X L Y N

Eu me lembro da primeira vez que realmente entendi o que o Plasma está tentando corrigir. Não foi um debate sobre capacidade de processamento ou um diagrama na tela. Foi a sensação que as pessoas têm bem antes de pressionarem o botão de enviar. Aquela pequena pausa. Aquela preocupação silenciosa. Vai chegar? As taxas vão disparar? Vai ficar preso? Eu terei o token certo para pagar pelo gás? O Plasma começa a partir desse momento humano e constrói tudo de forma inversa a partir dele.

No seu cerne, o Plasma se posiciona como uma camada 1 de alto desempenho construída para pagamentos de stablecoins em escala global, com transferências quase instantâneas, baixas taxas e total compatibilidade com EVM. Eles não estão tentando ser tudo para todos. Eles estão tentando ser a cadeia na qual a liquidação de stablecoins pode confiar quando as apostas são reais.

I’m not drawn to Plasma because it sounds futuristic. I’m drawn to it because it tries to make stablecoins feel ordinary, like the kind of infrastructure you forget is even there. That might sound like a small ambition, but it’s actually the hardest one. Most chains can tell a story. Very few can survive the daily grind of payments where people do not care about narratives and They’re only asking one quiet question: will this send fast, will it settle for sure, and will it still work tomorrow.

Plasma is a Layer 1 built specifically for stablecoin settlement, and you can feel that focus in the way the system behaves. It keeps full EVM compatibility through Reth so builders can ship with tools and patterns they already trust, and it pairs that with PlasmaBFT so finality is designed to arrive quickly and predictably, the way a payment should. What makes it different is not one feature, it is the way the features line up behind a single human reality: the average stablecoin user does not want to think about gas, does not want to buy an extra token, and does not want to learn new rituals just to move a dollar like balance. That is why the design includes gasless USDT transfers for simple flows and a stablecoin first gas concept that aims to let fees match what users already hold.

Here is how it actually functions in practice when someone taps send, without dressing it up in theory. A wallet creates a standard EVM transaction for a stablecoin transfer. The network is tuned so finality can land quickly through PlasmaBFT, which matters because payments cannot feel like a probability. For eligible basic transfers, Plasma can remove the most common onboarding friction by sponsoring the gas so the sender does not need to hold a separate token just to move USDT. That one decision changes the emotional texture of the first transaction. The user is not pushed into a scavenger hunt. They already have the money, so they can move the money.

Under the hood there is also a security posture that aims at neutrality. Plasma describes Bitcoin anchored security as part of the design intent to increase censorship resistance and settlement credibility over time, which is a fancy way of saying the chain is trying to reduce the chance that powerful actors can quietly rewrite the rules when the stakes rise. If it becomes a true settlement layer for large stablecoin flows, that neutrality stops being a nice to have and starts being the reason institutions can even consider routing value through it.

I want to pause on why the architecture looks like this, because the choices feel like they were made by someone staring at real behavior instead of ideologies. Plasma did not start by saying it will host everything. It started by saying stablecoin settlement is already the largest daily use case and the rails still punish the very people who use it most. That naturally leads to a few practical decisions. Keeping EVM compatibility is not a flex, it is a shortcut to reality. It means existing teams can deploy without rebuilding their entire mental model. Choosing a fast finality oriented BFT approach is not an academic preference, it is a payments preference. A merchant does not want a philosophical discussion about probabilistic finality. They want to hand over goods because the payment is done. And prioritizing gas abstraction for stablecoins is not a gimmick, it is a response to the most common point of failure in stablecoin onboarding.

Now let me walk through real world usage the way it tends to unfold step by step, because that is where projects either become a habit or fade into a one time experiment. The first stage is personal. Someone receives USDT because they do not want to lose value to local volatility, or because it is the simplest way to get paid across borders, or because it is the only thing that reliably arrives. They are not looking for a new chain. They are looking for a dependable send button. When the first send requires buying a separate gas token, the user feels tricked. Plasma is trying to remove that feeling by making the simplest stablecoin transfers feel close to fee free and instant.

The second stage is merchant behavior. Merchants are emotional in a very specific way. They fear chargebacks, they fear reversals, they fear ambiguity. Fast and consistent settlement reduces that fear. When finality is designed to arrive quickly, it becomes easier to treat stablecoin payments like cash, not like a promise. This is where a technical detail becomes a human outcome. Sub second finality is not just speed, it is confidence.

The third stage is repetition. Payments are not about one dramatic transaction. They are about the same flows happening again and again until people stop thinking about them. Contractors get paid, suppliers get settled, families send support, small businesses move working capital. When a system is stable, these flows feel boring. When a system is fragile, every transfer feels like a gamble. Plasma is aiming for boring.

The fourth stage is liquidity and access, because a payments network cannot live in isolation. Users need on ramps and off ramps, apps need depth, and businesses need confidence that the rails will be there at scale. Plasma publicly positioned its mainnet beta with the claim that more than 2 billion dollars in stablecoins would be active immediately and spread across 100 plus DeFi partners, which is a strategic choice to avoid the empty network problem where a chain launches but nobody can actually do anything useful on day one. And when an exchange is part of that real world path, Binance is the one I mention because it is a major place where stablecoin users already live, and distribution often follows existing habits rather than idealized flows.

Metrics matter here, but only if they reflect behavior instead of hype. One of the clearest stablecoin native indicators is circulating stablecoin market cap on the chain and how concentrated it is. DeFiLlama reports Plasma stablecoins market cap around 1.806 billion dollars with USDT dominance around 80.66 percent as of the most recent snapshot, along with chain level activity metrics like DEX volume around 12.87 million dollars in 24 hours and chain fees around 533 dollars in 24 hours. Those numbers are not a victory lap by themselves. They are a signal that the chain is being used in a stablecoin heavy way, which is exactly the specialization Plasma claims to be built for. We’re seeing the difference between a chain that attracts stablecoins as passengers and a chain that is designed around stablecoins as the main traffic.

But I do not think it is responsible to talk about the upside without naming the risks in plain language. Gasless transfers are an adoption unlock and also a magnet for abuse. If you sponsor transactions, you invite spam and you invite adversaries who will test the edges. That is not paranoia, it is economics. The honest approach is to scope what is subsidized, build eligibility and rate limiting, and treat abuse as a design requirement rather than an unpleasant surprise. A chain that wants to be a payments rail has to be stricter about operational hygiene than a chain that only serves speculative cycles.

Stablecoin dependence is another real risk. If the chain is built around USDT style flows, then issuer policies and regulatory shifts can shape the environment faster than any technical roadmap. That does not make the strategy wrong. It makes resilience mandatory. It means the project must plan for changing conditions without breaking user trust or pretending that external constraints do not exist.

Anchoring and neutrality also come with tradeoffs. Bitcoin anchored security is positioned as a way to strengthen settlement assurance and censorship resistance, but adding cross system mechanisms can increase complexity and complexity increases the surface area for mistakes. The only way to handle that responsibly is to keep the system auditable, keep incentives clear, and build a culture that responds quickly when something looks off. If it becomes widely used infrastructure, the cost of denial is paid by ordinary people who did not sign up to be beta testers.

Now for the future vision, because a project story is incomplete if it stops at what exists today. I see Plasma evolving in a direction that feels warm because it is practical. I want the stablecoin first gas idea to mature so apps can let users pay fees in the assets they already hold, which reduces cognitive load and makes stablecoin apps feel more like normal finance tools. I want the gasless transfer path to stay tightly engineered so it remains a bridge into the ecosystem rather than a loophole that attackers exploit. I want the chain to keep leaning into what payments demand, not what headlines reward: predictable finality, low friction, reliability under stress.

And I want the neutrality story to become tangible in everyday terms. Not abstract decentralization promises, but a lived experience where people can move value without fear that someone powerful can quietly block, censor, or rewrite settlement. That is the kind of dignity money should have. If it becomes the default rail for stablecoin settlement in high adoption markets and for institutions that care about clean payments and finance operations, then the impact is not going to be loud. It will show up in calmer days. In a shop owner who stops worrying about delayed confirmations. In a freelancer who gets paid and immediately uses the same stablecoin balance to pay someone else. In families who send support without losing a painful percentage to friction.

I keep coming back to a simple belief. The best infrastructure does not demand attention. It earns trust through repetition. Plasma is trying to make stablecoins feel like money, not like a hobby, and that is why the story feels personal to me. I’m not chasing a moment. I’m chasing a routine. They’re the same thing only until real life applies pressure. After that, the only thing that matters is whether the rail holds steady.

So I hope the ending is quiet. I hope it looks like people sending value and moving on with their lives. I hope it looks like a system that feels almost invisible, not because it is insignificant, but because it finally works the way money should.

$XPL #plasma @Plasma

I’m going to start with the part most crypto stories skip. The feeling people carry when they move money. Not the hype feeling. The quiet tension. The small worry that sits in your chest right after you hit Send. Did it work. Did it go to the right place. Will it arrive in time. And if it does not arrive, what does that cost me in embarrassment, in trust, in time, in real life.

Plasma exists inside that moment. It is a Layer 1 that is purpose built for stablecoin settlement, with stablecoin payments treated as the main path, not as a side feature.

Here is how the core system actually functions in practice, without the fantasy language. Plasma keeps the execution world familiar by staying fully EVM compatible and using Reth. That means smart contracts can run in a way developers already understand, with tooling that already exists, so builders are not forced to start from scratch just to ship something useful.

Then Plasma focuses its settlement engine on speed and certainty. It uses PlasmaBFT, described as derived from Fast HotStuff, and it is designed for very fast finality. In human terms, it is aiming to make the payment feel done quickly enough that the user does not sit there refreshing a screen and second guessing themselves.

On top of that, Plasma introduces stablecoin centric features that change how the chain feels at the point of use. The most important one is the idea of gasless stablecoin transfers for the simple send action, plus stablecoin first gas so fees can be abstracted away from the usual requirement to hold a separate gas token. Plasma is not saying blockspace is free forever. It is saying the default stablecoin user should not be punished for doing the most normal thing on earth, sending money.

There is also a longer term security direction that matters for a settlement rail. Plasma is designed with Bitcoin anchored security as part of its neutrality and censorship resistance story. Whether every piece of that vision is deployed instantly or phased carefully, the design intent is clear. If the network becomes meaningful, it needs a credibility path that does not rely only on goodwill.

Now I want to slow down and walk through a real send, because this is where the philosophy becomes a product.

A user opens an app. They choose USD₮ because that is what they already trust and already understand. They paste an address. They tap Send. In older patterns, this is where reality breaks. They have the stablecoin, but they do not have gas. They are told to buy another token. They are told to swap. They are told to learn more before they can do something basic. They’re not trying to become a trader. They’re trying to pay.

Plasma’s stablecoin native approach is built to remove that cliff for the most common action. The simple send path is treated as a first class workflow. The network is designed so the stablecoin experience can be smooth enough that users do not need to hold extra assets just to complete the first step of adoption.

If it becomes easy to do the first transfer, something quiet happens. The user does the second one. They do the third one. They stop thinking of it as a blockchain event and start thinking of it as money movement. That is what adoption looks like in the real world. It is not speeches. It is repetition.

Sub second finality is not just a technical target, it is a behavior shaper. Merchants behave differently when finality is fast. Couriers behave differently. Families behave differently. A merchant can release goods or confirm a service faster. A worker can feel paid without waiting through uncertainty. A user stops hovering over the screen like they are waiting for permission. Plasma’s whole settlement story is aimed at that emotional shift from anxious waiting to calm completion.

This is also why the architectural decisions make sense when you think like a builder who has to ship into messy reality.

EVM compatibility was the responsible choice because it lowers migration risk. Developers can bring existing contracts and existing knowledge. They can test and deploy without rewriting the world. Plasma is not trying to win by forcing everyone to learn a new virtual machine. It is trying to win by making stablecoin settlement feel normal while staying compatible with the tools people already use.

PlasmaBFT was the responsible choice because payments need deterministic expectations. A chain can brag about throughput, but settlement rails are judged by predictability under load, and by how quickly users can trust finality. Fast finality is not a luxury in payments, it is the difference between a workflow that works and a workflow that gets abandoned.

Stablecoin first gas and gasless transfer design were responsible choices because they reduce user drop off where it hurts most. The first payment is the hardest one. If the first payment fails due to gas friction, the user does not become an advanced user. They simply leave. If the first payment succeeds without drama, they come back. They invite someone else. They make it a habit.

Now let’s talk about real adoption signals, because a settlement chain should be measured by more than vibes.

One signal is stablecoin liquidity depth on the network. Deep stablecoin liquidity is what makes large transfers and real settlement activity feel safe, and it reduces the feeling that the rail will break under normal usage. Plasma’s positioning emphasizes stablecoins being present from day one at meaningful scale.

Another signal is TVL and deposit momentum during launch windows, not because TVL is everything, but because it shows capacity and attention arriving fast enough to support real usage. LayerZero’s case study describes Plasma pulling in about $8B in net deposits within three weeks of launch, framing it as an intentionally liquid launch strategy rather than slow bootstrapping.

A third signal is independent dashboard tracking of stablecoin supply and activity. DefiLlama’s stablecoin page for Plasma shows total stablecoins market cap around the $1.8B range with USDT dominance around 80 percent at the time of capture. That tells me Plasma is actually behaving like a stablecoin centered environment, not just claiming the label.

A fourth signal is how broader market research describes Plasma’s early growth. CoinGecko’s Q3 2025 industry report states that Plasma mainnet launched on 25 September 2025 and that it accumulated $5.5B in TVL in its first week, while also noting over $1B in pre deposits and over $2B of stablecoins at launch. This is the kind of narrative that matters because it frames Plasma as a stablecoin driven network event, not just another chain launch.

I’m also going to be honest about the limits of these metrics. TVL and deposits can be boosted by incentives. They can be sticky or they can evaporate. The deeper truth is repeat behavior. Returning wallets. Consistent transfer activity. Merchants who keep accepting. Operators who keep settling. Those are the metrics that look boring on a chart and powerful in a society.

Now we need to talk about risk, because pretending there are none is how payment systems get hurt.

The first risk is subsidy abuse. If gasless transfers are not tightly defended, attackers will try to farm them, spam them, or turn them into an extraction game. If the subsidy is too broad, it becomes a target. If the controls are too strict, real users lose the benefit. The network has to keep tuning that balance in public, and it has to be willing to tighten rules fast when reality changes.

The second risk is centralization pressure in early phases. Many payment systems start with more control than they want long term, because safety and reliability matter. The danger is staying there. If the project promises neutrality and censorship resistance, it has to show progress toward decentralization and stronger trust assumptions, not just talk about it.

The third risk is bridge and anchoring complexity. Bitcoin anchored security is a powerful direction, but any bridging or anchoring mechanism carries engineering risk, operational risk, and trust model risk. If a settlement rail is going to carry real value, its failure modes must be clear and owned early. It is better to say what can break before the world finds out the hard way.

The fourth risk is the external world. Stablecoin rails live inside regulation and policy pressure. Rules change. Issuers change. Payment networks get scrutinized. If Plasma wants to serve both retail users in high adoption markets and institutions in finance, it has to plan for a world that does not stay still.

I’m naming these risks because they matter emotionally. People do not fear tech. They fear surprises. They fear being stranded in the moment they need the money to work. A project that admits risk early becomes more trustworthy because it shows it is building for real life, not for a demo.

So where does this go, if it goes well.

I imagine Plasma evolving into a settlement rail that feels almost invisible. A place where sending stablecoins feels like sending a message. Quick. Final. Calm. And not because users suddenly became experts, but because the system respected them enough to remove needless friction.

I can picture small businesses settling supplier payments without waiting on bank windows. I can picture workers receiving earnings with less delay anxiety. I can picture families supporting each other across borders with fewer steps and less confusion. I can picture institutions using deterministic finality as an operational tool, because predictability reduces risk and makes reconciliation simpler.

I can also picture the ecosystem becoming less fragmented. If an exchange has to be referenced, Binance is a realistic bridge that many users already understand. But the deeper goal is that the user does not need to think about any exchange at all. They just need the rail to work.

We’re seeing early signals that stablecoin settlement focused design can attract liquidity and attention quickly, but the real test will always be the same. Does it keep working on ordinary days. Does it keep working when nobody is watching. Does it keep working when pressure arrives.

I’m hopeful because the philosophy is grounded. Keep execution familiar. Make finality feel immediate. Make stablecoin flows human. Plan for neutrality before you need it. If it becomes true that people can move stablecoins with calm confidence, Plasma will not just be infrastructure. It will be relief. And that is a quiet kind of success that can touch lives without ever asking to be celebrated.

$XPL #plasma @Plasma

Plasma is the kind of project that makes sense the moment you stop thinking like a crypto insider and start thinking like someone who just needs money to move. I keep coming back to one simple truth. Stablecoins are not a trend in many places. They’re a daily tool. People use USDT because it feels closer to safety than their local currency. They use it because it crosses borders without permission slips. They use it because it lets them save, pay, and plan without watching value evaporate overnight.

But even with all that demand, the stablecoin experience still breaks in ways that feel unfair. A person can have 200 USDT and still be unable to send 5 USDT because they don’t have a separate gas token. A merchant can accept stablecoins and still feel anxious because confirmations are slow or unclear. A user can press send and stare at a pending screen long enough to doubt the entire system. That doubt is expensive. Not in theory. In real life.

Plasma is built around removing that doubt by treating stablecoin settlement as the first priority. Not as one feature among many. The chain is designed to behave like a payment rail. That means speed, clarity, predictable costs, and a user experience that matches what stablecoin users already do instead of forcing them to adopt new habits.

Under the hood, Plasma keeps full EVM compatibility. This matters more than people admit. Most of the world’s stablecoin plumbing already lives inside EVM tooling, wallets, and contract standards. Plasma runs EVM execution through Reth, a modern Rust based Ethereum execution client that aims for performance and reliability. The practical outcome is simple. Apps and developers can work in an environment they already understand, and wallets can integrate without rewriting the world.

Then Plasma focuses on the part users actually feel. Finality. It uses a BFT style consensus called PlasmaBFT that is designed for sub second finality. When someone is paying, waiting is not just inconvenient. It creates fear. It creates arguments. It creates second guessing. Fast finality changes behavior because it changes confidence. When a transaction settles quickly and clearly, people treat it like money and not like an experiment.

Plasma also introduces stablecoin native features that reflect how stablecoins are already used. This is the part that feels personal because it solves the kind of friction that makes people quit.

One major feature is gasless USDT transfers for simple sends. The idea is not that everything is magically free. The idea is that the most common action in stablecoin life is sending USDT from one person to another, and that action should not require a second asset just to function. Plasma supports a relayer sponsored flow for USDT transfers so users can send without first acquiring a separate gas token. In practice, this can remove the most common point of failure for new and everyday users.

Then there is stablecoin first gas. This expands the same philosophy to broader usage. If people live in USDT, they should be able to pay transaction fees in USDT. Plasma supports paying gas in whitelisted stablecoins, which helps the experience stay consistent. It also reduces the weird mental burden where someone has money but cannot use it because they do not have the “right” token.

There is also a deeper layer in Plasma’s design that ties into values, not just performance. Bitcoin anchored security is part of how Plasma aims to strengthen neutrality and censorship resistance. When settlement rails become important, they attract pressure. That pressure can be political, regulatory, or simply competitive. Plasma’s security direction is designed to lean on Bitcoin’s credibility and resistance to capture as a way to keep the rail more neutral over time. People might not talk about neutrality while buying groceries, but they feel it when systems get restricted, blocked, or controlled. A settlement rail that aims to stay hard to censor is ultimately trying to protect the everyday user, not impress the technical audience.

If you want to understand how Plasma could spread in real life, it helps to follow behavior step by step.

It often begins in high adoption markets where people already use stablecoins because they have to, not because it is fun. Someone holds USDT because they want stability. The first thing they do is send it. They pay family. They repay a friend. They cover an urgent need. If the send works smoothly and finality feels fast, that person does it again. And that repeat behavior is the start of real adoption.

Then the amounts and frequency change. When people trust the rail, they send smaller payments more often. That is a big signal. It means the network is not just holding value. It is moving value in everyday rhythms. The chain becomes part of routine. That routine is what creates durability.

After that, merchants and small businesses show up. A shop owner accepts USDT because it settles quickly and reduces bank friction. A freelancer requests USDT because cross border payments are slow and unpredictable. A small business pays contractors in USDT because payroll can be painful. The chain does not need to be famous for this to happen. It needs to be reliable. Payment rails win when they feel boring.

Then there is the institutional path. Institutions do not fall in love with narratives. They care about predictable settlement, clear finality, integration, compliance posture, and the ability to move large volumes without drama. A stablecoin settlement chain that is EVM compatible and optimized for fast finality can fit more naturally into payment and finance workflows than a general purpose chain that tries to be everything at once.

The architectural choices Plasma made line up with that reality.

EVM compatibility reduces integration cost and makes it easier for builders and wallet teams to support the chain.

Using Reth points toward performance and modern engineering in a space where execution clients matter.

BFT finality fits the emotional and operational requirements of payments where waiting and ambiguity cause real harm.

Gasless USDT transfers and stablecoin first gas reflect how users actually behave, especially in markets where people do not want to hold extra tokens.

Bitcoin anchored security is a long game decision that prioritizes neutrality and censorship resistance as the system grows.

Now let’s talk about metrics, but in a way that actually means something. I do not like vanity numbers. I care about signals that reflect real settlement usage.

Stablecoin supply on the chain is meaningful because it shows people are trusting the network to hold settlement value.

Bridged value matters because it shows people are moving funds into the ecosystem rather than just watching from the outside.

Low fees matter because stablecoin payments are often small and frequent. If fees creep up, everyday usage dies.

Transaction patterns matter. Repeat behavior is stronger than one time spikes.

Ecosystem integrations matter because they show builders are investing time and infrastructure, which usually only happens when there is demand.

At the same time, Plasma has risks that deserve early honesty. Any project moving money should name its weak points before the market forces it.

Gasless USDT transfers rely on sponsorship systems and relayer operations that must be defended against abuse and managed with care. If policies change or capacity fails, users feel it instantly. It is a powerful feature, but it carries operational responsibility.

Stablecoin first gas requires secure and well designed paymaster style infrastructure. It also requires careful whitelisting decisions and protections against edge cases that can be exploited.

Bridges are always high stakes. Even when designs aim to be trust minimized, bridges concentrate value and attract attackers. If Plasma becomes a major settlement rail, bridge security discipline has to be relentless. Audits, monitoring, incident response, and transparency become part of the product.

Stablecoins also come with issuer realities. USDT can be frozen or controlled at the issuer level. A chain can improve settlement speed and neutrality at the network layer, but it cannot fully override issuer policy. This is not a reason to dismiss the project. It is a reason to stay honest about what problems it can solve and what problems it cannot.

There is also the risk of being too specialized. A stablecoin first chain has focus, and focus is strength. But it also means the project’s success is closely tied to stablecoin usage continuing to grow and to the chain staying competitive as other networks optimize for the same user base.

Acknowledging these risks early matters because it shapes better decisions now. It encourages stronger security investment. It encourages clear user expectations. It prevents the kind of marketing driven promises that collapse under real usage.

The future vision for Plasma is not flashy. It is human.

It is a world where stablecoins feel normal.

Where a student receives support from family across borders and it arrives fast enough to feel like care.

Where a worker gets paid on time without losing days to bank friction.

Where a small business settles invoices without waiting and without confusion.

Where people do not need to learn a new language just to move money.

If Plasma continues to refine fast finality, stablecoin native UX, and a neutrality minded security posture, it can become the kind of infrastructure that quietly improves everyday life. The best payment rails are the ones you stop noticing. They just work.

I’m not pretending this path is easy. They’re building in one of the most unforgiving categories in crypto because payments expose every weakness. But if the system stays grounded in real behavior and keeps reducing friction without hiding risks, we’re seeing the shape of something that can last.And if it lasts, the impact will not be measured only in charts.It will be measured in calmer days for people who simply needed their money to move.

$XPL #plasma @Plasma

Vou começar de onde os pagamentos sempre começam. Com uma pessoa segurando seu telefone em uma mão e uma preocupação silenciosa na outra. Eles digitam um valor de USD₮. Eles tocam em enviar. Eles não querem aprender um novo token. Eles não querem adivinhar o que significa gás. Eles querem que a transferência chegue e permaneça recebida.

O Plasma é construído em torno daquele momento exato. É uma Layer 1 construída para liquidação de stablecoins em escala global. O projeto apresenta a missão em termos simples. Pagamentos instantâneos de stablecoins com baixas taxas e total compatibilidade com EVM. Isso não é um slogan para mim. É uma restrição de design. Se as stablecoins são o ponto, então cada parte da cadeia deve se comportar como infraestrutura de pagamentos primeiro.

Vou contar essa história da maneira que se sente quando você para de olhar para blockchains como máquinas de hype e começa a vê-las como infraestrutura. A Dusk foi fundada em 2018 com uma direção clara desde o início. É uma camada 1 projetada para sistemas financeiros regulados e focados em privacidade, onde a confidencialidade importa, mas a responsabilidade ainda precisa existir. Essa frase soa simples, mas carrega uma pesada promessa. Eles não estão construindo para um mundo onde todos podem ver tudo. Eles estão construindo para um mundo onde as pessoas certas podem verificar os fatos certos no momento certo, sem forçar todos a expor comportamentos financeiros sensíveis em público.

Vou contar isso como uma história real porque o Plasma só faz sentido quando você imagina o tipo de dia para o qual ele foi construído. O dia em que alguém precisa mover dinheiro rapidamente em um lugar onde rapidez não é um luxo. O dia em que um comerciante precisa aceitar um pagamento e confiá-lo imediatamente. O dia em que um negócio quer liquidar faturas sem esperar e sem surpresas. O Plasma é uma blockchain de Camada 1 adaptada para a liquidação de stablecoins e é construído em torno de uma ideia fundamentada. As stablecoins já se comportam como dinheiro para milhões de pessoas, então a cadeia deve se comportar como uma infraestrutura de dinheiro em vez de pedir às pessoas que aprendam hábitos de blockchain primeiro.

Continuo pensando na primeira vez que um novo usuário toca o Web3. Eles não chegam com paciência. Eles chegam com curiosidade e um pouco de medo. Eles clicam em um botão e seu cérebro silenciosamente faz uma pergunta. Isso vai me fazer sentir inteligente ou vai me fazer sentir estúpido? Se a experiência for lenta, confusa ou cara, eles não dão uma segunda chance. Eles fecham o aplicativo. Eles seguem em frente. Eles esquecem o nome. É por isso que a Vanar me impacta de forma diferente. Não sou atraído por ela porque parece grandiosa. Sou atraído por ela porque está tentando fazer o Web3 se comportar como um produto normal que respeita uma pessoa normal.

Vou falar sobre Dusk da maneira que explicaria a um amigo que já viu promessas de cripto antes e ainda quer algo real.

Dusk começou em 2018 com uma ideia muito específica. Finanças regulamentadas não podem viver em trilhos que vazam tudo. No entanto, finanças regulamentadas também não podem aceitar uma caixa-preta. Eles estão tentando construir uma Camada 1 onde a privacidade protege comportamentos sensíveis e a auditabilidade protege o sistema. Não como um slogan. Como uma escolha de design funcional que se reflete em como as transações se movem e como as provas são verificadas.

Eu assisti stablecoins se tornarem algo profundamente prático. Para muitas pessoas, elas não são uma história de investimento. Elas são uma história de sobrevivência. Elas são a maneira mais simples de manter um valor estável quando a moeda local oscila muito ou quando os pagamentos transfronteiriços parecem lentos e caros. Esse é o mundo para o qual o Plasma foi construído. É uma blockchain de Camada 1 projetada especificamente para a liquidação de stablecoin e é concebida para tornar o movimento de stablecoin algo normal na vida, em vez de um ritual cripto complicado.