Now talking about ecology, most start with 'incentive mechanisms.' Subsidizing users, subsidizing developers, subsidizing LPs, subsidizing nodes, and even KOL promotions can be counted as incentives.
But the question is: what happens after these subsidies run out?
You'll find that many projects collectively 'run away' once the chain subsidies stop, leaving behind hundreds of contracts and a bunch of unused interfaces. Because from the very beginning, the projects weren't about 'wanting to make a product,' but rather 'wanting to grab subsidies.'
This is not a problem with the project; it's that the chain fundamentally hasn't provided the soil for the project to 'survive.'
But I saw a very special ecological structure on @Plasma : it's not about being fed by external resources, but about attracting projects to stay through the 'settlement capacity of the chain itself.'
What does that mean?
In other words, when you deploy a contract on Plasma, it inherently possesses the following capabilities:
Users can interact directly using mainstream stablecoins, without jumping chains or worrying about transaction fees.
Contracts can listen for changes in user status, account balance changes, and trigger on-chain events.
Project parties can automatically distribute income, allocate quotas, and activate services based on contract status.
This system doesn't sound new, but the problem is that Plasma is natively supported at the chain layer, without relying on external plugins, without needing third-party services, and without intermediaries.
I have a friend who makes DAO tools, originally developing on Optimism. Every time revenue settlement was needed, it required a layer of multi-signature + manual review, and had to coordinate with the frontend for payment prompts, resulting in a very high error rate.
But after migrating the system to Plasma, this entire process directly integrates into contract logic—tips come in, funds are received, identity permissions are updated, and community services are activated—all completed on-chain, without human intervention, even DAO voting and fund allocation can be automated through contracts.
This is almost a dimensionality reduction strike for small projects. Don't have money for operations? No problem, the contract automatically handles revenue; don't have anyone to monitor processes? No problem, the chain automatically settles the status.
Projects are willing to stay because the chain can 'help it survive', rather than 'subsidizing its existence'.
The role of $XPL in this system has also become clear:
It’s not tokens obtained through subsidies, but the energy consumption of real actions executed.
The more projects run, the more frequent the settlements, and the more intensive the changes in contract status, the more natural the demand for XPL becomes.
No need for artificial hype, no need to write narratives. When projects truly get going, XPL will find its place.
So I say that Plasma's ecosystem is not about distributing tokens, but rather gradually attracting projects through 'settleable contract capabilities', like a magnetic field, retaining those who genuinely want to do things, go live, and monetize.
Other chains build ecosystems like throwing a party, with elaborate stage setups, and then dismantling everything the next day. Plasma's ecosystem is more like building infrastructure, establishing power grids, sewage systems, and road networks, allowing projects to naturally settle in and remain.
