I'll directly mention a point that many people don't want to hear: Plasma is currently most afraid not of 'lack of popularity', but rather that once the core indicators of the stablecoin chain turn around, it will be judged and sentenced to death by the market with data. Recently, I've been focusing on $XPL, instead directing my attention to several hard indicators of the chain itself, because Plasma's positioning is very clear: it aims to make stablecoin transfers and settlements the default scenario, and if it doesn't do well, there will be no way out.
I will first look at the structural changes of stablecoin assets. It's not about looking at a single total figure, but rather about looking at concentration, the rhythm of inflows and outflows, and whether the funds remain long-term. If stablecoins only rush in during active periods and withdraw after a few days, it indicates that there is no real demand formed on the chain; if funds can stay, and transfers and transactions happen continuously, then that counts as having a foundation.
The second thing I will focus on is the stability of transaction execution. Stablecoin users do not care about the upper limit performance you advertise; they only care whether there will be lags, failures, or sudden increases in costs during peak periods. Since Plasma prioritizes stablecoins, it must suppress confirmations and fees during busy times on the chain. I will observe whether there are obvious spikes in transaction failure rates and whether confirmation times suddenly lengthen, as these are the places where problems are most easily exposed.
The third aspect is the transaction depth and liquidation risk related to stablecoins. Plasma cannot survive solely on transfers; it ultimately needs to undertake stablecoin exchanges, market making, and lending. Here, what I care most about is whether the depth of stablecoin trading pairs is gradually thickening, whether slippage during large transactions is improving; whether the health of the lending side is stable, and whether liquidations will produce chain reactions during fluctuations. If depth and liquidation are not handled well, the flow of stablecoins will return to exchanges or other chains.
Finally, we get to $XPL. I don't want to write it off as a 'belief asset'; I only see whether it is a hard threshold for network resources: node participation, staking demand, resource scheduling, protocol revenue bearing—all of which cannot be separated from XPL. If Plasma can make stablecoin settlement a long-term business flow, XPL will gradually return to functional pricing instead of being driven by emotions.
My conclusion about Plasma is very realistic: it has to rely on the basic skills of the stablecoin chain to survive; the data must hold up, and $XPL must hold up.
