JOSEPH DESOZE

@Dusk $DUSK
Lorsque je regarde Dusk Foundation, je ne vois pas simplement une autre couche 1 essayant de rivaliser pour attirer l'attention, je vois un projet qui a émergé d'une frustration très réelle concernant la manière dont l'argent circule dans le monde aujourd'hui, car dans la finance traditionnelle, tout semble lourd, lent et gardé par des couches d'intermédiaires, et dans la crypto, tout semble rapide mais souvent trop exposé, trop public et trop risqué pour les institutions qui ont besoin de règles pour survivre. Dusk a été fondé en 2018 avec une mission claire : construire une infrastructure financière réglementée et axée sur la confidentialité, et ce qui rend cette mission différente, c'est qu'elle accepte la vérité la plus difficile dès le début : les systèmes financiers ne peuvent pas vivre sur des promesses de « faites-moi confiance », ils ont besoin de confidentialité pour les utilisateurs et les entreprises, mais ils ont également besoin de responsabilité et d'auditabilité pour les régulateurs, et la plupart des chaînes penchent fortement dans une direction et ignorent l'autre. Donc, quand ils disent qu'ils construisent la fondation pour des applications financières de niveau institutionnel, pour un DeFi conforme et pour des actifs tokenisés du monde réel, ce ne sont pas juste des mots de marketing, c'est une déclaration sur la construction d'une blockchain capable de gérer la réalité émotionnelle de la finance, qui est que les gens veulent la liberté, mais ils veulent aussi la sécurité, et ils veulent le contrôle de leurs propres actifs sans avoir l'impression de marcher sur des œufs.

@Plasma $XPL #Plasma
When people first hear about Plasma, they usually see a mix of technical words and feel a little distant from what it actually means in real life. They’re told it is a Layer 1 blockchain designed for stablecoin settlement, that it is fully EVM compatible, that it aims for sub second finality, and that it has special features for USDT and other stablecoins. All of that is important, but if I sit down and talk to you as a normal person, I’d start with a much simpler truth. Right now millions of people around the world already use stablecoins like digital dollars. They hold USDT or similar tokens because their local currency is unstable, or their banks are slow, or international transfers are expensive and full of friction. They get paid in stablecoins, they store savings in stablecoins, they pay friends and freelancers in stablecoins. Yet every time they try to send those coins, the experience feels strangely complicated. You open your wallet, you see your USDT balance sitting there, you feel like it should be as simple as sending a text message, and then the app says you need some other token for gas before you can move anything. You see weird fee numbers, you worry the network may be congested, your transaction sits pending and you’re not completely sure if it will confirm or be stuck. It makes something that should feel like money start to feel like software configuration. Plasma was created to close that emotional gap and make stablecoin usage feel like real, everyday money rather than a puzzle.

If we ask why Plasma even needs to exist when there are already big chains supporting stablecoins, the answer is not that those chains are bad. It is that they were never designed from the ground up purely for payments. They’re general purpose platforms. On them, stablecoin transfers share space with speculative trading, NFT minting, complex DeFi farms, games and many other intense activities. When those other use cases spike in activity, they can push your simple payment into the back of the line. Fees might rise, confirmation times might stretch, and the whole feeling becomes less like a quick payment and more like trying to use a busy public road during rush hour. Plasma chooses another path. It starts from a focused question. If It becomes normal for people to treat stablecoins as their main digital money, what kind of base chain do they deserve beneath that. The answer the team reaches is that the chain must behave like payment rails, not like a casino first. That means finality has to be fast and clear, costs have to be low and predictable, and the user experience should hide unnecessary complexity instead of forcing everyone to understand gas tokens and protocol details. From this simple question, the rest of Plasma’s architecture starts to make sense.

On the technical side, Plasma wants developers to feel at home, so it keeps the execution environment compatible with what they already know. It is fully EVM compatible, which means smart contracts behave like on Ethereum and developers can write in Solidity, use familiar tools, and reuse existing code without throwing everything away. I’m seeing that as a crucial decision, because it lowers the barrier for wallets, payment apps and DeFi projects that want to build on top. They do not have to rethink their entire tech stack to benefit from Plasma’s payment optimizations. Underneath that execution environment, the chain runs a consensus mechanism known as PlasmaBFT. This is a Byzantine Fault Tolerant protocol where validators go through rounds of proposing and voting on blocks. The goal is to reach deterministic finality very quickly, in under a second in normal conditions. Deterministic finality means that once a block is finalized, it is final. It is not just very unlikely to be reversed, it is guaranteed by the rules of the protocol. For a payment centered chain, this is a big deal. When you send money to a shop or to a friend, you do not want to live with a nagging thought that maybe a later block reorganization could undo your payment. You want to see a confirmation and know that the story is over. Plasma tries to give you that feeling.

Where things become more human and practical is in the stablecoin first features. Plasma takes the view that if you are holding USDT and you simply want to pay someone, you should not have to care about some other token just to move your money. So it introduces gasless transfers for simple stablecoin sends. In practice, your wallet prepares a USDT transfer, you sign it like normal, and behind the scenes a relayer or paymaster system is responsible for covering the gas cost according to the rules of the network. You do not see a separate gas token, you do not have to top up anything extra just to perform a basic payment. The protocol still puts limits and safeguards in place so the system cannot be abused, but from your point of view, it is refreshingly simple. For more advanced actions like interacting with smart contracts, using DeFi, deploying your own protocols or running complex transactions, gas is still needed. The difference is that Plasma is designed to let fees be paid in the native token or through stablecoin oriented mechanisms, so developers can keep the experience aligned with the assets their users actually care about. The everyday flow then becomes very clean. You open your wallet, pick a contact or type an address, choose an amount in USDT, press send, and the payment finalizes within about a second. No juggling, no confusion, just value moving.

Security on Plasma is not an afterthought. The team understands that if people are going to move serious value, they need to feel that the ground is solid. Beyond the validator based consensus, Plasma anchors parts of its security approach to Bitcoin. The idea is that Bitcoin, with its long history and strong resistance to censorship, can act as an external anchor for Plasma’s state and a base for bridging BTC into the ecosystem. When someone wants to bring Bitcoin value onto Plasma, they lock BTC on the Bitcoin chain and receive a representation of it on Plasma. This bridge is handled by a decentralized set of participants who cooperate using threshold signatures or multi party computation, so no single party controls the funds. The system can periodically commit data back to Bitcoin, which acts like a permanent, neutral log of important checkpoints. This anchoring and bridging design is meant to increase neutrality and censorship resistance. It is especially relevant for institutions or serious users who want assurance that security is not just resting on one small group of operators. It does not turn Plasma into Bitcoin, but it ties parts of its trust story to something much older and more battle tested.

Even though many day to day users might never think about it, the native token XPL is still at the heart of how Plasma functions. Validators stake XPL to participate in consensus. By staking, they show they have something to lose if they misbehave. If they propose invalid blocks or act in harmful ways, they can be penalized and lose part of their stake. This staking and slashing mechanism is one of the main tools Plasma uses to keep validators honest. The supply of XPL is divided across ecosystem growth, team, early backers and community participants, usually with vesting schedules to stretch releases over time. As the network runs, XPL is also used for fees in more advanced transactions and for rewards that go to validators and sometimes delegators. For a person simply sending USDT in a gasless way, XPL might stay invisible. But beneath the surface, the security, decentralization, and long term health of the chain all depend on how XPL is distributed, how much of it is staked, and how confident people feel that the incentives are aligned. If those pieces are balanced well, the chain can stay robust, and the user never has to worry about the complexity they do not see.

If we ask who Plasma is really trying to serve in the real world, the picture becomes quite human. One side of that picture is individual users in high adoption regions. These are people who may get their salary in stablecoins, who use USDT as a way to fight inflation, who send money to family across borders, who pay freelancers online, and who do not feel that traditional bank wires or remittance services are built for them. For them, Plasma tries to be the network where stablecoins feel like cash with superpowers. Simple to move, fast to arrive, and not full of strange traps. The other side of the picture is businesses and institutions that already sit in the middle of many money flows. This includes payment companies, remittance providers, exchanges, financial platforms, and possibly even more traditional firms. They care about more than nice interfaces. They want predictable finality times, clear security assumptions, stable operations, and infrastructure that integrates into their existing systems. Because Plasma uses an EVM environment with modern tools, they can build on it or plug into it without reinventing everything. For them, Plasma can become one of several rails they route volume through when it offers the right mix of speed, cost and trust.

To really judge whether Plasma is living up to its promise, we need to observe some deeper signals rather than just noise. We’d want to see stablecoin activity that looks steady and genuine, not just short bursts of speculation. That means checking how many wallets send and receive regularly, how much volume moves in small and medium sized transactions that resemble everyday payments, and how consistently those payments stay cheap and fast. We’d also look at performance. Time to finality is not just a slogan, it is something that can be measured. If PlasmaBFT can keep finality under a second even when the network is busy and some validators fail or lag, that would show the design is strong. Validator diversity matters too. If only a few validators hold most of the stake and control, that would be worrying. Healthy decentralization means many independent entities with real skin in the game. The economic side is also worth watching. How XPL inflation and fee burning, if any, interact with usage will shape whether the system can stay sustainable without constantly needing external support. Over a long enough horizon, a network that balances usage, rewards, and costs well will feel safer than one that leans too heavily on subsidies.

No honest description of Plasma would skip the risks. As with any new chain, the technology is complex. Consensus bugs, unexpected interactions between modules, or edge cases in the bridge and anchoring mechanisms are always possible. Even with audits and testing, reality often finds scenarios nobody thought of, especially when thousands or millions of users are involved. On the human and governance side, the bridge that connects Plasma to Bitcoin needs careful operation. Decisions about who runs it, how they’re chosen, how they’re replaced if needed, and how the system responds to failures are crucial. If those processes are weak, the bridge could become a point of failure or centralization no matter how clever the cryptography is. Economic choices like gasless transfers must also be handled with balance. They’re wonderful for attracting users but they can be expensive to maintain. If the network is not careful, it could promise more subsidized behavior than it can support long term. Finally, there is competition and regulation. Many other chains and scaling solutions are racing toward the same stablecoin payments opportunity, and regulators are still working out how to treat stablecoins and crypto based payment rails. Plasma will need to stay flexible and responsible as those external factors evolve.

When I try to imagine Plasma’s future, I see a few possible paths. In one path, Plasma quietly becomes one of the main highways of digital dollars, even if not everyone knows its name. People in different countries send USDT to each other on Plasma because it simply works better for them. Merchants accept payments over it and barely think about the chain under the hood. Apps and services integrate it and route transfers through it because the combination of fast finality, strong security foundations, and stablecoin friendly design suits their needs. In another path, Plasma becomes one of several specialized networks that share the global stablecoin market, each with its own strengths, partners and regions. That is still a form of success, because the world of money is big enough for many rails. There is also a path where technical or external challenges slow it down. That is always a possibility in such a young and experimental space.

In the end, what makes Plasma stand out to me is not just its features but its intention. It is trying to take something that has already become common, stablecoins as digital dollars, and give them an on chain home that actually treats them like money. It respects the fact that most users do not want to become blockchain experts just to send value. They want tools that feel natural and kind to their time and attention. Plasma, with its EVM base, fast finality, Bitcoin anchored security approach, gasless stablecoin transfers and stablecoin first thinking, is a serious attempt to build such a tool. If It becomes widely adopted, many people may never learn the name of the consensus algorithm or think about how anchoring works. They’ll only know that when they press send, their money moves and arrives the way they expect. For a piece of invisible infrastructure that carries people’s savings, salaries and support for their loved ones, that quiet reliability might be the most beautiful thing it can offer.

@Vanarchain $VANRY #Vanar
Je vais décrire Vanar Chain d'une manière qui ressemble à une véritable conversation, car la vraie raison pour laquelle un projet comme celui-ci est important a moins à voir avec le fait de se vanter techniquement et plus à voir avec la façon dont les gens se comportent réellement en ligne lorsqu'ils jouent à un jeu, soutiennent un créateur ou interagissent avec une marque qu'ils aiment vraiment. La plupart des gens ne se réveillent pas en pensant aux blockchains, ils se réveillent en pensant à s'amuser, à progresser, à des récompenses qui semblent équitables, à des communautés auxquelles ils appartiennent et à des expériences qui ne les font pas se sentir stupides ou confus. C'est la vérité émotionnelle qui se cache derrière la direction de Vanar, car lorsque vous construisez pour le jeu et les marques, vous construisez pour des publics qui ne toléreront pas longtemps les frictions, et si cela devient trop complexe, ils partent sans même discuter. Nous voyons toute l'industrie du Web3 accepter lentement que l'adoption de masse ne se produit pas en forçant les utilisateurs à apprendre la culture crypto, cela se produit en rendant la technologie invisible en arrière-plan afin que l'expérience reste au premier plan, et toute l'identité de Vanar pointe vers cet objectif, car elle essaie d'être le genre de chaîne où l'utilisateur n'a pas l'impression d'« utiliser une chaîne », il a l'impression de jouer, de collectionner, de gagner et de participer.