Many projects claim to be 'EVM compatible', which sounds like they can easily run Ethereum applications. But the reality is: compatibility is a direction, not a promise. The ability to compile and deploy at the contract level is just the first step; what truly determines user experience are the details of the execution layer and infrastructure: whether transaction receipts are consistent, whether gas estimation is stable, whether RPC is reliable, whether nodes jitter during peak times, and whether event indexing can sync in a timely manner. As long as there is a difference in any of these links, users will encounter typical issues such as 'frontend shows success but not completed on-chain', 'slow balance refresh', 'inconsistent order status', etc.
For chains like Plasma, which are more focused on payment scenarios, these differences are even more sensitive. Payments are not a game of patiently waiting for confirmations for DeFi players, but a scenario of 'I need to pay right now'. If you make users wait for more than ten seconds or let them encounter a failure without any prompt, the reuse rate will immediately drop. Therefore, when developers migrate, in addition to aligning contract functionality, they must prioritize the 'execution experience': the frontend should have a clear state machine (submit/confirm/complete/failure remedy), the backend should be fault-tolerant (retry, rollback, idempotency), and the indexing layer should ensure state consistency.
You can summarize it in one sentence: EVM compatibility addresses 'can it come', while the execution layer experience determines 'if it comes, will it stay'. Whether Plasma can become a payment-type infrastructure ultimately tests these invisible but most impactful details on the experience.