Looking at the development path of stablecoins, it’s actually a bit ironic. Their scale is growing wildly, but the infrastructure supporting them is like a makeshift highway—high fees, prone to congestion, and fuzzy compliance boundaries. No matter how much TVL soars, these old problems won’t automatically resolve themselves.

Coincidentally, Plasma has stepped forward at this moment. It didn’t choose to force stablecoins into a major public chain; instead, it asked a different question: since stablecoins are already one of the most successful financial products on-chain, why not give them a dedicated system?

Here, "dedicated" doesn’t mean just tweaking gas fees or changing a consensus algorithm. Plasma’s idea is more aggressive—it starts from the underlying issues of financial infrastructure such as liquidation pathways, asset isolation, and settlement determinism. You’ll find that the most discussed topics are: how to guarantee settlement finality, where the rollback boundaries are in extreme cases, and how the system performs under high pressure. These topics may not sound very sexy in the DeFi circle, but traditional finance deals with these issues every day.

What’s more interesting is its understanding of "scalability." Plasma isn’t following the trend of stacking TPS; instead, it looks at real usage data—most stablecoin transfers are actually simple, high-frequency, low-threshold value transfers. Given this usage scenario, rather than greedily pursuing universality, it’s better to compress the execution path to the extreme.