Let me start with an uncommon statement.

If someone asks me whether Plasma will explode rapidly, whether it can take off like some leading public chains, or whether it can become the next star chain, I would honestly say: I reserve my opinion.

But if asked whether the technical path of Plasma is correct, whether the problems it addresses are core, or whether what it is doing belongs to the "true infrastructure" layer, I would firmly say: yes. And this trait itself is quite dangerous.

When I first seriously studied Plasma, I felt a bit uncomfortable. Because it’s completely different from the narrative we’re used to in the crypto world — no "hundredfold dreams" packaging, no promises of "ecosystem explosion," no familiar "DeFi building blocks," and even less the appeal of meme culture.

It looks more like designing a system for the traditional financial world, rather than a product prepared for us traders who are glued to the charts. This in itself is quite anti-crypto.

Looking back at how we discuss stablecoins: we always treat USDT, USDC, and similar as "tools," as independent assets. But what Plasma is trying to do is entirely different — it assumes that stablecoins will evolve into an independent economy.

This doesn’t mean stablecoins are just parasitic on the chain; rather, they require a complete, independent, and tailor-made world for themselves. Once this assumption is valid, Plasma has a solid reason to exist.

Where is the problem? This assumption is still far from being realized. In reality, stablecoins are still supporting roles, tools for facilitating transactions, not the main characters. This is the real dilemma Plasma faces — the vision is grand, but it needs to wait for the entire market’s mindset to upgrade, and that takes time.