Tron vs. Plasma: The Battle Between New and Old Stablecoin Public Chains

Author: Lao Bai

With the imminent launch of Plasma FDN, there's a constant stream of opinions about its pros and cons, supporters and bears. The market's biggest question is: Is the public stablecoin blockchain a promising track? Can it truly disrupt Tron? Compared to Tron (@trondao), Plasma has two distinct advantages: Faster and cheaper: USDT transfers are free, forcing Tron to recently reduce its price by 60%, though fees still exist and cannot be completely zero. EVM compatibility: This makes it easier for blue-chip DeFi projects like AAVE and Curve to migrate. Within the Tron DeFi ecosystem, JustLend's TVL is essentially the only one worthy of attention. As for the underlying consensus technology architecture, the author believes it's unimportant. Although Plasma is a Bitcoin sidechain, its security primarily relies on its own Proof-of-Stake mechanism, leaving it unrelated to Bitcoin and allowing it to be considered a Merlin chain. Of course, Plasma's disadvantages are equally significant: Scale Gap: Although USDT's TVL on Tron has dropped from a peak of $83 billion to $76 billion, it's still an order of magnitude higher than Plasma's and currently maintains a commanding lead. Use Cases: USDT is, at its core, or so it seems, a product of regulatory evasion. It's a bit like an on-chain "Eurodollar" (a concept I learned from @joyliumacro's videos). Therefore, most USDT holders primarily do two things: 1. Trade and transfer USDT on centralized exchanges; 2. Use it as a store of value (SOV), indirectly holding US dollars and making deposits and withdrawals as needed. Therefore, "on-chain payments" aren't USDT's primary use case. Regarding both of these points, Tron's years of deep integration have built a substantial defensive moat. Sun Ge's (@justinsuntron) work over the years has not been in vain. Regarding on-chain payments, the author believes the @tempo channel he previously developed appears to have advantages. Next, let's discuss Shill's and Fud's perspectives. Bullish: Team Strength and Resources: The author has communicated with Plasma's founders and several ecosystem projects and feels the team is very reliable. The main reason for not investing last year was a lack of clarity about the future trends of stablecoin chains and a feeling that prices were too high given the 2024 environment. However, Plasma's partnerships with Binance, AAVE, and others demonstrate its exceptionally deep resources. Not every chain can boast a base TVL of $3-4 billion at launch, and even after Binance launched pre-market futures, its market capitalization has stabilized at $6-7 billion.

Bearish

• Team Linkage Risk: Rumors have surfaced today claiming a significant overlap between the Plasma and Blast teams. The authenticity of this rumor is currently uncertain, as the author has only spoken with the founders themselves. Assuming this is true, whether it's a positive or negative development is a matter of opinion. Blast was also a popular project back in the day, demonstrating that the team has ideas and the ability to make a difference. However, the downside is that they may simply chase hype, digging holes without filling them, and abandoning them once the hype has faded. The author can only say that, judging by the feedback from ecosystem projects, Plasma seems to be planning for long-term development and continued success, and is unlikely to be as "eunuch" as Blast.

So, Tron vs. Plasma, established players vs. emerging forces, which one do you favor?