Friends, recently there has been a popular saying in the community: 'Plasma is outdated, now it's the era of ZK Rollups!' As someone who has been experimenting with various Layer 2 solutions since 2018, I feel a bit strange when I hear this. Has Plasma really been abandoned by the times?


Last week, I spent a whole day researching a project called XPL. To be honest, I initially approached it with the mindset of 'this is just rehashing old ideas', but the more I looked into it, the more I felt something was off—these people seem to be seriously 'reviving' Plasma.

1. Why did Plasma become 'cold' that year?

Let me start with some history. Back in 2018, the Plasma concept was hugely popular; when OmiseGO (now called OMG) announced they would work on Plasma, how many people stayed up all night waiting for the white paper? What happened? The user experience crashed.


The main problems boil down to two:

  1. The exit mechanism is complex: users wanting to withdraw from Layer2 to the mainnet have to wait 7 days and monitor the challenge period themselves


  2. Data availability: If operators commit fraud, users' assets may 'disappear'


I tested a certain Plasma solution back then, and just for safe exit, I studied the documentation for three days before giving up. How could an ordinary user possibly accept that experience?


Two, what new tricks is XPL playing?

Okay, now let's talk about what surprised me about XPL. I went through their technical documentation and GitHub, and found that they are not simply replicating the old Plasma, but have made several key innovations:


1. Lightning exit channel (this design is amazing)
Traditional Plasma exits have to wait 7 days, but XPL has created an 'instant exit' channel. Simply put, it's like opening an emergency exit on a highway—usually you still take the main road (Plasma chain), but when you need to exit quickly, you can use a channel guaranteed by multiple nodes to retrieve your assets almost in real time.
I looked at their test net transactions, and from initiating the exit to receiving assets on the mainnet, it averaged 2 minutes. Although it doesn't compare to the few minutes of ZK Rollup, it's already a qualitative leap compared to the original 7 days.
2. Upgrade of the Data Availability Committee (DAC)
The biggest pain point of old Plasma is data availability. XPL has created an improved version of the DAC, but it's not just a few nodes hosting data; it uses a 'sharding storage + scheduled challenge' mechanism.
In simple terms, your transaction data is sliced into several pieces, stored on different nodes, and these nodes need to regularly 'prove their innocence'. Although it's not as elegantly mathematically proven as ZK Rollup, its practicality has greatly improved.
3. Focus on specific scenarios
What resonates with me most is that XPL doesn't aim to 'get rich overnight'. Their current focus is very clear: game assets and social graphs.
Why these two directions? Because they share common characteristics:

  • High-frequency small transactions (game item trading, social rewards)


  • The requirements for final certainty are not so strict (it's okay if it arrives a few minutes late)


  • Users are extremely concerned about transaction fees (you can't charge a disciple and also spend 5U in gas fees, right?)


Three, why do I think this path is worth a gamble?

Currently, ZK Rollup is indeed very popular, but I want to share a different observation:


1. Different levels of technical maturity
ZK technology is indeed impressive, but full implementation still requires time. Plasma, after years of accumulation, has experienced all the pitfalls, and may actually deliver products faster.
The XPL team also admits that one important reason they chose the Plasma route is: 'We know all the known pitfalls, so we can avoid them precisely.'
2. Cost advantages still exist
Although ZK costs are decreasing, the architecture of Plasma allows it to be cheaper in specific scenarios. I've seen XPL's simulation data, and in scenarios like game item trading, it's theoretically possible to achieve a single transaction cost of less than $0.001.
3. Differentiated competition
Currently, all Layer2 projects claim to be ZK, but there is serious homogenization. XPL's Plasma route actually creates differentiation. It's like when everyone is making electric cars, someone takes hybrid technology to the extreme and can also secure a place.

Four, my real concerns

Of course, I'm not mindlessly promoting. XPL faces clear problems as well:


  1. The trust assumption still exists: although improved, it still relies on the integrity of the operators


  2. The difficulty of ecological construction is high: developers are now rushing to the ZK ecosystem, while the Plasma ecosystem is hard to cold start


  3. The narrative is not appealing: under the mainstream narrative of 'ZK is the future', telling the Plasma story is at a disadvantage


Five, so, to gamble or not to gamble?

After a week of research, I made a decision: allocate 10% of my Layer2 position to XPL.


The reasons are as follows:

  1. Appropriate odds: Compared to the skyrocketing ZK projects, XPL is still in the early stages, offering higher odds


  2. Clear scenario: The vertical route of game + social is easier to land than the generic 'universal Layer2'


  3. The team is pragmatic: I've seen their developers' community discussions; they don't boast but focus on solving problems.


Of course, this is just a small bet. I won't go all in, nor will I urge anyone to go all in. The Layer2 war is far from over; having one more technical route competing is always a good thing for users.


Finally, let me say something from the heart: in this circle chasing trends, teams that can calm down and refine 'outdated technology' deserve at least some respect. Perhaps they won't become the final winners, but their attempts will help the entire industry move forward more steadily.
What do you think? Can this path of Plasma still be viable?@Plasma #Plasma $XPL