When it comes to Plasma, a few years ago it was considered a transitional solution for main chain scalability, seemingly just a stopgap measure to buy time. But now the situation has reversed—more and more L2 solutions are emerging, and their architectures are becoming increasingly complex. In this context, the Plasma approach appears particularly clear-headed.

What makes it special? From day one, it has been based on the assumption that the system will encounter problems. Because of this assumption, the design places "how to safely exit" at its core. Many people haven't realized how important this is.

Current scalability solutions generally emphasize user experience and seamless operation, but academic research points clearly to another perspective—the true determinant of safety boundaries is not normal conditions, but whether the system can hold up under extreme scenarios. Plasma addresses this issue through exit and challenge mechanisms, fundamentally distributing risk over time and strategic interaction, forcing attackers to continually pay a price. An especially intuitive conclusion is: as long as the main chain remains operational, users won't be knocked out. For scenarios involving large assets, this safety model carries significant weight.

From an engineering perspective, Plasma's design choices are also very clear—it does not attempt to support all complex states but imposes strong constraints on transactions and state changes. This might sound like a simplification, but it is precisely this restraint that enhances the system's verifiability. Real-world testing shows that when the state model is sufficiently simple, the complexity of fraud proofs and verification costs are greatly reduced. For a system that needs to operate stably over the long term, this is a competitive advantage that is often overlooked.