Bellehere

Plasma Puts the Network to Treatment.
The majority of blockchains are block-based and gas-based. Plasma is flow demand oriented. Each of the transactions is competing with each other to run on actual economic value, rather than random gas auctions.
This puts Plasma more of a market structure than a conventional blockchain. The network inherently benefits the transactions that add the greatest value which aligns infrastructure incentives with its actual utilization.

The importance of this to DeFi and Liquidity.
Systems with a high concentration of liquidity fail when there is a delay in executing the system. Plasma is created in such a way that the providers of liquidity, traders and protocols can be sure that they will be executed. The system is designed in such a way that it does not have any surprises when you place a transaction.
This alters the way which applications can be designed. Rather than creating flows around delays and failures, developers can create flows with the assumption that it will run on time, simplifying architecture and reducing risk.
The application of $XPL to Network Discipline.
XPL is a disciplining mechanism. It discourages wasteful transactions with attached real cost of network attention. This helps to avoid clogging the chain by low value activity and help secure serious users.
Notably, Plasma does not befriend the presence of constant user growth to survive. This is due to its model functioning even when activity remains or is decreasing, as efficiency rather than volume is the factor at the heart of everything.

Trade-Offs: Decreased Permissionlessness.
Through economic discipline, Plasma will be less hospitable to:
* Free experimentation
Small customers with low capital levels.
* Creative but spam-resistant cases.
This is intentional. Plasma does not focus on the open chaos but instead on serious usage. It is partisan, and it is in the opinion which makes the most benefiters.
#Plasma $XPL
@Plasma

Motivul pentru care Game Studios este piața țintă actuală.
Vanar nu vizează inițial utilizatorii de criptomonede individuali. Clienții săi actuali sunt studiouri, edituri și medii de divertisment. Aceste organizații au deja milioane de utilizatori, dar nu folosesc blockchain-ul deoarece este riscant. Vanar poate minimiza acel risc prin furnizarea de costuri predictibile, medii controlate, precum și instrumente care pot fi integrate și utilizate cu fluxurile de lucru existente. În loc să supună studiourile culturii cripto, Vanar adaptează cripto la cultura studiourilor.

The initial attempt to use stablecoins to do something normal, it becomes obvious that it does not fit. It has a stable asset but not a stable experience. On-chain dollar transfer still appears fragile in both senses that do not matter to trading and matter a lot to payments. Fees vary when the network is congested. Users require a second token to transfer money. A simple transfer may act vastly in response to the congestion.

There is nothing wrong with stablecoins. It is something wrong with the tracks they are running on.
It is the gap that Plasma is attempting to fill. Not through the addition of more functionality, but through the shrinking of the problem. Rather than considering stablecoins as an additional type of token on a general-purpose chain, Plasma considers stablecoin settlement to be the main work. All other things are secondary.
The difference is important as the payments are not made at the convenient time. Payroll, treasury flows, payment of suppliers - this flow occurs throughout the course of the day, can often be load-bearing, and can often have predictability of greater significance than theoretical performance. A chain that will perform well when it is quiet but will go bad at any moment when it gets busy is acceptable to test. It's not fine for money.
The main bet of plasma is that the transfer of stablecoins is not to act as a blockchain transaction but rather as a payment. This may seem blatantly self-evident, yet the vast majority of systems do not maximize it. They are flexible, composable, or peak optimized. Plasma is repeatable: it settles quickly, fees are predictable, and user decisions during transfers are minimal.
The more visible manifestation of this bet is the way Plasma charges transfers of USDT. A protocol-level paymaster records the sponsorship of the gas by relevant USDT transfer and transferFrom calls. On the part of the user, this eliminates the necessity of carrying out a separate gas token to transfer dollars. Computation is not made free it is just that the cost is borne elsewhere, so the action taken by the user remains clean.

It is not a unique crypto trend. Users do not have to deal directly with routing charges or settlement expenses in payments. That complication gets absorbed by someone else so that the transaction appears simple. Plasma is in effect attempting to take that split of labor on-chain when transferring stablecoins.
It is also at this point that the real tradeoffs become evident. Attack surfaces are created by subsidized actions. Free verse fee sponsorship does not stand up to adversarial use. The documentation of plasma is clear with regard to guardrails: sponsorship is scoped, rate-limited and subject to eligibility logic. That brings in policy and governance issues, who decides which rules to follow, how these rules change, how to deal with exceptions, but those are standard issues in payment infrastructure. The most common way of avoiding them is simply transferring the risk to a less noticeable location.
Performance is included in the story, but not in the manner that crypto tends to present it. Plasma is a work based on Fast HotStuff consensus design and is oriented on short block times and high throughput. The reason why those numbers are important is not as a source of bragging and rather as a source of reliability. Finally, payments do not require extreme high peaks of TPS but rather steady finality during system busy periods. When throughput fails or the latency is high at the point of increase in demand, it fails the simplest test of the system.
The same logic can be applied to Plasma making its decision to be entirely EVM-compatible. It is not the most interesting avenue, but it mitigates the risk of integration. Existing tooling, audits, and mental models can be used by the builders instead of them learning a new environment of execution. In the case of a chain with a payments orientation, reducing novelty is not a weakness.
And there is a more question of trust in the long run. Plasma posits itself as a Bitcoin-based system, with the mechanisms to grant durability and censorship resistance of Bitcoin through time. It does not matter that they agree on the ideologies; it is a question of settlement assurance. The payment systems are not only considered on their speediness but also on its ability to have records that will stand a test tomorrow. One of the ways to deal with that is anchoring to a battle-tested base layer, although with a set of assumptions and dependencies of its own.

All this does not assure adoption. Settlement of stablecoins is already in the competition. Ethernet has credibility and fluidity. In other networks, there is scale in particular areas. Plasma must demonstrate that a stablecoin-first design would in fact result in easier behavior in reality - not only in benchmark, but in volatility, congestion and stress.
That is what is worth watching. Not what the marketing says, but the behavior of the system when it is being used on boring chores on an around-the-clock basis. Is the behavior of fees predictable? Do transfers remain boring? Is operational complexity kept off the user?
In the case of the success of Plasma, it will not be dramatic. It will be as though the stablecoins began acting like money. And when it comes to payments, the most important systems tend to remain silent. They just keep working.

#plasma $XPL @Plasma

The adoption of Web3 remains technical in most discussions. Faster chains. Lower fees. New narratives.

However, once you get out of crypto and observe the real behavior of people, you begin to realize what the issue is. The reason why adoption fails is not because users do not know about blockchain. It does not work since blockchain continues to disrupt them. Each additional step, every unknown expense, every interruption to make sure everything is fine makes users understand they are working with something unstable rather than something stable.
That is the place Vanar is attempting to work in

Vanar is not constructed based on the concept of being impressive. It is constructed based on the concept of making memories, but in a forgettable way. The fundamental ideology of the team appears to be that blockchain must not look like a financial experiment but rather background infrastructure. Something that operates silently as the users concentrate on what they really intend to do.
The emphasis on predictability that Vanar has is one of the most obvious indications of such an attitude. Majority of the blockchains are technically functioning, yet they act in different ways under market situations. Fees rise when tokens pump. When the activity peaks, it slows down transactions. This is random and stressful to a user. The design of Vanar is in the opposite way. It tries to maintain low and stable fees in dollar amounts, a fraction of a cent, irrespective of the token price action. The concept is rather straightforward in that, when customers are always aware of the price of something, they will never think about price anymore.
It is not an isolated pricing choice. It's a psychological one. Users are reluctant when costs are unpredictable. Users take action when the costs can be predicted. Such a difference will make an app used once or once in a lifetime.
Speed plays a similar role. Vanar is so focused on short block times that actions are immediate. Neither fast because crypto nor fast enough that one does not leave the app in mind as they wait. This is not as insignificant as some believe. Delays do not only slow systems, but they disrupt attention. Or when the sense is ruined never habits are made.
The other silent but significant option is the compatibility of Vanar to the already existing tools in Ethereum. Vanar does not require the developers to be introduced to an entirely new environment. This lowers resistance. To release a product, builders do not have to turn into researchers of blockchain. They are able to concentrate on design, gameplay, content, or user flows, whereas the chain remains in the background to do its job.
However, Vanar is not merely transactions. In the way it attempts to do more is the handling of data. Old-fashioned blockchains are useful when it comes to documenting the events but not when it comes to flexibly operating with the information. Vanar adds more layers that are designed to render the data more usable. Rather than files or records becoming dead weight after being stored, the concept suggests that data must persist to be accessible, searchable as well as be applicable and useful by applications and automated systems.
This is where such concepts as structured data units and reasoning layers are introduced. In simple words, Vanar is researching on how blockchain can exit the store and verify stage into the store and understand and use stage. Such a change is important in those applications that require more than mere transfers. Imagine digital rights management systems, compliance logs, in-game resources, or automated processes. These are not a single transaction but are processes.
Vanar is also practical in his governance and security choices. Instead of the openness at all costs, the network is biased towards reputation-based validator model. It is expected that validators are reputable persons. This may make the network seem safer to both the business and mainstream application even though it may also raise concerns about the degree to which the system is decentralized. Again, it's a tradeoff. Vanar does not appear to be an ideological fanatic; rather, he values reliability and trust.
As an investment, or research, this places Vanar in a curious situation. It is not attempting to make a victory based on being the loudest and most radical. It is attempting to be more usable to win. That complicates short term measurement of progress. Unobtrusive infrastructure does not make the headline news. However, when it is adopted, it is more likely to be sticky since it is an adoption that is founded on behavior, rather than enthusiasm.

Announcements and narratives are the least important to watch. It's usage patterns. Are applications making decisions to construct in an environment where costs are predictable? Do users interrelate without being reminded that they are using a blockchain? Is it for the reason people want to do something that transactions are taking place, rather than that incentives are forcing people to click?
When these signs are evident in the course of time, the approach of Vanar begins to be sensible. Not as an ostentatious innovation, but a sluggish normalization. And in technology, it is all about being normal. As soon as something becomes normal, it ceases to be debated and begins to be used.
Finally, @Vanarchain does not bet that people will fall in love with blockchain. That is that people will not even need to consider it.
#vanar $VANRY