily accepted by traditional financial institutions.
Now let's talk about the XPL token. The current K-line trend shows a typical accumulation shape at the bottom, with a turnover rate not being high, indicating that the main force is slowly accumulating. Its value capture logic is very solid; as long as the payment volume on-chain increases, each transaction is reducing the token supply through a burning mechanism. Of course, the risks are also evident; the current on-chain ecosystem is as desolate as a ghost town, with hardly any other applications besides transfers. However, this is actually a contrary indicator in the crypto world; when the space is filled with low-quality projects, the market cap will likely have multiplied by several times. My current strategy is very simple: since I am optimistic about the changes in the payment sector, I will allocate some spare money to XPL, treating it as the original shares of the future Web3 version of Alipay. Don't wait until Tether officially announces full support before you remember to chase the high.
#plasma $XPL
Current public chains are all about high performance and parallel EVMs, boasting endlessly while the chain is full of zombies. Plasma, on the other hand, takes a very pragmatic approach, focusing solely on the issues of fiat currency deposits and withdrawals and stablecoin payments. I looked at its GitHub commit history, and the code update frequency is quite stable, not the kind of project that issues coins and then runs away. Moreover, the background of its financial backers consistently points to Bitfinex, which gives me a higher regard for its compliance. Everyone understands the current regulatory environment; purely decentralized projects find it hard to enter the sight of large funds, while chains with a hint of centralization but an excellent experience are more easily accepted by traditional financial institutions.
Now let's talk about the XPL token. The current K-line trend shows a typical accumulation shape at the bottom, with a turnover rate not being high, indicating that the main force is slowly accumulating. Its value capture logic is very solid; as long as the payment volume on-chain increases, each transaction is reducing the token supply through a burning mechanism. Of course, the risks are also evident; the current on-chain ecosystem is as desolate as a ghost town, with hardly any other applications besides transfers. However, this is actually a contrary indicator in the crypto world; when the space is filled with low-quality projects, the market cap will likely have multiplied by several times. My current strategy is very simple: since I am optimistic about the changes in the payment sector, I will allocate some spare money to XPL, treating it as the original shares of the future Web3 version of Alipay. Don't wait until Tether officially announces full support before you remember to chase the high.
#plasma $XPL
On a stormy night, Jeanne Danika in Tokyo sat alone by the window, the phone screen reflecting a sea of red. BTC has dropped again, ETH has crashed even harder, and Twitter is filled with cries of "It's over" and "Zero overnight".
She stared at her wallet, letting out a long sigh—Gas fees have risen again. Yesterday, she wanted to transfer some USDT to a friend far away in Paris, but the transaction fee was more expensive than coffee. She opened Plasma, the interface was clean like a blank sheet of paper. With a gentle swipe of her finger, a sum of USDT flew out. Zero Gas. Zero waiting. Instant arrival. Her friend in Paris replied instantly: "Thank you for still being there." It felt like sending a late-night WeChat message, warm and light.
She was taken aback for a moment before realizing—this is how money should be. The next morning, she opened Plasma One. The USDT she deposited was like a quiet little animal, having automatically earned some interest overnight. She casually transferred a small amount and used her Visa card to buy a hot matcha latte. A 4% cashback pinged into her account. While the outside world was still cutting losses, she was using on-chain dollars to buy warmth in the real world. Jeanne remembered someone in the group saying a few days ago: "Gas is too expensive, the project will cool down." She smiled.
She knew that some people were already secretly migrating here. The contract could run without any changes, Gas was free, and users could finally afford to play. NFT, GameFi, SocialFi... the next ecosystem might just break ground in this quiet place. At night, she staked a little $XPL . With a fixed supply of 1 billion, it was like a seed buried in the ground. The more chaotic the market, the more explosive the usage, the more likely it would slowly grow into a tree. Jeanne turned off her phone and leaned by the window. It was still raining outside, but a small light lit up in her heart. Not because the price had risen, but because she had finally found a way to make money no longer a burden, but a gentle companion. @Plasma is not a narrative; it is the story itself. #Plasma $XPL
She stared at her wallet, letting out a long sigh—Gas fees have risen again. Yesterday, she wanted to transfer some USDT to a friend far away in Paris, but the transaction fee was more expensive than coffee. She opened Plasma, the interface was clean like a blank sheet of paper. With a gentle swipe of her finger, a sum of USDT flew out. Zero Gas. Zero waiting. Instant arrival. Her friend in Paris replied instantly: "Thank you for still being there." It felt like sending a late-night WeChat message, warm and light.
She was taken aback for a moment before realizing—this is how money should be. The next morning, she opened Plasma One. The USDT she deposited was like a quiet little animal, having automatically earned some interest overnight. She casually transferred a small amount and used her Visa card to buy a hot matcha latte. A 4% cashback pinged into her account. While the outside world was still cutting losses, she was using on-chain dollars to buy warmth in the real world. Jeanne remembered someone in the group saying a few days ago: "Gas is too expensive, the project will cool down." She smiled.
She knew that some people were already secretly migrating here. The contract could run without any changes, Gas was free, and users could finally afford to play. NFT, GameFi, SocialFi... the next ecosystem might just break ground in this quiet place. At night, she staked a little $XPL . With a fixed supply of 1 billion, it was like a seed buried in the ground. The more chaotic the market, the more explosive the usage, the more likely it would slowly grow into a tree. Jeanne turned off her phone and leaned by the window. It was still raining outside, but a small light lit up in her heart. Not because the price had risen, but because she had finally found a way to make money no longer a burden, but a gentle companion. @Plasma is not a narrative; it is the story itself. #Plasma $XPL
On February 7th, amidst extreme panic, developers and project parties began to 'escape' high Gas chains, turning to this EVM-compatible + zero Gas 'new home'
Tonight, panic in the crypto world has escalated to new heights: BTC has dropped below the 68k mark, ETH has plummeted over 10%, mainstream assets have generally fallen by 10-20%, and Gas fees have skyrocketed to outrageous levels on certain popular chains. DeFi projects, NFT teams, and GameFi developers are collectively lamenting in Telegram groups and Discord: "Gas is too expensive, we can't move it anymore" "Users simply can't afford to play, retention rates have collapsed" "If this continues, the project will fail." Meanwhile, many teams have started taking action privately: migration testing, code audits, community discussions... The only goal is one—Plasma. Why has Plasma suddenly become the 'preferred escape'? 100% Reth EVM compatible, zero-friction migration.
The panic in the cryptocurrency market hasn't dissipated tonight! BTC rebounded from a low of 60k to around 65k, but overall sentiment remains extremely fearful, with continued liquidations and tight liquidity; many are still cutting losses and waiting. Plasma, however, seems unaffected and stable: USDT transfers truly have zero Gas (Paymaster fully covers it, no need to hold $XPL ), instant arrival, as easy as sending a red envelope; Bitcoin is anchored safely, and institutions are willing to use it; Plasma One allows saving with 10%+ interest, Visa cards can be used globally to shop, and on-chain dollars can be used to buy coffee and milk tea. TVL has surpassed 9 billion, with daily transactions in the millions, there is indeed real traffic, not just empty talk. $XPL has a fixed supply of 1 billion, and as actual usage increases, its value will rise. In the midst of panic, it serves as a small anchor of happiness.
#plasma $XPL @Plasma
#plasma $XPL @Plasma
February 6th market bottomed out and rebounded, the 'recovery period opportunity' of the stablecoin settlement chain has emerged.
February 6th, the cryptocurrency market showed a significant technical recovery after extreme panic yesterday: Bitcoin rebounded from a low of $60,057 to the range of $65,000-66,000, with an intraday increase of about 6-8%. Ethereum rose over 7%, and mainstream assets generally rebounded by 4-10%. The Fear & Greed Index remains at 11 (extreme fear), but some institutional ETFs have seen a slight net inflow, and long holders' stop-loss orders have mostly cleared, suggesting that a short-term bottom may have been established. On the macro level, US Treasury yields have slightly retreated, and liquidity has marginally improved. The threat of Trump tariffs and the Federal Reserve's high interest rate path still pose medium to long-term uncertainties, with the market overall in a cautious recovery phase of 'rebound rather than reversal.' During this recovery window, Plasma, optimized specifically for stablecoins as a Layer 1, is gradually shifting from 'pure hedging' to 'hedging + growth,' presenting unique opportunities: the dividend of the recovery period in settlement efficiency.
Tonight BTC rebounded a bit from the low point, but the market is still in panic: liquidations haven't stopped, liquidity is tight, and many people are still observing. Plasma seems particularly stable at this time: USDT transfers truly have zero Gas (no need to hold $XPL ), instant arrival, as simple as sending a WeChat message; Bitcoin is anchored securely, and institutions can use it with confidence; storing USDT in Plasma One can also earn over 10% interest, and the Visa card can be used at global merchants, allowing on-chain dollars to directly buy coffee and milk tea. TVL has already exceeded 9 billion, with daily transaction volume in the millions, it's not just talk; there is real traffic running. $XPL has a fixed supply of 1 billion, and as real usage increases, its value will rise accordingly. The market is chaotic, but it is stable; while others panic, it quietly helps people continue to spend and earn money. @Plasma : a small joy in the midst of panic. #plasma $XPL
Plasma: February 5 BTC falls below $70,000 + extreme market panic, the value of stablecoin settlement chain as a 'hedge anchor' is highlighted
February 5, the cryptocurrency market continues its downward trend: Bitcoin briefly fell below the $70,000 mark (lowest at $69,271), accumulating a decline of over 42% from recent highs, while Ethereum dropped over 10%, and mainstream altcoins fell by 7-15%. CoinDesk Fear & Greed Index dropped to 11 (extreme fear range), the scale of contract liquidations continues to expand, and global risk assets are moving downwards, with the tech sector in the U.S. stock market also under pressure. Market sentiment shifted from 'wait-and-see' to 'panic selling', with clear signs of liquidity exhaustion, as investors urgently seek 'controllable, yield-generating, and compliant' assets for hedging. In this extreme environment, Plasma, optimized for stablecoins as a Layer 1, demonstrates significant 'hedge anchor' properties: zero-cost settlement liquidity buffer.
On February 5th, in a market of extreme panic, Bitcoin fell below the $70,000 mark, mainstream assets dropped significantly, and the fear index fell to 11, with clear signs of liquidity depletion.
Institutional funds are accelerating their tilt towards assets that are "controllable, profitable, and compliant," with Plasma becoming one of the focal points of this defensive allocation.
Unlike the volatile narrative of general L1s, Plasma's core lies in the native design of stablecoins: the protocol-level Paymaster mechanism enables truly zero Gas transfers of USDT/USDC, without the need to hold $XPL , sub-second finality + high TPS (>1000) allows for real-time, low-cost batch settlements. This is especially critical for payment platforms, cross-border finance, and supply chain payments during times of panic— the greater the Gas volatility and tighter the liquidity, the more prominent Plasma's cost certainty advantage becomes, with institutions already entering testing and integration.
In terms of security, Bitcoin state anchoring + MPC bridge + Elliptic compliance monitoring provide ultimate neutrality, censorship resistance, and auditability. During extreme panic, institutions are most worried about asset freezing or scrutiny risks. Plasma inherits the hardcore attributes of BTC, becoming one of the few settlement bases that can simultaneously meet the demands of "security + compliance + scalability."
TVL has exceeded $9 billion, with a daily transaction volume of millions, and real institutional flow is countercyclically flowing in. The real-world closed loop further strengthens its defensive value: Plasma One digital banking supports stablecoin savings (yielding 10%+ range) and instant transfers; Visa payment card channels cover over 150 million merchants globally, enabling on-chain dollar offline consumption + 4% cashback; MassPay covers real-time cross-border remittances in over 230 countries. These already launched features form a portfolio of assets that are "reachable and profitable" during market crashes. $XPL has a fixed supply of 1 billion, capturing value through staking, governance, and protocol revenue sharing, linked to real settlement volume, fee income, and TVL growth. At this critical stage of transition from "panic selling" to "rational hedging," Plasma offers not just a narrative, but a comprehensive solution of "hedging + returns + scalability." While others are cutting losses, it quietly builds the next trillion-dollar stablecoin settlement track.
#plasma $XPL @Plasma
Institutional funds are accelerating their tilt towards assets that are "controllable, profitable, and compliant," with Plasma becoming one of the focal points of this defensive allocation.
Unlike the volatile narrative of general L1s, Plasma's core lies in the native design of stablecoins: the protocol-level Paymaster mechanism enables truly zero Gas transfers of USDT/USDC, without the need to hold $XPL , sub-second finality + high TPS (>1000) allows for real-time, low-cost batch settlements. This is especially critical for payment platforms, cross-border finance, and supply chain payments during times of panic— the greater the Gas volatility and tighter the liquidity, the more prominent Plasma's cost certainty advantage becomes, with institutions already entering testing and integration.
In terms of security, Bitcoin state anchoring + MPC bridge + Elliptic compliance monitoring provide ultimate neutrality, censorship resistance, and auditability. During extreme panic, institutions are most worried about asset freezing or scrutiny risks. Plasma inherits the hardcore attributes of BTC, becoming one of the few settlement bases that can simultaneously meet the demands of "security + compliance + scalability."
TVL has exceeded $9 billion, with a daily transaction volume of millions, and real institutional flow is countercyclically flowing in. The real-world closed loop further strengthens its defensive value: Plasma One digital banking supports stablecoin savings (yielding 10%+ range) and instant transfers; Visa payment card channels cover over 150 million merchants globally, enabling on-chain dollar offline consumption + 4% cashback; MassPay covers real-time cross-border remittances in over 230 countries. These already launched features form a portfolio of assets that are "reachable and profitable" during market crashes. $XPL has a fixed supply of 1 billion, capturing value through staking, governance, and protocol revenue sharing, linked to real settlement volume, fee income, and TVL growth. At this critical stage of transition from "panic selling" to "rational hedging," Plasma offers not just a narrative, but a comprehensive solution of "hedging + returns + scalability." While others are cutting losses, it quietly builds the next trillion-dollar stablecoin settlement track.
#plasma $XPL @Plasma
Plasma: February 4 Trump Tariff Threat Escalation + Crypto Technical Rebound, The Dual-Driven Value of "Risk Aversion + Growth" in Stablecoin Settlement Chain Has Emerged
On February 4, the Trump team once again stated, "A 60% tariff on China + a 25% tariff on Mexico/Canada," leading to renewed panic in the global supply chain. U.S. stocks experienced a mid-session surge followed by a decline, with the Dow dropping 0.8% and the Nasdaq rising slightly by 0.3%. U.S. Treasury yields fell slightly to 4.36%. The crypto market saw a technical rebound: Bitcoin rose about 6.5% from its low, Ethereum bounced back by 8%, and mainstream altcoins generally increased by 5-12%, although trading volumes remained low, indicating the market is still in a cautious phase of "rebound rather than reversal." Institutional funds continue to lean towards assets that are "highly certain, yield-generating, and compliant," with a noticeable increase in the popularity of stablecoin payment and settlement tracks. Plasma, as a Layer 1 designed specifically for stablecoins, demonstrates the dual-driven value of "risk aversion + growth" amid this dual uncertainty of macroeconomic and political factors: macro resilience in settlement efficiency.
Login to explore more contents