Arbitrum and Plasma are both EVM-compatible high-throughput chains, but the LP mining reward structures have essential differences. Below is a hardcore comparison from four dimensions: sources of income, sustainability, performance in bear markets, and amplification in bull markets, to help you see which pool is more suitable for long-term holding.
Comparison of income source breakdown
Arbitrum mainstream pools (ARB/ETH, USDC/ETH, USDT/USDC, etc.):
Fee sharing: 10–30% (Uniswap V3 style 0.05–0.3% fee rate, contributes very little during bear market with low tx volume).
ARB emission incentives: 70–90% (ARB Foundation linear release, current APY 4–12%, peaked over 20%+).
External subsidies: Small amount, reliant on protocol cooperation.
Plasma USDT0/XPL main pool:
Fee sharing: 49% (transaction fee of 0.01–0.03% paid entirely to LP, share rapidly increasing).
$XPL emission incentives: 43% (foundation linear release, but decay design + staking offsets dilution).
External subsidies: 8–10% (short-term rewards for payment protocol/merchant integration).
Conclusion: Arbitrum still heavily relies on native token emissions, Plasma is approaching the balance point of 'fee sharing ≈ emissions'.
Sustainability and anti-inflation capacity
Arbitrum: Emission curve steep, APY quickly drops to single digits after bear market incentives decline (common 'incentive cliff'), low fee sharing ratio leads to earnings not resisting inflation.
Plasma: Fee sharing ratio is nearing 50%, payment transaction volume growth (contract calls +41% over the past 45 days) directly boosts sharing earnings. When transaction volume is low in the bear market, emissions raise APY, and during bull market transaction spikes, fee sharing ratio can exceed 70%, making earnings more sustainable and more reliant on real usage.
Bear market performance comparison
Arbitrum: Bear market transaction volume shrinks → Transaction fees are almost zero → APY relies on emissions to hold up → Earnings plummet sharply after emissions decline.
Plasma: Bear market risk aversion has led to a counter-trend growth in USDT0 transfer/payment contract calls → Fee sharing ratio increased from 31% to 49% → APY 22–38% more stable, lower cost for bottom harvesting $XPL.
Bull market amplification effect comparison
Arbitrum: Bull market transaction volume expands → Fee sharing slightly increases, but emissions have already declined, overall APY growth is limited, more reliant on ARB price increase.
Plasma: Bull market payment scenarios explode (zero gas + sub-second + programmable splitting) → Transaction volume increases exponentially → Fee sharing ratio surges → APY more sustainable, $XPL burning + staking locking + LP returns create a triple positive feedback.
Market perspective (January 31, early morning): $XPL 0.122–0.126 USD fluctuations, 0.119 support not broken, RSI 40–42 oversold. Plasma fee sharing ratio is nearing 50% + growth in payment contract calls is a typical 'usage first' signal. Arbitrum's current LP APY is relatively low and unstable, Plasma is more suitable for harvesting $XPL in bear markets + enjoying fee dividends in bull markets.
Gameplay suggestions:
Short term: Small position USDT0/XPL LP mining yields 22–38% annualized, low cost in bear market.
Long term: Focus on fee sharing ratio, once it breaks through 55–60%, the earnings structure will be healthier, significantly enhancing the efficiency of $XPL value capture.
What do you think of this comparison? Plasma's fee sharing ratio has reached 49%, while Arbitrum still relies on emissions for 70%+, is this a signal that Plasma is more sustainable? Let's discuss your LP earnings split or observations in the comments~
