In many blockchain systems,
Each user is by default considered a 'professional participant':
You need to understand Gas, confirmation delays, failure probabilities, network states, and even bear the psychological costs of system fluctuations yourself.
@Plasma The approach is closer to mature internet products:
The stability of the system itself should be a responsibility of the underlying layer, not something left to the users.
Therefore, it does not focus on extreme parameter competition, but continuously optimizes the determinism of on-chain operations:
Whether the trading rhythm is coherent, execution is consistent, and costs are predictable.
These will not be written as a grand narrative, yet they directly influence whether users are willing to use it repeatedly.
There has long been an invisible threshold in the blockchain world:
A single operational error may mean permanent loss.
This is not a technical issue, but a design philosophy issue.
#Plasma does not assume that users are always right, but attempts to reduce the destructive consequences of failure through process design, feedback mechanisms, and operational constraints.
This means it is not a chain designed for a very small number of highly fault-tolerant users, but rather leaves space for ordinary users who can make mistakes.
This point is crucial because true large-scale adoption never starts with 'experts'.
Therefore, the most mature technology often becomes 'invisible'.
When users complete operations on Plasma, what they care about is only the results, not the underlying technical details.
This state of 'technical exit' is, on the contrary, an important sign that the system has entered a practical stage.
The value of Plasma does not lie in its complexity, but in its ability to carry real usage scenarios.$XPL