Last night when I brushed through the on-chain data of Plasma, I felt a bit relieved. The scale of stablecoins has not collapsed; instead, it is slowly climbing. The most "painful" aspect of such projects is that they are hardly driven by emotions, but rather compel you to make rational judgments with a bunch of dry yet solid indicators.
From the results, Plasma no longer seems like it is doing concept validation. The high proportion of USDT on-chain indicates that real funds are coming in, not just for clocking in. More importantly, the assets are not simply bridged over to lie around but have formed a chassis that can carry a structure. For me, the logic of stablecoins is very simple: if the money stays, applications will naturally be attracted by efficiency.
Looking at the environment in 2026, what the market really cares about is not "faster chains," but who can move stablecoins from exchanges into real-world payments. Plasma's positioning is also very straightforward, which is to make transfers and settlements almost seamless, cheap, fast, and stable. EVM compatibility is just a tool, not a selling point.
As for XPL, I do not regard it as a short-term narrative. It feels more like a certificate of infrastructure equity, with value depending on network scale, rule design, and the efficiency of the real usage flow. Unlocking will certainly have an impact, but what really needs to be monitored is whether there is an outflow of stablecoins. If the money is still there, it’s more about the turnover of chips. I am willing to track Plasma in the long term precisely because it is boring enough. Boredom represents that it is doing the slow but real task of payments. If it truly emerges, it will rely not on stories, but on the inertia formed by the flow of funds.
