Plasma is doing something most L1s refuse to do:
it prioritizes payment UX over token price optics.

That raises an uncomfortable question:
Is XPL being diluted so users can have a smoother experience?

1. Free stablecoin gas: great UX, weak token demand?

On @Plasma , stablecoin transfers can be nearly gas-free.
For users, that’s real Web2-level UX:

  • No fee spikes😍

  • No need to hold the native token😀

  • No “pending” during congestion👍

But for $XPL holders, this is controversial.

If users don’t need XPL to transact, what actually drives demand for the token?

Plasma is clearly willing to delay short-term token demand to onboard real users first.

2. XPL inflation: reasonable, but not exciting

XPL starts at ~5% annual inflation, gradually tapering to 3%.
It’s controlled, transparent, and tied to validator participation — but it’s not designed to create scarcity narratives.

No aggressive deflation promises.
No token-burn hype.

This is clean tokenomics — and also hard to market in a speculation-driven cycle.

3. What #Plasma is really betting on

Plasma isn’t betting on:

  • Fast token appreciation

  • TVL boosted by short-term incentives

  • “ETH killer” narratives

It’s betting on something slower — and harder:

Consistent, real payment volume.

As usage grows:

  • EIP-1559 fee burns scale naturally

  • Staking rewards become meaningful

  • XPL gains value from network activity, not hype

4. Verdict: sacrificing value — or postponing it?

XPL is not designed to enrich early holders quickly.
But it’s also not a hollow governance token.

Plasma chose the hard path:

  • UX first

  • Revenue later

  • Token value derived from real usage

The real question isn’t:

“Will XPL pump?”

It’s:

“Does the market still have patience for tokens that only appreciate when infrastructure is actually used?”

If the answer is yes, XPL wins — quietly, and very differently from the rest of the market.