To be honest, the Plasma project has a very interesting aspect. If you look at its technical indicators and ecosystem story alone, you might think there's nothing particularly special. But from a different perspective—placing it within the question of "how can stablecoins truly operate on-chain for payments and settlements"—it becomes quite clear. It’s not about building a developer paradise or relying on a large number of applications; it’s about focusing on one thing: enabling stablecoins to have genuine payment layer capabilities.

The key difference here lies in the architectural approach. Traditional public chains typically start by establishing a general-purpose execution environment, with stablecoins as assets integrated into it. Plasma, on the other hand, begins with the assumption that stablecoins will be the primary value carriers on-chain, and then works backwards to design performance configurations, fee structures, execution paths, and liquidity. This is not just a narrative difference; it’s a fundamental engineering choice.

This approach directly influences what Plasma focuses on. Conventional projects often emphasize TPS numbers, while Plasma genuinely cares about the real-world performance of stablecoins under high concurrency and continuous transfers—whether confirmation delays can be minimized, failure rates remain stable, and fee fluctuations are manageable. For stablecoins, transaction fees are not revenue but a conflict cost. As long as there’s friction, users will seek alternatives. Therefore, Plasma straightforwardly treats ultra-low or near-zero fee stablecoin channels as a core capability during the design phase, rather than a marketing gimmick.

Another often overlooked but particularly important point is that—right from the initial design—Plasma considers the actual settlement needs of stablecoins, rather than waiting for the ecosystem to mature before adapting. This "reverse engineering" logic is quite rare among current L1 projects.