Someone Called Plasma Just Another Stablecoin Chain and I Didn’t Argue
The first time I heard someone call Plasma just another stablecoin chain, I didn’t argue with them.
From the outside it does look duplicated. Another Layer 1. Another token. Another promise of cheaper transfers.
But the demand underneath doesn’t feel duplicated at all.
Stablecoin Usage Keeps Expanding Quietly
Stablecoin usage keeps expanding quietly everywhere. Payroll. Remittances. Treasury flows. Onchain settlement.
The more value moves through stablecoins, the less tolerance there is for unpredictable fees or shared network congestion.
What looked redundant starts looking segmented instead.
General Purpose Chains Weren’t Built for This
General purpose chains weren’t built around one specific behavior.
They host everything simultaneously. When activity spikes somewhere else on the network, stablecoin users inherit the side effects automatically.
That friction is small individually. But repeated often enough it becomes structural and painful.
Plasma style chains attract capital not because they’re novel or revolutionary. But because they isolate that specific friction completely.
Investors Understand This Pattern
Investors understand this pattern from traditional infrastructure.
Infrastructure tends to specialize as volume grows over time. Payments split from messaging. Cloud split from bare metal servers.
Duplicate at first glance. Differentiated under actual stress.
Capital flows toward systems that reduce variance, even if the surface narrative feels repetitive.
XPL Fits as Coordination Glue
XPL fits into that thesis as coordination glue.
Not as a speculative centerpiece. But as the mechanism keeping validators aligned around one constrained purpose.
That constraint is what capital is really underwriting here.
Risks Exist Obviously
There are genuine risks obviously.
Liquidity fragmentation. User fatigue. Too many chains chasing the exact same flows. Some will remain underused despite large funding rounds.