2026-01-18 13:21:54

I have a very simple criterion for judging projects like Plasma: is it "moving money" or "creating money"?

You see many on-chain ecosystems that look lively, but upon closer inspection of on-chain transactions, most of them are just a group of people repeatedly trading within the same liquidity pools. The hype is built on incentives, but in reality, the total amount of money hasn't increased; it's just turning over between different accounts. Plasma's approach is completely different. It targets stablecoins—the most practically needed track.

Cross-border settlements, exchange deposits and withdrawals, OTC trading, merchant payments, institutional position adjustments... Once these scenarios are captured, the on-chain traffic is no longer a false prosperity created by operational hype, but "real business coming to you." This is the true foundation of a sustainable ecosystem.

So I pay more attention to Plasma's product roadmap. It’s not about making developers deploy more contracts or hype up a few tokens, but about making stablecoin transfers feel as seamless as WeChat transfers. To be more ambitious, it aims to optimize both "liquidity depth" and "settlement speed"—two aspects that are usually mutually restrictive—this truly demonstrates technical strength.

If it can achieve large stablecoin transfers with low slippage, low failure rates, and low costs, then market makers, payment companies, and even exchanges will consider shifting their traffic here. This isn’t driven by incentives or concepts, but by genuine user demand.

Regarding the XPL token, I don’t want to mythologize it as a "faith coin." Its value ultimately depends on whether Plasma can convert stablecoin traffic into long-term on-chain settlement orders, rather than short-term speculative trades. As long as real settlement volume is growing, XPL has support; if growth stalls, even the best price performance will only be short-term emotional fluctuations.

My expectations for Plasma are quite pragmatic. It doesn’t need to become an all-in-one public chain; as long as it can deliver "cheaper, more stable, more hassle-free" stablecoin solutions, that’s enough to sustain long-term activity. This focus, in fact, is its competitive advantage.

XPL-0,14%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

8 Likes

Reward
8
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

StakeOrRegret

· 9h ago

Moving money or creating money, it's obvious at a glance. The Plasma approach is indeed clear-headed. Really, most projects are just self-indulgent, repeatedly tinkering with liquidity pools, and once the incentives are gone, there's no one left. The stablecoin track is the real demand; if cross-border settlements, exchange deposits and withdrawals can truly be captured, that would be the ecosystem. But honestly, having a good route is one thing, whether you can achieve "frictionless transfer" is another. Slippage, failure rate, and cost—optimizing all three is not easy... XPL depends on actual settlement volume; without real business support, it's just air. Short-term rises and falls are all虚假的, in the long run, it still depends on whether Plasma can truly attract traffic. Focusing on stablecoins is a wise move; compared to those public chains that want to do everything, it's much more reliable.

View OriginalReply0

TideReceder

· 9h ago

Well said, this is exactly what I want to hear. Most projects are really just "moving money," that's how the crypto world operates. The true moat is actual demand. There are still opportunities in the stablecoin sector, but the question is whether Plasma can really be developed. Handling liquidity and speed simultaneously? That sounds much harder than it sounds... Settlement volume is the key; without it, everything else is pointless. Focusing actually becomes an advantage, I agree with this logic.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidatedNotStirred

· 9h ago

That makes sense, but what I'm most afraid of is that Plasma will ultimately become just a "money transfer" tool, after all, the on-chain stablecoin race is so competitive.

View OriginalReply0

TopBuyerBottomSeller

· 9h ago

That's so true. I'm just worried that it will turn into a bunch of "money-moving" projects, just repackaging a new concept to make a quick profit. Real settlement volume is the real key; hype built on incentives is worthless. The Plasma approach is indeed clear-headed; stablecoins are the real necessity. Wait, can low slippage and low failure rates really be achieved? Is this technically difficult? It's better if XPL isn't mythologized; following trend-based faith coins makes it easiest to get trapped. Focusing might actually be an advantage, I agree with that.

View OriginalReply0