The commission model is one of the key factors in choosing payment infrastructure, as it determines the predictability of costs and the convenience of scaling. Plasma, Tron, and Visa represent three different pricing philosophies: from network economics with internal incentives to a centralized model embedded in the banking system. Comparing these approaches helps to better understand how the cost of payment is formed.
The Plasma model is built around the idea of minimizing barriers and tying fees to actual resource consumption. Payments and computations are assessed based on network load rather than fixed rates. This makes costs more flexible and understandable for developers and businesses, especially for large-scale micropayments and automated scenarios.
Tron is oriented towards low fees due to its resource system, where some operations can be performed almost for free under certain conditions. This model works well for stablecoin transfers but creates challenges in forecasting expenses during periods of increased activity. Users often encounter the need to manage resources, complicating the experience for non-professional audiences.
Visa uses a classic commission model based on a percentage of turnover and fixed fees. For merchants, this means high predictability but also significant costs, especially for cross-border payments. The user does not see the fee directly; however, it is built into the price of goods and services, creating a hidden cost.
The key difference between these models lies in who pays for the infrastructure and how. In Plasma, costs are distributed among network participants based on usage, in Tron they are partially masked through resources, and in Visa they are centrally passed on to businesses and the end consumer. This directly impacts scalability and the economy of the ecosystem.
In the future, the choice between Plasma, Tron, and Visa will depend on the application scenario. For programmable payments and digital services, the flexible Plasma model appears to be more adaptive. Tron maintains its position in the niche of cheap transfers, while Visa remains the standard for traditional commerce. These models do not so much compete directly as reflect different stages in the evolution of payment systems.
