窝是丸子大魔王

Recently, when I was browsing Binance Square, I often saw @Plasma . To be honest, I was the type of person who would just scroll past it at first. The reason is simple: there are too many projects now, and each one claims to be the 'next-generation infrastructure' or 'disruptive innovation.' After seeing so many, I really became numb. But later, I occasionally clicked in to check out the content, and I casually flipped through the materials, slowly realizing that the Plasma project is not just a shell built purely for marketing.

My personal feeling is that the pace of Plasma is actually quite 'slow.' It's not the kind of project that goes live and immediately has various airdrops, pump-ups, and KOLs crazily driving the pace; it feels more like it's earnestly building something. From architecture, product logic to ecological direction, it's clear that it's following a long-term plan, rather than just trying to pump up the token price first. $XPL currently feels more like a 'fundamental token' to me, not just a purely narrative hype token, but rather one that is more closely tied to the entire ecosystem.

To be honest, when I first came across Plasma, I was a bit impatient.
Another new project, another set of 'more powerful, better experience' narratives. Honestly, I've heard too much of this in recent years. L2, modularization, execution layer, user experience... these terms put together, nine out of ten projects talk like this, and in the end, it's either no ecosystem or no users.
So at first, my attitude towards Plasma could be summed up in one sentence: okay, let's see what you can come up with.
But what really changed my mind was that I took the time to look at the overall design concept of @undefined rather than just focusing on the price or short-term popularity. Plasma has a very obvious characteristic: it hardly 'boasts' and is more about solving an old problem — on-chain interactions are becoming increasingly complex, but ordinary users do not want to learn so many things.