#plasma $XPL "Full chain" narrative seems to be the kind of technology that has been left behind by the times. But upon closer thought, it never actually intended to move in the direction of "full chain".

If full chain means that all execution, all data, and all states must be laid out on the mainnet or an equivalently secure layer, then Plasma is inherently counter-narrative. Its core assumption is simple: the mainnet is always a scarce resource, and not all actions deserve such a cost.

In the full chain world, #透明 , #可组合 , security is political correctness; whereas Plasma cares more about efficiency, restraint, and the boundaries of responsibility. It chooses to only hand over the block headers and state commitments to the mainnet, keeping execution and data off-chain. This is not laziness, but rather a very clear trade-off: the mainnet is responsible for the final judgment, not for everyday operations.

So #Plasma 's positioning in the full chain era is not to replace, but to supplement.

Full chain handles "non-negotiable" matters, while Plasma carries out "constrainable" actions. Payment, in-app settlements, high-frequency but low-risk asset transfers—these scenarios appear to be extremely cost-ineffective in a full chain system, yet are precisely Plasma's comfort zone.

As modular architecture matures, the role of @Plasma becomes clearer:

The mainnet is the judge, the DA layer is the archive, and Plasma is the execution layer. It does not contend for the narrative center; it is solely responsible for handling the tasks that the mainnet does not want to or should not handle.

If full chain is an idealistic endpoint, then Plasma is more like an engineering pragmatic solution—imperfect, but it provides applications with a breathing space between cost and security.