Salary, commission, and profit-sharing are most feared not for making mistakes, but for "not reconciling."

I noticed that once stablecoins move from personal transfers to "bulk payments," the difficulty increases immediately. Sending USDT to one person is easy, but paying salaries to one hundred people, settling commissions with channels, and doing profit-sharing for teams is genuinely troublesome. The real hassle is never pressing the button but rather the reconciliation afterward: who received it, who didn't, what the failure reason is, whether to resend, and which cost item this expense should be allocated to. Many chains seem capable of transferring funds, but once bulk settlements are involved, the status becomes unclear, confirmations are not certain enough, and cost explanations lack clarity, leading operations and finance to be bogged down.

I see the value point of Plasma precisely lies in these kinds of "dirty and tiring work." Sub-second finality means you don't have to wait long to dare to confirm "this batch is really complete," making it more suitable for making payroll and profit-sharing into a timely assembly line; prioritizing gas for stablecoins is also more aligned with the real needs of enterprises, because finance hates having to prepare another type of currency just to pay transaction fees, ultimately ending up with a pile of fragmented balances on the account, with high explanation costs; coupled with the idea of gas-free USDT transfers, many steps that would originally lead to failures are compressed, reducing the abnormal rate, and customer service and manual reviews will also be significantly less.

For the illustrations, I suggest using three images: a screenshot of the table with the payment addresses and amounts (just obfuscate), a flowchart of the bulk payment process, and a status screenshot from the reconciliation perspective. Whether stablecoins can truly enter enterprise workflows depends on these daily occurring details. @Plasma $XPL #Plasma