When the "full chain" becomes the mainstream narrative in the industry, technologies like Plasma seem to gradually fade from view. But from another perspective, it was never designed to follow the full chain approach.

The logic of the full chain is straightforward: all execution, data, and state must be on-chain, either on the mainnet or an equivalent secure layer. Plasma, on the other hand, is quite the opposite — its underlying assumption is that mainnet resources are always scarce, so there's no need to pile everything up.

The full chain world advocates transparency, composability, and security as core values. Plasma, however, focuses on efficiency, restraint, and clear responsibility boundaries. Its approach is simple: only submit block headers and state commitments to the mainnet, with execution and data handled entirely off-chain. This is not cutting corners but a calm trade-off — the mainnet is the final arbiter, not an everyday factory.

In other words, full chain and Plasma are not competitive but complementary. Full chain handles "non-negotiable" business, while Plasma takes on "constrainable" activities. Payment transactions, in-app settlements, frequent but low-risk asset operations — these are costly and low-yield in a full chain system but are Plasma's true comfort zone.

As modular architecture matures, this positioning becomes even clearer. The mainnet acts as the judge, the data availability layer as the archive, and Plasma as the execution engine — each doing its part. It doesn't chase trending narratives but focuses on handling what the mainnet doesn't want to or can't manage.

If full chain is the utopian ideal, then Plasma is closer to engineering reality — imperfect, but on the balance of cost and security, leaving a space for applications to operate freely.