That feeling of falling just now, to exaggerate a bit, it was like someone suddenly yanked the carpet from under the market. Bitcoin broke through from around ninety thousand dollars, dropping to below eighty-eight thousand dollars at one point, almost erasing the gains from the beginning of the year. The most jarring aspect of the market was not the drop itself, but the kind of volatility that 'snapped both longs and shorts at the same time', with forced liquidations crashing down like a waterfall. ([CoinDesk][1])
The question arises, does this sudden drop have anything to do with the US-Iran confrontation? My judgment is that there is a connection, but more as an 'amplifier' rather than an 'engine'.
The direct impact of the U.S.-Iran standoff is to lower the global market’s risk appetite. You can see relevant news has obviously heated up in recent days, with the U.S. increasing military assets in the Middle East, Iran sending stronger signals, and both sides' stances becoming more tense, which will make funds more willing to do one thing first: reduce leverage, reduce risk, and reclaim liquidity. ([AP News][2])
However, Bitcoin's 'short-term cliff-like' sharp drop often cannot be completed solely by geopolitical news; the more common structure is that internal leverage is piled up too densely, and once a key position is broken, it triggers a series of stop-losses and forced liquidations, even leading to extreme volatility where both long and short positions are crushed. CoinDesk mentioned that in this round of significant fluctuations, both longs and shorts suffered similar losses, indicating that the market at that moment was not 'those who bet in the right direction winning,' but 'those who were thrown out by volatility losing.' ([CoinDesk][1])
In other words, the U.S.-Iran standoff has made the atmosphere drier and tenser, but what truly ignites the decline is often still the market's own barrel of leverage and liquidity.
Interestingly, when Bitcoin is undergoing severe deleveraging, gold and silver seem to be pressed by another button. They initially surged high, with gold approaching the extreme range of $5,600 per ounce, and silver also rose significantly, making the performance of the entire month one of the most exaggerated in decades. ([Financial Times][3])
Then, there was a sharp reversal in a short period, with gold experiencing a significant drop in a single day, while silver and platinum saw even deeper pullbacks. The Financial Times described that this pullback is related to the strengthening of the dollar and the confirmation of the new U.S. Federal Reserve chair's appointment, as the market switched from 'overheating chasing' to 'rapid cooling.' ([Financial Times][3])
You will find that this is not contradictory. The 'surge' and 'plummet' of gold and silver are actually telling the same story: when uncertainty is high, funds will first rush to look for anchors that seem more certain, but when the anchor is also traded too hotly, the pullback can be equally fierce. Gold and silver are value anchors, while Bitcoin is more like a high-volatility asset within risk assets; when risk appetite switches rapidly, their intensity will differ, but the direction is often interpreted within the same 'macro emotion.'
At this moment, if you shift the camera to the side, you will see a third role becoming increasingly important: stablecoins.
When the market is highly volatile, many people are not immediately thinking about 'what to buy,' but are first considering 'to isolate the volatility.' Stablecoins serve as this isolation layer, allowing you to first convert funds into a relatively stable accounting unit, and then decide whether to return to risk assets, continue observing, arbitrage, or lend. It is precisely in this 'return to the dollar' type of market behavior that I naturally think of Plasma.
Because what the Plasma project is betting on is not just a market trend but a path: making stablecoin transfers and settlements as low-friction, predictable, and as simple as daily operations. It does not treat stablecoins as a type of asset in the ecological corner but designs network capabilities around stablecoins as the main axis. The Plasma official document defines 'zero-fee USD₮ transfers' as a chain-native feature, emphasizing that this is to reduce the friction of high-frequency, small-value, everyday transfers, and does not require new wallets or break EVM standards. ([plasma.to][4])
If it only stops at slogans, this route can easily be mocked as 'subsidizing for data.' But the realistic advancement of Plasma can at least be seen in several harder indicators and actions that show it is moving the slogan towards a systematic direction.
First, the chain layer relies almost entirely on non-tax revenue for survival, with value capture significantly increasing.
In the chain data from DefiLlama, the scale of Plasma stablecoins is about $1.858 billion, with a positive change over 7 days, and USDT accounts for about 81%. The 24-hour chain layer fee is approximately $376, which can be almost ignored; however, the 24-hour application layer fee is about $326,600, and the application layer 24-hour income is about $42,300. DEX 24-hour transactions are approximately $19.77 million, with 7-day transactions about $64.67 million. ([DeFi Llama][5])
The meaning of this structure is very clear: Plasma is more about making the 'entrance' extremely cheap, placing more commercialization in trading, lending, routing, and capital management services, rather than treating every basic transfer as a tax base. For the stablecoin settlement network, this structure is closer to the logic of the real payment world: the channels should be as smooth as possible, and only then will services be charged.
Second, the entrance is becoming more practical, not just on-chain self-entertainment.
Kraken has already supported USDT0 deposits and withdrawals on the Plasma network. This type of integration is not a 'cooperation poster,' but genuinely shortens the user's funding path. Being able to directly select the network for transactions in the trading platform means that more people do not need to cross bridges, change chains, and go through a whole circle just to use Plasma's stablecoin track. ([Kraken Blog][6])
Third, the credit layer is expanding, and stablecoins are not just for parking.
Aave's Plasma market shows a total scale of approximately $4.94 billion, with about $2.87 billion available and total loans of about $2.06 billion. USDT0 single-item supply is about $2.34 billion, with loans around $1.78 billion, and both supply and loan interest rates are in a few percentage points range. ([app.aave.com][7])
Closer to the time series data, Aavescan data also shows that in early January 2026, USDT0 supply was about $2.12 billion and loans were about $1.67 billion, with interest rates fluctuating with the cycle but not experiencing uncontrolled jumps. ([aavescan.com][8])
For Plasma, this is crucial. Stablecoins must transition from 'safe havens' to 'infrastructure,' requiring turnover and credit activities. Only when stablecoins form a sustainable turnover on-chain can application layer income gradually thicken, and the low-cost strategy of the chain layer can have more long-term space.
Fourth, the project party is pushing for productization on the end, rather than just speaking to the blockchain circle.
Plasma One is positioned as integrating saving, spending, and earning into one application, emphasizing the native experience of stablecoins, and placing elements like cards, cashback, and earnings closer to ordinary users at the narrative center. ([plasma.to][9])
You may like or dislike this 'super application' route, but it at least indicates that the target users of the project are not just on-chain developers but a broader range of stablecoin users. For stablecoins to scale, they ultimately need to be supported by 'products,' not just by 'protocols.'
Fifth, the rhythm of token supply is clear, and the project party must hedge with stronger execution.
Tokenomist shows that the next unlocking of Plasma will be on February 25, 2026, releasing to Ecosystem and Growth, and also mentions that its unlocking and supply structure has cliff characteristics, and the long-term supply will extend to an unlimited supply structure. ([Tokenomist][10])
At the same time, the Plasma official tokenomics document also states that there are unlocking differences for buyers from different regions in the public sale section. U.S. buyers have a 12-month lock-up period and will be fully unlocked on July 28, 2026. ([plasma.to][11])
This means that the long-term pricing of XPL cannot rely solely on emotions; it needs to be based on 'real usage + thicker service income + stable rules' to form more stable expectations. Otherwise, every unlocking window will turn into a volatility amplifier.
Pulling these clues back into the initial macro picture of 'Bitcoin's sharp drop, gold and silver's surge, and then severe pullback,' I find that Plasma's path is easier to understand. When macro uncertainty rises, the market will need stablecoins as a transitional layer more; the more important the transitional layer, the more people care about transfer costs, stability of arrival, whether the path is short enough, and whether there are enough entrances; and what the Plasma project is betting on is making this transitional track more like infrastructure.
The sharp drop in Bitcoin reminds us that leverage can backfire in fragile moments, while the surge and pullback in gold and silver remind us that uncertainty can make all 'anchors' more emotional. Stablecoins are the 'actionable certainty' in such an environment. If the Plasma project can continue to stabilize the frictionless experience, shorten the entrance, and thicken credit turnover and application layer income, it will have a greater chance of becoming a repeatedly used path in this macro cycle, rather than just a name mentioned in the heat.
