The term 'EVM compatible' is one of the most common self-introductions of new chains in recent years. When you click on any new project page, you'll often see: Supports EVM, Solidity Deployable, Metamask Ready…

When it comes to actual use, especially in application scenarios involving stablecoin payments, you'll find that:

Although everyone claims to be EVM compatible, the experience and performance can be vastly different.

I previously encountered a content platform project that intended to use stablecoins for a paid reading mechanism, initially selecting a 'very popular EVM chain'.

As a result, we encounter these issues:

  • Stablecoin cross-chain deployment is slow and bridging is expensive, and users still need to learn how to switch chains.

  • The contract determines whether the user has successfully paid, relying on centralized listening services to supplement data

  • Payment actions cannot directly trigger logic; the platform needs to write additional scripts to monitor wallet status

  • The contract must support multi-currency combination payments, logic is almost impossible to write, and Gas costs are extremely high

They ultimately had to abandon 'on-chain payments' and revert to traditional Web2 payment interfaces, where the frontend merely symbolically displays 'Web3 applications'.

What I see on @Plasma is a completely different level of execution performance.

Although Plasma is also an EVM compatible chain, it is not a simple transplantation of the VM, but a deep customization and optimization for stablecoin payment scenarios.

What did it do?

One, 'contract-level recognizable structure' of stablecoin assets

  • System-level support for multiple currencies like USDT/USDC/DAI

  • The contract can directly read the user's holding status (including cross-chain mapping)

  • Automatically determines whether the payment amount meets the standards, without relying on listening scripts

Two, natively supports 'payment triggers' logic

  • Once the payment contract receives funds, it automatically executes subsequent logic (such as unlocking content, transferring permissions, minting NFTs)

  • During user interaction, there is no need to manually trigger multiple steps, the entire process is closed-loop on-chain

  • The contract itself possesses 'logical state judgment capabilities' and can execute logic under any combination of conditions

Three, combined payment structure

  • Supports 'any stablecoin combination payment' mechanism (e.g., 5U USDT + 3U USDC + 2U DAI = 10U meets the standard)

  • The contract determines the total value and executes actions without needing to build a liquidity pool or aggregator

  • Expandable settings for coin priority, automatic change giving, profit-sharing paths, and other complex logic

Four, the execution system is provided with computing and fuel by $XPL

  • All payment paths, status calls, and logic judgments are executed by XPL billing

  • Ensures that complex processes are not interrupted, avoiding mainnet resource competition

  • Real 'payment capability' translates into 'contract execution power'

And all of this is perceived very naturally by the users:

  • No need to switch wallets, no need for multiple authorizations, no need to wait for confirmation feedback

  • Payment completion is regarded as 'function trigger', on-chain actions are timely and traceable

Plasma is not just 'you can pay on it', but 'the act of payment itself has already been understood by the contract'. This is the ultimate stablecoin execution engine.

Many chains treat stablecoins as a 'token mapping', while Plasma turns it into a 'logical entry point' and 'permission key'. Here, stablecoins are not an asset unit, but a process node.

It is precisely because of this: when you make a stablecoin payment application on Plasma, it can truly 'run', rather than just 'putting on a shell to try it out'.@Plasma #Plasma $XPL