I once compared Plasma and Tron, concluding that they are only similar in the "customer acquisition layer", while the endgame is completely different. The more I thought about it, the more I felt that Plasma's true "mirror opponent", or rather what it genuinely wants to surpass, is not Tron at all. It's Base, as well as Arbitrum, OP, and those "orthodox" L2s.
To be honest, comparing an L1 and an L2 is somewhat "unfair" technically. But from a "business strategy" perspective, they are doing the exact same thing: competing for Ethereum's developers, applications, and users.
Base (backed by Coinbase) and Plasma (backed by Bitfinex) are both examples of CEX (centralized exchanges) personally getting involved in chain creation. However, the paths they chose reveal two completely different philosophies, making this war very interesting.
First, look at “security and architecture.” Base is an L2 Rollup. It is 100% “politically correct.” It packages and compresses its transaction data and publishes it back to Ethereum L1. This means it “outsources” the most critical security (data availability) to Ethereum. It tells developers: “Come here, you can enjoy low Gas fees while benefiting from Ethereum's ‘orthodox’ security.”
Plasma is an L1. It has chosen the “sovereignty” route. While it also has “Bitcoin anchoring” (as discussed in our second article, more for “notarization”), its security ultimately relies on its own set of PoS validation nodes. This means it is not affected by Ethereum L1 Gas fluctuations. This difference is fatal. Although L2 Gas fees are low, when Ethereum L1 is extremely congested, L2 will also see Gas prices rise sharply to publish data. As L1, Plasma can decide its own Gas economic model, and it can even do what it is currently doing, fully subsidizing Gas with Paymaster.
This is the difference between “renting” (L2) and “building your own” (L1). Base has rented a large flat in Ethereum's “prosperous area,” while Plasma has built a “fully equipped” villa in the “suburbs.”
Next, look at “core resources.”
Base is backed by Coinbase, and its greatest resources are “compliance” and “users.” Coinbase has tens of millions of KYC-verified users in Europe and America, and Base's core narrative is to become a “bridge” for these Web2 users to enter the blockchain.
Plasma is backed by Bitfinex/Tether, and its greatest resources are “assets” and “payments.” Tether controls the most critical “hard currency” in the crypto world, USDT. Plasma's core narrative is to become a “zero-cost settlement network” for this “hard currency.”
So, you see, their war is “heterogeneous”: Base = Ethereum security + compliant users; Plasma = sovereign security + stablecoin assets.
So, as a DApp developer, who will you choose? My view is: If your project is “financial orthodoxy,” such as decentralized derivatives or RWA (real-world assets), you may value Ethereum's “security consensus” more and choose Arbitrum or Base.
But if your project is high-frequency, small-scale, and requires an extreme user experience, such as GameFi, social applications, or any application that doesn't want users to “buy Gas,” the allure of Plasma’s “native programmable Paymaster” (as discussed in our ninth article) is too great. It allows you to completely “erase” the concept of Gas at the L1 level.
Plasma has already become a red ocean in L2 by 2025. Choosing to create an L1 is a risky move and also a move of “ambition.” It is not betting on “who is safer,” but rather “who is more friendly to developers and users.” It gives up “orthodoxy” in exchange for a completely autonomous, capital-driven “subsidy machine.” This war between CEX chains has just begun.
