stablecoin

1. Die 60 % Kontrolle:
Bei der kürzlichen "Community"-Abstimmung kontrollierten nur 9 Wallets (die vom inneren Kreis kontrolliert werden) mehr als 60 % der Stimmen. Ihnen ist Ihre Meinung egal – sie besitzen das Spiel.
Diejenigen, die WLFI-Token gekauft und noch gesperrt sind, hatten NULL Mitspracherecht bei der Abstimmung. Sie haben das Geld investiert, aber sie halten die Fernbedienung. 🤐
2. Die 100 % Gewinngier: 💸
1. 75 % des Nettogewinns gehen direkt an die Familie Trump.
2. 25 % des Nettogewinns gehen an die Familie Witkoff.
3. 0 % für Privatanleger: Regelmäßige $WLFI Inhaber erhalten keinen Anteil am Gewinn.

You ever try to send USDT fast… and the chain asks for a token you don’t even own? You’re at the “confirm” screen, time matters, and then - gas. That tiny moment of friction is where fintech dreams go to die. In theory, general purpose L1s are amazing. They’re like a huge mall: apps, games, DeFi, memes, everything. But money movement is not shopping. It’s more like a train schedule. People expect it to run the same way every day. If it’s late, if fees jump, if the “final” answer isn’t final… nobody building real payments can relax. That’s the core bet behind Plasma (XPL). Not “be the chain for everything.” Be the best chain for one thing: stablecoin settlement. Settlement just means the part where the payment is truly done, no take-backs, no “wait a bit more.” Fintech lives or dies on that feeling of done. Here’s why the all-in-one model keeps tripping over itself for payments. A general L1 has to serve many kinds of users at once. When activity spikes - NFT mint, meme coin rush, some hot airdrop - fees rise and blocks fill. Then simple payments get stuck behind a crowd. It’s not evil. It’s just shared space. Like trying to do a quiet bank transfer in the middle of a loud concert. And the fee token problem is real. Many chains make you hold a native token just to move a stablecoin. For a crypto-native user, fine. For a normal person? It’s weird. “Why do I need extra coins to send dollars?” That question is honest. It’s also a product killer. Finality matters too. Finality means “once the network says yes, it won’t flip to no.” Some networks have fast blocks but weaker certainty for a bit. In trading, that might be okay. In payments, it’s stress. Merchants, payroll, remittance apps… they want strong, quick certainty. Not a maybe. So Plasma leans into specialization. Plasma describes itself as an EVM-compatible Layer 1 built for stablecoins, with design choices aimed at fees, speed, and UX for stablecoin use. The EVM part just means Ethereum-style apps can run there, using the same common tools devs already know. The headline feature people feel right away is zero-fee USDT transfers for simple sends. Plasma’s docs describe a protocol-managed “paymaster” system that sponsors gas for eligible USDT transfers, so the user doesn’t need to hold XPL just to send USDT. The chain covers the fee for that one basic action, under rules meant to limit abuse. That’s a very fintech idea. Make the common action smooth. Guard it with limits. Keep it boring and reliable. Plasma talks about PlasmaBFT for consensus and a modified Reth execution layer for EVM support. Consensus is just “how nodes agree on the next block.” PlasmaBFT is designed for fast agreement, which helps the “done means done” feel. And “Bitcoin-anchored security” is the idea of tying parts of the chain’s state to Bitcoin over time, so there’s a hard, widely trusted reference point. Now, is specialization automatically “better”? Nah. It’s a trade. A specialized chain can be less open-ended. It may say “payments first” and push other use cases to the side. That can feel limiting if you want one chain to host every experiment on earth. Also, if you sponsor fees for some actions, you need a plan for funding and controls, or else people will try to drain it. Plasma openly frames the gasless scope as narrow - simple USDT transfers - while other actions still use fees, which is how the network keeps incentives sane. But the bigger trend is hard to ignore: fintech rails tend to specialize. We don’t use the same system for everything. Card rails, ACH-style transfers, real-time pay systems- each is tuned for a job. Crypto is slowly learning that “one chain to rule them all” is not always the best shape for money that has to behave like money. So when you hear “Plasma vs general purpose L1s,” the real question is: what are you optimizing for? If it’s creative chaos and endless app types, a general L1 is the playground. If it’s stablecoin payments that must be cheap, quick, and simple for normal users, specialization starts to look like the future. Not financial advice - just a look at product design and why some chains are choosing to be a sharp tool instead of a Swiss Army knife. And honestly, I keep coming back to that checkout moment. When a payment app wants to feel like sending a text, what should the base layer feel like… a crowded mall, or a dedicated lane?
@Plasma #plasma $XPL #stablecoin #Fintech #Web3

Ein weiterer Durchbruch kommt aus der Welt der Kryptowährungen. Binance, die größte Börse der Welt, wird Ripple USD (RLUSD) offiziell am 21. Januar listen, komplett mit einem gebührenfreien Handelsangebot. Dieser Schritt hat sofort eine Debatte entfacht: Ist das ein großer Moment für Ripple oder nur eine gewöhnliche Listing-Strategie?
RLUSD, ein Stablecoin von Ripple, der Mitte 2024 eingeführt wurde und als Rückgrat der Liquidität im XRP Ledger-Ökosystem und in anderen Netzwerken konzipiert ist. Seine Präsenz auf Binance ist nicht nur eine Frage des breiteren Zugangs, sondern auch der Legitimität in den Augen von Millionen globaler Trader.