_Techno

I noticed Plasma approaches user alignment differently from most Layer 1 networks, not by segmenting features or messaging, but by enforcing consistent behavior across very different types of settlement activity. Plasma is positioned as a Layer 1 blockchain tailored for stablecoin settlement, and that focus creates a common operational baseline for both retail users in high-adoption markets and institutions operating in payments and finance.
Plasma's execution environment is fully EVM compatible through Reth, allowing existing stablecoin contracts and tooling to function without modification. This compatibility matters because it removes the need for parallel environments or specialized contract versions for different user classes. Retail transfers and institutional payment flows execute under the same virtual machine rules, ensuring uniform behavior regardless of transaction origin or size.
Finality on Plasma is delivered through PlasmaBFT, providing sub-second confirmation. This characteristic is particularly relevant for payment-oriented usage, where settlement latency directly affects operational certainty. Retail users benefit from fast confirmation for everyday transfers, while institutions rely on deterministic finality to support reconciliation, treasury movement, and payment processing workflows. Plasma does not vary confirmation behavior based on user type, maintaining a shared settlement experience across participants.

One of the clearest indicators of alignment is Plasma's approach to transaction fees. Stablecoin-first gas allows fees to be paid directly in stable assets, and gasless USDT transfers further reduce friction for users whose primary interaction is stable value movement. These features are not positioned as convenience layers for a specific audience. Instead, they operate at the protocol level, enabling both retail and institutional actors to interact with the network without managing auxiliary assets solely for execution costs.
Security considerations also reflect this shared design approach. Plasma incorporates Bitcoin-anchored security to strengthen neutrality and censorship resistance. This anchoring is relevant for institutions that require strong assurances around transaction inclusion and settlement integrity, while also benefiting retail users in regions where network neutrality is a practical concern. The security model does not distinguish between participant categories; all transactions inherit the same guarantees once processed.
What becomes apparent is that Plasma does not attempt to optimize separately for consumer-scale and enterprise-scale behavior. There are no visible priority classes or differentiated execution paths. Instead, the network applies the same rules uniformly, allowing different usage patterns to coexist without introducing hierarchy or special handling. Retail activity in high-adoption markets and institutional payment flows share the same execution surface.
This alignment reduces fragmentation. Institutions do not operate on a privileged settlement layer, and retail users are not confined to a simplified subset of functionality. Both interact with the same system, using stablecoins as the primary settlement asset, within the same execution and finality framework. This consistency simplifies integration for payment providers while preserving accessibility for individual users.
Plasma's design choices suggest a preference for operational clarity over feature segmentation. By centering the network around stablecoin settlement and applying uniform execution behavior, Plasma avoids the complexity that often arises when networks attempt to tailor infrastructure separately for different audiences. Instead, it provides a single settlement environment capable of supporting diverse transaction profiles.
As usage grows across regions and institutions, this shared foundation becomes increasingly relevant. Retail adoption does not introduce behavioral changes that affect institutional settlement, and institutional usage does not impose separate rules on retail participants. Plasma’s alignment strategy is embedded in how the network operates, not how it markets itself.
Conclusion
Plasma aligns retail and institutional usage by enforcing a common settlement framework built around stablecoins. Through EVM compatibility via Reth, sub-second finality with PlasmaBFT, stablecoin-first gas mechanics, and Bitcoin-anchored security, the network maintains consistent behavior across diverse users. Rather than segmenting infrastructure, Plasma applies uniform execution rules, allowing retail adoption and institutional payment activity to coexist on the same Layer 1 without distortion.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma

My initial awareness of Plasma was not from its announcements or flashy ecosystem expansions, but from what it kept prioritizing at the protocol level. Plasma is essentially a Layer 1 chain designed mainly as a settlement layer for stablecoins, and from a glance, all the system decisions seem to be centered around this focus rather than a broad attempt of catering directly to all possible use cases. Rather than trying to win the game of general, purpose narratives, Plasma is focused on the actual operation of stablecoins by emphasizing how stablecoins are moved, settled, and used at scale.
Plasma runs full EVM compatibility through Reth, which allows existing Ethereum tooling and contracts to execute without modification. This compatibility is not presented as a headline feature but as a baseline requirement, enabling stablecoin contracts to operate in a familiar execution environment while benefiting from Plasma’s underlying performance characteristics. Execution behavior remains predictable, allowing settlement logic to function consistently without requiring application-level workarounds.
Finality is handled through PlasmaBFT, delivering sub-second confirmation. This matters directly for stablecoin settlement flows where delayed finality introduces reconciliation risk. On Plasma, transfers reach confirmation quickly and deterministically, aligning with payment-style usage rather than speculative transaction patterns. The protocol’s behavior emphasizes fast completion without introducing discretionary execution paths.
One of the most visible expressions of this focus is stablecoin-first gas design. Plasma allows transaction fees to be paid directly in stablecoins, removing the need to acquire or manage a separate native asset for basic transfers. Gasless USDT transfers further reduce friction for users whose primary interaction is moving stable value rather than participating in broader DeFi activity. These features are embedded at the protocol level, not layered through application logic.

Security design also reflects Plasma's positioning. Bitcoin-anchored security is introduced to reinforce neutrality and censorship resistance, particularly important for settlement systems expected to operate across jurisdictions and market conditions. Rather than relying solely on internal assurances, Plasma ties its security assumptions to an external anchor, strengthening confidence for actors moving meaningful value.
Target users for Plasma span retail participants in high-adoption markets and institutions operating in payments and finance. This dual audience shapes how the network behaves under load. Retail usage demands simplicity and reliability, while institutional settlement requires consistency, neutrality, and predictable execution. Plasma does not split these requirements into separate systems; instead, it applies the same execution rules uniformly, allowing both user classes to coexist without priority distortion.
What stands out is how little Plasma attempts to explain these choices through narrative. The protocol communicates its intent through constraints, defaults, and execution behavior rather than messaging. Stablecoin settlement is not framed as a future opportunity but as a present operational reality embedded in the chain’s design.
While I was still watching Plasma, I realized that its method is more of an emphasis on readiness rather than on being in the limelight. Plasma by coordinating execution, gas mechanics, finality, and security all to the stablecoin usage, is basically infrastructure that is meant to be used quietly and consistently. The value of the chain is not because of how much it talks, but how reliably it transfers value when it is needed.
Conclusion
Plasma has been architected in a way that illustrates a clear intention to prioritize stablecoin settlement at the very top of their agenda to the exclusion of other factors. By leveraging EVM compatibility via Reth, sub, second finality with PlasmaBFT, stablecoin, first gas mechanics, and Bitcoin, anchored security, the protocol essentially "behaves" as a real settlement demand market. Instead of trying to be everything to everyone, Plasma zeroes in on the imminent stablecoin flows from retail and institutional segments, thus, it implicitly establishes its identity as dependable infrastructure rather than a flashy one.

@Plasma $XPL #Plasma

Plasma maintains a fixed transaction intake rate during periods of sustained network load. Increased submission volume does not expand execution throughput or alter processing rules. Transactions exceeding intake capacity remain pending until execution slots become available. This behavior keeps state transition volume consistent over time and prevents load-induced variance in settlement progression. Execution handling remains unchanged regardless of submission pressure, preserving predictable settlement behavior during extended periods of elevated activity.

@Plasma $XPL #Plasma

Finality according to Plasma is a protocol, enforced state boundary after which transaction outcomes cannot be reverted, reordered, or selectively invalidated. Once a transaction crosses this boundary, its effects become immutable regardless of subsequent network conditions, validator behavior, or capital flow intensity.
Rollback is not treated as a conditional capability in Plasma. There is no execution path that permits partial rollback of finalized state. Transactions either remain outside execution or become final as a whole. Intermediate or discretionary reversal is not available at any stage after finality is reached.
Finality is enforced at the consensus layer through PlasmaBFT. Validators do not possess discretionary authority to revisit finalized blocks. Once consensus confirmation is achieved, execution results are locked. Validator coordination cannot reopen finalized state, even under exceptional load or capital concentration events.
Plasma does not expose rollback mechanisms to applications. Smart contracts cannot request, trigger, or simulate state reversion beyond standard EVM execution semantics within a single transaction. Once a transaction is committed to finalized state, application logic has no access to reversal hooks or delayed settlement flags. $XPL

There is no probabilistic finality window. Plasma does not depend on confirmation depth or time, based confidence thresholds. Finality is absolute: transactions are either not final and pending or final and irreversible. This makes the concept of settlement certainty during volatile network conditions unambiguous.
Execution ordering prior to finality is constrained, but once finalized, ordering becomes fixed. Plasma does not allow post-finality reordering, repricing, or reprioritization of transactions. Late-arriving submissions cannot displace or invalidate finalized execution outcomes.
Rollback boundaries are also enforced during validator transitions. Changes in validator participation do not alter finalized state. New validators inherit finalized execution results without the ability to contest or re-evaluate them. This prevents governance or membership changes from introducing retroactive state risk.
Plasma does not support chain reorganization beyond the finality boundary. Forks that do not achieve consensus confirmation are discarded without impacting finalized execution. This eliminates deep reorg scenarios and prevents settlement rollback due to temporary divergence.
During periods of elevated transaction demand, Plasma maintains the same finality boundary. Execution intake may be constrained, but finalized transactions remain unaffected. Congestion does not extend finality windows or weaken rollback guarantees. $XPL
Capital-driven transaction bursts do not alter rollback rules. High-value flows receive no special rollback privileges. Once finalized, large and small transactions share identical irreversibility properties.
Plasma separates submission pressure from finality enforcement. Transactions delayed at intake have no effect on finalized state. Only transactions that pass execution and consensus confirmation cross the finality boundary. Deferred or dropped submissions never enter a reversible state within the protocol.
There is no emergency rollback mode. Plasma does not include a protocol-level pause-and-revert mechanism for finalized execution. Governance processes cannot retroactively reverse confirmed settlement outcomes.
Finality also applies uniformly across contract calls. Nested contract interactions finalize atomically with the parent transaction. Partial finalization or selective rollback across internal calls is not possible once consensus confirmation occurs.
Plasma's rollback boundary is therefore not a soft guideline but a hard protocol constraint. Once crossed, state transitions are permanent and non-negotiable. This boundary remains unchanged regardless of network load, validator composition, or capital intensity.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma

Plasma slows down transaction processing when the submission rates are higher than the network's execution ceiling. The delay is given before execution, not during state transition, and it only applies to those transactions which try to enter the execution path beyond allowed limits. Transactions that are accepted continue as usual, while those that are in excess are kept back without changing the finalized state.
The first class that Plasma delays is frequent high, frequency account activity. Externally owned accounts submitting transactions beyond the allowed rate will have transaction queuing at the protocol layer enforced on them. These transactions are not permanently rejected; they simply do not proceed to execution until the submission pressure falls below the set thresholds. Thus, sustained bursts are prevented from taking over execution slots.

Contract, driven transaction floods are also delayed under these rules. Contracts rapidly emitting call sequences, whether triggered by automation or user aggregation, are limited by the identical execution intake limits. During demand spikes, there is no contract, level exemption. Those calls that exceed intake capacity are delayed before execution, hence internal state churn caused by burst activity is avoided. $XPL
Plasma also hampers the acceleration of transaction inclusion by resubmitting continuously. When demand is high, duplicate or almost duplicate submissions will not be given priority. Each submission is checked to see if it meets the intake constraints, and those that exceed the limits are still kept in the queue outside of the execution pipeline. Submissions frequency does not affect the order of execution.
Validator actions cannot negate such delays. Producers of blocks are only allowed to include transactions up to the execution limit; hence, they are unable to pull in extra transactions once the capacity limit is reached. Block construction is deterministic and execution is only carried out to the ceiling being enforced. Outside this boundary, transactions are neither reordered nor fast, tracked by validators irrespective of their economic size or sender's identity.
When the demand is high for a long time, Plasma delays the bursting of transactions instead of increasing the bandwidth for the execution. The protocol does not prolong the block execution limits to accommodate the incoming volume. Thus, the time required for the execution is kept within limits and the internal backlog is prevented from accumulating. Those transactions that have been put off are not part of the execution environment but remain there until the intake capacity is free.
Another type of submission delay is capital, driven submission spikes that come from a single flow.
Major balance changes that set off chained transactions face the same intake restrictions as smaller transfers. The amount of money involved does not exempt a transaction from the execution limit. Thus, capital concentration cannot be used as a means to dominate execution during the busiest periods.
Plasma does not selectively hold back transactions based on the asset denomination or the value size. Delay decisions are made only based on the impact on execution. Those transactions that fit into the allowed intake window are allowed to go, while those that exceed it need to wait. This fair application keeps the behavior consistent across different settlement flows. $XPL
Even when there is a delay, the execution ordering stays the same. Transactions that come in for execution are done in a predetermined set of rules and in a sequence that cannot be changed. The delayed transactions do not alter the order of those that have already been accepted. There is no jumping in of the postponed transactions in front of the ones that were accepted before, even if the pressure comes down later.
The delay feature also acts as a safeguard against cascading execution failures. Plasma is able to reduce the fast growth of the state, the clogging of the execution queue, and the overloading of validators by holding back the excess demand at an early stage. Execution happens within the set limits of operation whereas the pressure of submissions is dealt with outside.
For end, use, delayed execution appears as temporary submission backpressure instead of unpredictable confirmation behavior. Contracts keep execution semantics consistent, and the only times when the delays happen are when the submission rates exceed the capacity. After the pressure has been relieved, the postponed transactions go through without the need for application, level intervention.
Plasma is not holding back on execution by charging extra for prioritization of the fee. Transactions are not shuffled according to their willingness to pay during demand spikes. Intake restrictions are equally enforced, and deferred transactions are waiting without changing the execution economics. This way, congestion, caused bidding cannot be used to influence the execution order.
When the demand is prolonged, the delays will be stable rather than increasing exponentially. The execution capacity is not getting worse every time, and the deferred transactions are not piling up inside the protocol. The divergence of submission pressure and execution processing allows Plasma to maintain a predictable behavior even when the demand is still high.
So, in fact, what Plasma postpones at the time of the transaction demand surge is not the settlement but rather the overly numerous submission attempts that would have resulted in the execution line being overwhelmed. The protocol by limiting at the intake boundary only, it keeps the deterministic execution without taking on an unbounded workload.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma

Walrus is very close in its approach to protocol integrity through the way it checks each operation against very restrictive preconditions before allowing it to go through. So the protocol state is only changed through the valid actions, and thus the possibilities are limited for unpredictable results and the interaction of the participants is protected.
In decentralized protocols, the invalid state changes can always be brought up as a problem. Even modules that are well thought out can end up giving inconsistent results if operations are carried out with wrong assumptions or without a full picture. Walrus solves this problem by considering the preconditions as the core constraints of the protocol. These preconditions are the real checks that are part of the protocol logic and that decide if an operation can go on and the decision is based on the state of the objects, the participant's permissions, and the actions that have been done and finalized so far.
In the case where a precondition is not met, the operation is denied at once thereby, the state is not changed unintentionally. $WAL
For users, developers, and institutions that interact with Walrus, precondition enforcement is a source of certainty and predictability. Anyone willing to join the protocol can do so with the knowledge that only approved operations will be successful, that state transitions will be the same on all nodes, and that conflicting or partial updates will not be able to disrupt the workflow or the capital allocation. Getting this kind of assurance, these parties no longer have to worry about external verification or manual checks, thus developers can count on the protocol, internally, to be the source of operational validity.

Walrus enforces precondition through several mechanisms: state verification of all objects that are part of the operation, confirmation that dependencies on earlier actions are satisfied, and permission check of the participants for each action. Operations that, for instance, would attempt to modify an object which is not valid anymore, are prevented beforehand; actions that require some steps to be done first are not allowed to execute prematurely, and state remains unchanged after an unauthorized attempt that is simply rejected. Walrus through different layers of checks makes sure that all operations that are carried out are valid and predictable thus totally the network is free of inadvertent errors.
Above all that, these are the direct benefits one can feel coming out of this approach. $WAL
During high traffic periods invalid operations are identified and eliminated before making any changes to the system state thus, system stability is maintained. Applications that manage tokens or other resources are able to predict the outcomes of operations with certainty and thus their risk management and financial planning are greatly improved. Security is fortified because attack vectors, which rely on invalid or out, of, order operations, are neutralized by protocol, level enforcement.
A minor, yet quite significant, effect of the strict enforcement of preconditions is less friction of the participants. Just imagine that users, knowing that only valid operations will go through, can simply automate their interactions without any second thoughts about errors. Developers, on the other hand, can come up with complex workflows without scattering redundant validation layers everywhere and, finally, institutions will be more willing to commit capital when they understand that the protocol itself is the one that enforces operational correctness. Simply put, preconditions are more than just error prevention toolsthey are growth and adoption enablers by offering a predictable and reliable environment.
Walrus way to precondition enforcement is a calculated move that pays off in real, tangible benefits. Directly incorporating checks into protocol execution, it not only prevents illegal state changes but also guarantees the same behavior, and increases participant trust. This instrument makes it possible to have complicated interactions, fast operations, and institutional, level participation without compromising the integrity of the system. From the standpoint of users and developers, the directive is simple: feel free to engage but practice safety as Walrus will make sure the rules are followed without any intervention.
@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #walrus

Plasma will not try to process all the transactions if there is a surge in demand. When the network is flooded with capital faster than it can execute the transactions, it sets very strict limits on which transactions will go through and which will be delayed. This rejection is not based on identity or value size, but on behavior patterns that pose a threat to the settlement order.
To prevent overload, the protocol limits the number of transaction requests accounts and contracts can send when they have been submitting transactions at a rate higher than the allowed one. These restrictions are made uniformly at the execution layer, and not, for example, by off, chain filtering or validators discretion. Therefore, the number of transactions submitted can be higher than the number that can be processed without the settlement becoming unstable.
The most significant refusal that Plasma imposes is the dominance one. High, frequency senders will not be able to dominate the execution bandwidth even if they have a lot of money or are running popular contracts. Instead of reordering or accelerating the excess transactions when the submission rates exceed protocol limits, these transactions are just postponed. This stops the capital that has been concentrated at the top from getting priority in the execution process. $XPL
In contrast to systems that absorb demand by either increasing block fill or relaxing execution constraints, Plasma keeps throughput bounded at all times. Transaction queues will expand externally rather than internally. The execution pipeline will not be disrupted as the protocol will not take more work than it can deterministically finalize. Such a refusal safeguards settlement timing even when there are sudden massive inflows.

One more category of transaction that Plasma does not process immediately is the contract activity that is burst, driven. Contracts that generate a series of calls very rapidly during the volatile periods will have the same execution limits as the externally owned accounts. There will be no exemption at the contract level, for example, liquidity protocols, aggregators, or settlement routers. Consistent application of rules prevents the emergence of application, level execution lanes during stressful situations. $XPL
Moreover, Plasma refuses to indulge adaptive repricing at the execution layer. It is basically not a price auction for transaction inclusion at the time of a demand spike. Further, there will be no dynamic escalation of the fees in order to clear the congestion. Instead, the pressure will be absorbed via submission rate limits so that execution order can still be predictable even when there is a competition for settlement due to capital. Thus, it eliminates the reason for network flooding during unstable situations.
Since the refusal is at the protocol level, validators do not negotiate the inclusion of transactions under heavy load. Block assembly adheres to the deterministic ordering rules, and execution only goes to the limits which are allowed. Transactions that are outside these limits are hanging without having an impact on the finalized state. This distinction between submission pressure and execution capacity is essentially what enables Plasma to maintain stable confirmation behavior during a rush of the capital.
More importantly, Plasma, unlike other solutions, does not refuse transactions based on the asset type or value denomination. Stable settlement flows are treated in the same way regardless of the transfer size. What is important is execution impact and not the economic weight. As a result, large balance movements do not crowd out routine settlement activity during the peak periods.
The refusal model, therefore, also acts as a safeguard to prevent cascading failures. In bound intake limitation, Plasma prevents state growth acceleration and execution backlog inside the protocol. Memory pressure, indexing delays, and validator overload are avoided because excessive demand never enters the execution path. The network remains operational even when the external queues have grown.
For applications, it results in a consistent settlement surface. Developers don't have to create a design that can handle unpredictable execution bursts or fee spikes. Contracts, except for occasional inclusion delay if the limits are reached, experience the same execution performance during both stress and calm periods. There are no abrupt priority changes caused by capital intensity.
From a capital standpoint, refusal puts fairness before speed. Funds do not get the benefit of "aggressiveness". A higher submission frequency to push for faster settlement will not lead to a better execution outcome. This sets the same behavior standard for all the participants and thus eliminates transaction flooding for the exploitative use of volatile windows.
Thus, Plasma's refusal during capital spikes shouldn't be seen as a failure mode but rather as a control surface. The protocol, in refusing to process excess demand, thus keeps deterministic execution, stable finality, and equal access to settlement. The capital flow is not interrupted; it just corresponds to the rate at which the network is capable of processing safely and consistently.
This is the reason that Plasma can deliver predictable settlement behavior even in situations that would normally destabilize execution environments. Instead of squeezing the capacity, the network simply retains its limits. What is refused is not value but the volatility, driven pressure that would otherwise cause the execution order to be distorted.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma

Plasma is very clear about its prevention of liquidity fragmentation across applications, and it starts with a simple yet strict rule that settlement liquidity should always be considered as one single shared system and not as pools isolated and competing for depth. Every design decision in Plasma is aimed at enforcing this rule, even if it means limiting short, term flexibility.
On the Plasma platform, it is normal capital is expected to move frequently, in fact, often programmatically, and sometimes in large amounts. When under these conditions, fragmentation becomes a systemic risk. If the liquidity is stuck inside application, specific routes, wrappers, or execution paths, then under stress, the reliability of the settlement will go down. Plasma sees this not as an application, level problem but a protocol, level failure mode.
The first structural decision Plasma makes is to exclude asset duplication at the base layer. Settlement assets that are stable are not wrapped, mirrored, or re, issued for each application. Hence, there is no generation of functionally equivalent balances that require reconciliation across contracts. By mandating a single canonical representation at the protocol level, Plasma guarantees that applications are, in fact, accessing the same underlying liquidity surface, no matter the execution context. $XPL
Execution ordering serves as the main supporting element of this model. Plasma does not permit applications to establish private priority lanes for capital. Transactions execute based on deterministic rules that are uniformly applied to all the applications. This stops situations in which one single application takes most of the liquidity just because it is able to pay more or to change the order of execution during the demand rise. Liquidity stays accessible serial, wide, it is not auctioned into silos.

Another fragmentation vector which Plasma avoids by design is per, application fee dynamics. Variable or competitive fee mechanisms attract capital to the place where the execution is cheapest at that very moment, not where it is functionally needed. Plasmas stable settlement structure completely abolishes this motive. Applications do not vie for liquidity by altering the execution price, which maintains the capital behavior in line with the usage rather than the arbitrage.
The protocol, managed execution infrastructure also factors in. Plasma relocates at the network layer the components which are critically settlement, related instead of leaving the decision to an application, specific implementation. This avoids the fragmentation resulting from different assumptions about pricing, availability, or execution guarantees. When the infrastructure behavior is standard, capital does not have to take the detour for the sake of certainty.
Liquidity fragmentation generally tends to worsen during stress events rather than under normal conditions. Plasma is specifically designed to efficiently handle such a failure scenario. In the event that transaction demand drastically increases or capital inflows rapidly accelerate, Plasma will give priority to predictable execution rather than trying to achieve maximum throughput. This way, it avoids the situation where applications lock up liquidity through congestion or partial settlement. Capital stays mobile as execution performance is not deteriorating unevenly across the network. $XPL
Moreover, Plasma never isolates liquidity through opt, in mechanisms that silently turn into defaults. Settlement, altering features are always explicit and reversible. Thus, no application becomes a victim to execution path incompatibility with the rest of the network without the knowledge of the involved funds. Such a design paradigm fundamentally restrains the emergence of a long, tail fragmentation pattern that usually develops over time in composable systems.
For an application developer, the essence of Plasmas model is that it automatically eliminates the entire set of coordination problems related to it. There would be no need to kickstart isolated liquidity, to create incentives for moving, or to keep bridges between pools. Applications, as it were, get the inheritance of network, level liquidity coherence. Therefore, it shifts the focus from fixing operational issues to building new features and at the same time, it reduces the risk of running into capital silo conflicts.
For capital providers, the result is equally significant. Funds are not led into getting exposed to hidden execution paths or application, specific lock, in. Liquidity acts in a predictable manner no matter where it is deployed which is especially important for large balances and automated settlement flows. The design of Plasma makes it very clear that liquidity safety is a matter of enforcement at the protocol level rather than a matter of negotiation between applications.
Preventing fragmentation should not be considered a beneficial side effect of Plasma; rather, it is a clear design goal that is being realized through asset representation, execution rules, fee structure, and congestion handling. Plasma compromises the degree of freedom of the transactional flow to a certain extent in order to maintain capital coherence. Such a tradeoff is intentional, and it essentially enables the network to operate nonstop settlement activity without experiencing liquidity degradation.
Operationally, a condition like this is equivalent to Plasma not depending on incentives to resolve fragmentation once it has occurred. Plasma structurally prevents fragmentation. Capital stays in one piece simply because the protocol is not allowing it to get divided in the first place.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma