梅影
34 Following
4.2K+ Followers
496 Liked
83 Shared
Posts
All
Live
From Consumers to Co-Creators: How MEET48 is Reshaping the Idol Economy through AI and Token Destruction?
In the traditional entertainment industry, fans often play the role of 'pure consumers,' investing time and money to support idols, but finding it difficult to participate in the distribution of value. However, with the deep integration of Web3 technology and AI, this one-way economic model is undergoing a dramatic transformation.
1. Value Deflation: A sincere return of assets
On January 30, MEET48 officially announced the destruction of 30% of the total voting revenue from the second 'Best7' event, approximately 8.7 million IDOL tokens. This action has attracted widespread attention in the secondary market, with a clear core logic: by actively reducing the circulating supply, the revenue from the event is returned to ecological holders. The amount destroyed accounts for 0.181% of the total token supply, which not only enhances the scarcity of the assets but also demonstrates the project's long-term commitment to cultivating the ecosystem.
1. Value Deflation: A sincere return of assets
On January 30, MEET48 officially announced the destruction of 30% of the total voting revenue from the second 'Best7' event, approximately 8.7 million IDOL tokens. This action has attracted widespread attention in the secondary market, with a clear core logic: by actively reducing the circulating supply, the revenue from the event is returned to ecological holders. The amount destroyed accounts for 0.181% of the total token supply, which not only enhances the scarcity of the assets but also demonstrates the project's long-term commitment to cultivating the ecosystem.
Viewing Plasma as a 'Stablecoin Settlement Network': What You Should Focus on is Not the Popularity, but Three 'Funding Behavior Curves'
Many people, when looking at Plasma, tend to focus on a few of the most prominent numbers: TVL, number of partners, the APY of a certain Vault, or even the short-term popularity brought by a specific event.
But if the goal of Plasma is indeed stablecoin settlement and payment-based growth, then what determines whether it can go far is not how popular it is on any given day, but whether sustainable patterns of behavior in funding appear on the chain. In other words, what you need to look at are the curve shapes, not the peak values in the screenshots. C11 I give you three of the most practical observation dimensions - as long as you keep an eye on these three curves over the long term, you can judge whether Plasma's growth is 'pushed by incentives and then dissipates' or 'has already begun to self-drive'.
But if the goal of Plasma is indeed stablecoin settlement and payment-based growth, then what determines whether it can go far is not how popular it is on any given day, but whether sustainable patterns of behavior in funding appear on the chain. In other words, what you need to look at are the curve shapes, not the peak values in the screenshots. C11 I give you three of the most practical observation dimensions - as long as you keep an eye on these three curves over the long term, you can judge whether Plasma's growth is 'pushed by incentives and then dissipates' or 'has already begun to self-drive'.
Is it the same as the "Ethereum Plasma concept"?
Many people, when they first see the name Plasma, instinctively associate it with the "Plasma" from Ethereum's early scaling solutions (that set of sidechains/commitment roots). However, in everyday discussions, you will find that people are actually referring to two different things: Ethereum's Plasma is a historical scaling concept and research direction; while what you see now on X, @Plasma / $XPL , is an independent project and ecological narrative focused on stablecoin payment experiences. The same name can easily cause information confusion, so I suggest that when you write, it’s best to clarify at the first mention: this discussion is about the "project Plasma", not the "Ethereum Plasma solution".
Why clarify this specifically? Because it will affect the reader's understanding path: some may mistakenly think it is just "a scaling component of Ethereum", thus evaluating it with the wrong dimensions; others may mix the technical routes and risk models of both, leading to distorted judgments. If you clearly articulate the positioning, readers will focus more on the key points of the project itself: optimizing the stablecoin payment experience, ecological closed loop, and the long-term landing path.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
Many people, when they first see the name Plasma, instinctively associate it with the "Plasma" from Ethereum's early scaling solutions (that set of sidechains/commitment roots). However, in everyday discussions, you will find that people are actually referring to two different things: Ethereum's Plasma is a historical scaling concept and research direction; while what you see now on X, @Plasma / $XPL , is an independent project and ecological narrative focused on stablecoin payment experiences. The same name can easily cause information confusion, so I suggest that when you write, it’s best to clarify at the first mention: this discussion is about the "project Plasma", not the "Ethereum Plasma solution".
Why clarify this specifically? Because it will affect the reader's understanding path: some may mistakenly think it is just "a scaling component of Ethereum", thus evaluating it with the wrong dimensions; others may mix the technical routes and risk models of both, leading to distorted judgments. If you clearly articulate the positioning, readers will focus more on the key points of the project itself: optimizing the stablecoin payment experience, ecological closed loop, and the long-term landing path.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
10 Questions to Ask Before Participating in a Vault: Use a 'Due Diligence Checklist' to See Through the Yield Pools on Plasma
In the Plasma ecosystem, Vaults are often packaged very easily: just a click to earn, and the returns look very attractive. But the more you want to treat it as 'stablecoin savings,' the more you need to do some decent due diligence before participating. The reason is simple: on-chain returns always have a cost; the difference lies in whether the costs are hidden in interest rates, incentives, strategies, fees, or the redemption and risk chain. Below are 10 questions that you don't need to write answers to as if they were a thesis every time; as long as you can ask them clearly, you can filter out the majority of pools that 'look very appealing but are actually very dangerous.' For stablecoin positions, this kind of restraint is more important than chasing high annualized returns.
Do I need to buy $XPL to use Plasma?
This is the most common question for beginners: I want to use Plasma to convert to stablecoins and make payments; do I have to buy $XPL first? My understanding is that buying the native coin should not be seen as a threshold for use. Plasma focuses on the stablecoin payment experience, and if every user has to first buy a native coin for Gas, then the experience returns to the old ways of traditional public chains—many steps, prone to errors, and discouraging for first-time users. Payments need to be scalable and should ideally allow users to use stablecoins directly, even making them unaware of the underlying complexity.
However, two layers need to be clarified here: the first layer is the "user experience layer"; ideally, you shouldn't need to hoard a lot of XPL to complete transfers, receive payments, or engage in daily interactions. The second layer is the "network operation layer"; the chain always needs someone to maintain security and block production, and XPL here acts more like a stake and incentive vehicle for the network, used for staking and validator systems to ensure stable operation of the chain. This means users may not necessarily need to hold a lot of XPL to use it, but XPL still has its role in network security and ecological incentives.
A more pragmatic suggestion is: if you are just experiencing and using small amounts, focus first on whether the "process is smooth, whether additional preparation is needed, and whether failure prompts are clear"; if you are a long-term participant, then study the mechanisms of XPL, supply, and ecological incentives, distinguishing between "usage thresholds" and "participation thresholds". In the next article, I will continue to answer a common confusion: whether Plasma and the early Ethereum concept of the same name are the same thing.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
This is the most common question for beginners: I want to use Plasma to convert to stablecoins and make payments; do I have to buy $XPL first? My understanding is that buying the native coin should not be seen as a threshold for use. Plasma focuses on the stablecoin payment experience, and if every user has to first buy a native coin for Gas, then the experience returns to the old ways of traditional public chains—many steps, prone to errors, and discouraging for first-time users. Payments need to be scalable and should ideally allow users to use stablecoins directly, even making them unaware of the underlying complexity.
However, two layers need to be clarified here: the first layer is the "user experience layer"; ideally, you shouldn't need to hoard a lot of XPL to complete transfers, receive payments, or engage in daily interactions. The second layer is the "network operation layer"; the chain always needs someone to maintain security and block production, and XPL here acts more like a stake and incentive vehicle for the network, used for staking and validator systems to ensure stable operation of the chain. This means users may not necessarily need to hold a lot of XPL to use it, but XPL still has its role in network security and ecological incentives.
A more pragmatic suggestion is: if you are just experiencing and using small amounts, focus first on whether the "process is smooth, whether additional preparation is needed, and whether failure prompts are clear"; if you are a long-term participant, then study the mechanisms of XPL, supply, and ecological incentives, distinguishing between "usage thresholds" and "participation thresholds". In the next article, I will continue to answer a common confusion: whether Plasma and the early Ethereum concept of the same name are the same thing.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
7 Red Flag Signals for Participating in the Vault: Look at Yield Pools on Plasma, Learn to Avoid Risks Before Discussing Yields
In the narrative of Plasma's 'stablecoin liquidation + yield entry', the Vault is often packaged as a very comfortable experience: earn with just a click, and you can transfer or spend stablecoins anytime. However, the more it looks like 'savings', the more cautious you should be—on-chain yields never appear out of thin air; they either come from real borrowing demand, incentives and subsidies, or from strategic risk premiums. Your first step in participating in the Vault should not be to focus on APY, but rather to assess whether the structure behind the yield is healthy, whether withdrawal is smooth, and whether the rules are transparent enough. The following 7 red flag signals: if you hit two or three, treat it as an 'experimental warehouse' or even walk away; this is more akin to being a long-term player than chasing the highest annualized return. @Plasma $XPL #plasma
I found that in the matter of stablecoin transfers, the real deterrent for people is not 'not knowing how to use it', but the fear of making mistakes: choosing the wrong network, not receiving funds, sudden increases in fees, cross-chain issues, sending the address incorrectly and being unable to withdraw... each of these is enough to create a psychological shadow over on-chain payments.
Because projects like Plasma, which focus on the stablecoin payment experience, truly value not in the promotional phrases, but in whether they can smooth out these 'fear points': reducing steps, lowering failure rates, and ensuring that newcomers succeed on their first try.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
Because projects like Plasma, which focus on the stablecoin payment experience, truly value not in the promotional phrases, but in whether they can smooth out these 'fear points': reducing steps, lowering failure rates, and ensuring that newcomers succeed on their first try.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
2026-1-23 I most hope Plasma will prioritize completing the 5 "user experience" details
When discussing payment chains, many people only consider "speed and cost," but what truly determines whether users stay often boils down to seemingly insignificant experience details. I most hope Plasma (and its related entry products) will prioritize completing the following 5 points: First, a clear onboarding guide—when making a transfer for the first time, inform users "which network you are on, what you are doing, and what will happen next," to reduce confusion. Second, failure feedback should be in plain language—failure is not the issue; the issue is that users don’t know why it failed or how to remedy it; clearly outline the reasons for errors and steps to resolve them, and retention will improve immediately.
Third, a default prompt for small amount tests—many losses stem from making large transactions right away; from a product perspective, there should be a strong prompt to "try a small amount first." Fourth, authorization management should be more user-friendly—after users finish using the bridge/DEX, can they view and revoke unnecessary authorizations with one click? This can significantly reduce the risk of future theft. Fifth, the visualization of transaction status—payment scenarios dread the question "Did my transfer succeed?" If we can make statuses like “Submitted/Pending Confirmation/Completed/Trackable Link” intuitive, users will feel more secure and be more willing to reuse the service.
These details may not be flashy, but they determine whether stablecoins can transition from being used by "people who know how to use them" to being usable by "ordinary people." I will continue to observe Plasma's progress, looking not only at the launch of features but also at whether these experience details are becoming smoother, more stable, and more like Web2.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
When discussing payment chains, many people only consider "speed and cost," but what truly determines whether users stay often boils down to seemingly insignificant experience details. I most hope Plasma (and its related entry products) will prioritize completing the following 5 points: First, a clear onboarding guide—when making a transfer for the first time, inform users "which network you are on, what you are doing, and what will happen next," to reduce confusion. Second, failure feedback should be in plain language—failure is not the issue; the issue is that users don’t know why it failed or how to remedy it; clearly outline the reasons for errors and steps to resolve them, and retention will improve immediately.
Third, a default prompt for small amount tests—many losses stem from making large transactions right away; from a product perspective, there should be a strong prompt to "try a small amount first." Fourth, authorization management should be more user-friendly—after users finish using the bridge/DEX, can they view and revoke unnecessary authorizations with one click? This can significantly reduce the risk of future theft. Fifth, the visualization of transaction status—payment scenarios dread the question "Did my transfer succeed?" If we can make statuses like “Submitted/Pending Confirmation/Completed/Trackable Link” intuitive, users will feel more secure and be more willing to reuse the service.
These details may not be flashy, but they determine whether stablecoins can transition from being used by "people who know how to use them" to being usable by "ordinary people." I will continue to observe Plasma's progress, looking not only at the launch of features but also at whether these experience details are becoming smoother, more stable, and more like Web2.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
When you see the returns of a Vault, take 3 seconds to classify it into 'interest/incentives/strategy', and then decide whether to get on board.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
The biggest problem for many people participating in Vault is not 'not knowing how to operate', but rather the inability to accurately assess the profit structure. Many people rush in when they see high annualized returns, but neglect the source of the profits, how long they can last, and what the main risks are. To help you better understand and evaluate, C8 provides you with a quick classification method of 'reading charts/numbers'. As long as you master these three steps, you can quickly determine which category any Vault (including Plasma's Savings/Lending Vault) belongs to, where the risks are, and how to allocate your positions.
The biggest problem for many people participating in Vault is not 'not knowing how to operate', but rather the inability to accurately assess the profit structure. Many people rush in when they see high annualized returns, but neglect the source of the profits, how long they can last, and what the main risks are. To help you better understand and evaluate, C8 provides you with a quick classification method of 'reading charts/numbers'. As long as you master these three steps, you can quickly determine which category any Vault (including Plasma's Savings/Lending Vault) belongs to, where the risks are, and how to allocate your positions.
Practical participation guide: 1,000U / 5,000U / 20,000U three levels of funds, how to allocate between Savings and Lending?
Practical participation guide: 1,000U / 5,000U / 20,000U three levels of funds, how to allocate between Savings and Lending?
Today my article will pursue clear boundaries of safety + understandable profit structure + adjustable at any time.
There are three core principles:
1) First ensure liquidity (money that can be used at any time)
2) Then pursue sustainable returns (prioritize real interest, followed by incentives)
3) Finally, only then consider leverage (the borrowing side must have enough safety cushion)
Before you participate, confirm two things:
In the returns you see, which part is 'interest' and which part is 'incentive' (incentives may drop)
Today my article will pursue clear boundaries of safety + understandable profit structure + adjustable at any time.
There are three core principles:
1) First ensure liquidity (money that can be used at any time)
2) Then pursue sustainable returns (prioritize real interest, followed by incentives)
3) Finally, only then consider leverage (the borrowing side must have enough safety cushion)
Before you participate, confirm two things:
In the returns you see, which part is 'interest' and which part is 'incentive' (incentives may drop)
From Web2 Payments to Web3: One Less Step is Victory
Why are Web2 payments smooth? It's not because users are smarter, but because products hide the complexity: you don't need to understand the clearing system, you don't need to exchange for a 'transaction fee currency' first, and you won't be forced to make three or four choices when paying. Looking at Web3, many 'payment failures' are not due to the chain, but because the process is too lengthy: choosing a network, preparing gas, uncertain confirmation speed, and if it doesn't arrive, you still have to check the browser. For ordinary users, every additional step increases anxiety and the feeling of 'did I click the wrong thing'.
So I evaluate payment-oriented projects like Plasma with a very simple standard: can it make the process more like Web2? For example, do users have to hold native coins to convert to stablecoins? Do they need to make excessive choices during transfers? Can they provide clear feedback when a failure occurs? These seemingly 'product details' often determine retention more than the performance parameters in marketing. Because the core of payment scenarios is not about showcasing technology, but stability, simplicity, and reusability—once you have a smooth experience, you will be willing to use it again; if you have a bad experience, you are unlikely to try it again.
'One less step is victory' is not just a slogan, but the underlying logic of whether the payment ecosystem can expand. As long as Plasma can continue to lower thresholds, reduce failure rates, and increase first-time success rates for users, stablecoins are more likely to transition from 'transaction medium' to 'everyday tool'. Next, I will continue to break down: which experience details most affect a novice's first success, and how we can use data to verify whether it is genuinely improving.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
Why are Web2 payments smooth? It's not because users are smarter, but because products hide the complexity: you don't need to understand the clearing system, you don't need to exchange for a 'transaction fee currency' first, and you won't be forced to make three or four choices when paying. Looking at Web3, many 'payment failures' are not due to the chain, but because the process is too lengthy: choosing a network, preparing gas, uncertain confirmation speed, and if it doesn't arrive, you still have to check the browser. For ordinary users, every additional step increases anxiety and the feeling of 'did I click the wrong thing'.
So I evaluate payment-oriented projects like Plasma with a very simple standard: can it make the process more like Web2? For example, do users have to hold native coins to convert to stablecoins? Do they need to make excessive choices during transfers? Can they provide clear feedback when a failure occurs? These seemingly 'product details' often determine retention more than the performance parameters in marketing. Because the core of payment scenarios is not about showcasing technology, but stability, simplicity, and reusability—once you have a smooth experience, you will be willing to use it again; if you have a bad experience, you are unlikely to try it again.
'One less step is victory' is not just a slogan, but the underlying logic of whether the payment ecosystem can expand. As long as Plasma can continue to lower thresholds, reduce failure rates, and increase first-time success rates for users, stablecoins are more likely to transition from 'transaction medium' to 'everyday tool'. Next, I will continue to break down: which experience details most affect a novice's first success, and how we can use data to verify whether it is genuinely improving.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
Many people, upon hearing "payments + DeFi," first react: it's going to get complicated and we'll have to pull in TVL again. But if we look at it from the perspective of real capital flow, the payment chain actually needs DeFi for a very simple goal: to make money operate more efficiently. Payment scenarios naturally bring a large influx and outflow of stablecoins. If this capital can only "make a round and leave," it's difficult for the chain to form a deposit; however, once it can provide low-threshold, low-risk capital efficiency tools (such as stablecoin yields, lending turnover, short-term liquidity management), capital is more willing to stay, and users will use the same chain more frequently.
For ordinary users, the correct way to open DeFi on the payment chain is not "high leverage," but rather "more convenient capital management": for example, can the money I temporarily don't need be placed on the chain to earn a relatively stable yield? Can I quickly borrow funds using stablecoins as collateral when I need to turn over? For merchants and teams, capital management is more realistic: should the incoming stablecoins be immediately exchanged? Can we improve capital efficiency while waiting for settlement or payment cycles? These needs are not flashy but very frequent.
So when I look at the DeFi ecosystem of Plasma, I am not looking at "whose APR is more exaggerated," but rather whether it can form a healthy closed loop: payments bring real capital flow → DeFi provides turnover and yield tools → capital is willing to stay → usage frequency increases → payment experience continues to be optimized. When this flywheel starts to turn, it indicates that it is not a chain that only promotes itself, but a chain that can "make money work on it."
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
For ordinary users, the correct way to open DeFi on the payment chain is not "high leverage," but rather "more convenient capital management": for example, can the money I temporarily don't need be placed on the chain to earn a relatively stable yield? Can I quickly borrow funds using stablecoins as collateral when I need to turn over? For merchants and teams, capital management is more realistic: should the incoming stablecoins be immediately exchanged? Can we improve capital efficiency while waiting for settlement or payment cycles? These needs are not flashy but very frequent.
So when I look at the DeFi ecosystem of Plasma, I am not looking at "whose APR is more exaggerated," but rather whether it can form a healthy closed loop: payments bring real capital flow → DeFi provides turnover and yield tools → capital is willing to stay → usage frequency increases → payment experience continues to be optimized. When this flywheel starts to turn, it indicates that it is not a chain that only promotes itself, but a chain that can "make money work on it."
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
How do ordinary users view Plasma's Savings / Lending Vault? First understand 'what you earn,' then discuss participation.
Many people are attracted to two entries when they first open the Plasma Dashboard: Savings, Lending, and they may even see some 'coming soon' strategic modules. For ordinary users, the easiest pitfall is not 'not knowing how to operate,' but rather not understanding the sources of earnings and risks. In this article, I will break it down for you in the simplest way possible into a 'must-read checklist before participating': after reading this, you will be able to determine whether you are suitable, how to allocate your assets, and where the risk boundaries lie.
1) What exactly is Savings? The money you earn usually comes from three sources.
1) What exactly is Savings? The money you earn usually comes from three sources.
Many people think that stablecoins are just "tools used in exchanges to swap currencies," but the four scenarios that can truly push stablecoins towards large-scale use are often more life-oriented and essential. The first is cross-border remittances: when you send money to overseas friends, family, or partners, what you fear most is that it's slow, expensive, and has many procedures. Stablecoins are naturally suitable for "internet remittances," and the key lies in whether the experience can be smooth enough and the success rate high enough. The second is salary payments and bulk disbursement: small teams, freelancers, and overseas collaboration are becoming increasingly common, and the demand for stablecoins for salary payments has been growing, but it requires simpler bulk transfer and reconciliation processes.
The third is subscriptions and content payments: many services are paid monthly, with small, high-frequency, and stable payments, which is the ideal model in payment scenarios. The problem is that if on-chain subscriptions require preparing Gas every time and the confirmations are unstable, users will quickly give up. The fourth is merchant payments: whether for online overseas e-commerce or offline services, merchants care most about payment costs, speed of arrival, consistency of settlement currencies, and whether reconciliation is hassle-free. As long as this process can be made as "foolproof" as swiping a card or scanning a code, the usability of stablecoins will be unlocked.
So I see the core of Plasma as being whether it can make these four scenarios "default available": allowing stablecoins not just to be transferred, but to be transferred whenever desired and frequently. If it can successfully operate in one or two of these scenarios first, the flywheel will start to turn.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
The third is subscriptions and content payments: many services are paid monthly, with small, high-frequency, and stable payments, which is the ideal model in payment scenarios. The problem is that if on-chain subscriptions require preparing Gas every time and the confirmations are unstable, users will quickly give up. The fourth is merchant payments: whether for online overseas e-commerce or offline services, merchants care most about payment costs, speed of arrival, consistency of settlement currencies, and whether reconciliation is hassle-free. As long as this process can be made as "foolproof" as swiping a card or scanning a code, the usability of stablecoins will be unlocked.
So I see the core of Plasma as being whether it can make these four scenarios "default available": allowing stablecoins not just to be transferred, but to be transferred whenever desired and frequently. If it can successfully operate in one or two of these scenarios first, the flywheel will start to turn.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
The mainnet beta mentioned '100+ DeFi partners': a nice-looking list does not equal ecosystem usability, how to judge 'true implementation'?
The most common narrative about the new chain mainnet launch is: many partners, a strong ecosystem, and an imminent explosion. The Plasma mainnet beta also mentioned information like '100+ DeFi partners', which adds value in terms of dissemination—however, if you want to write the content more like a researcher rather than just repeating promotional material, you must break down the 'list' into 'usability'. Because the number of partners is a PR metric, ecosystem usability is the user metric. In this article, I provide you with a very useful judgment framework: with just 4 dimensions, you can clearly distinguish between a 'nice-looking list' and a 'truly implemented ecosystem'.
What is the 'effective TVL' of Plasma? Today I use 3 sets of indicators to quickly distinguish real demand vs incentive pile-up
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
New chains and DeFi protocols love to talk about TVL because the numbers are large and spread widely. But for researchers, TVL is just a 'volume' and does not equal 'demand'. Especially in lending protocols, TVL can be easily amplified by incentives: funds come in quickly and leave just as fast. To write data like Aave on Plasma more professionally, what you need is the 'effective TVL' framework — upgrading 'how much is deposited' to 'what has been done with what stays'. The most practical judgment methods are three sets: utilization rate, interest rate structure, and the stay and flow of funds.
New chains and DeFi protocols love to talk about TVL because the numbers are large and spread widely. But for researchers, TVL is just a 'volume' and does not equal 'demand'. Especially in lending protocols, TVL can be easily amplified by incentives: funds come in quickly and leave just as fast. To write data like Aave on Plasma more professionally, what you need is the 'effective TVL' framework — upgrading 'how much is deposited' to 'what has been done with what stays'. The most practical judgment methods are three sets: utilization rate, interest rate structure, and the stay and flow of funds.
The first time I heard about Plasma's 'zero-fee transfers', many people would immediately be tempted: if stablecoins could really be sent and received as easily as transfer software, then the experience would indeed be a qualitative change. But what I care more about is not 'can we have zero fees today', but the second layer of logic behind it: zero fees are just an entry point; what it truly aims to change is user behavior—from 'occasionally using stablecoins' to 'habitually using stablecoins'.
You can understand it as a growth pathway: lowering the threshold → increasing attempts → increasing reuse → forming scenarios. When users don’t need to prepare Gas in advance or worry about small fees, the cost of trying will significantly decrease; once attempts increase, wallets, merchants, and applications will be more willing to optimize around this chain; and as more merchants and applications emerge, users will have more reasons to 'have to use' it, ultimately forming a self-reinforcing flywheel. The significance of zero fees is not in saving a few cents, but in making stablecoin payments 'natural'.
Of course, zero fees also mean that costs do not disappear; they are merely transferred from the user side to the system side or ecosystem side. So I will continue to monitor one signal: when the intensity of subsidies changes, can transactions remain stable, and are users still willing to stay? Only usage that can transcend the subsidy cycle is the true long-term value.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
You can understand it as a growth pathway: lowering the threshold → increasing attempts → increasing reuse → forming scenarios. When users don’t need to prepare Gas in advance or worry about small fees, the cost of trying will significantly decrease; once attempts increase, wallets, merchants, and applications will be more willing to optimize around this chain; and as more merchants and applications emerge, users will have more reasons to 'have to use' it, ultimately forming a self-reinforcing flywheel. The significance of zero fees is not in saving a few cents, but in making stablecoin payments 'natural'.
Of course, zero fees also mean that costs do not disappear; they are merely transferred from the user side to the system side or ecosystem side. So I will continue to monitor one signal: when the intensity of subsidies changes, can transactions remain stable, and are users still willing to stay? Only usage that can transcend the subsidy cycle is the true long-term value.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
Aave's deposits reached $5.9B 48 hours after launch on Plasma: Is this "real demand" or "incentive-driven accumulation"?
Seeing data like "Aave's deposits reached $5.9B 48 hours after launch" easily divides reactions into two camps: one excited, believing in "the chosen ecosystem and capital recognition"; the other calm, thinking "incentives drive TVL, it's unsustainable." If you want to write this as a long-term series for Binance Square, the most professional way isn't to take sides, but to break it down into a reusable judgment framework: how much of this TVL is based on "real usage," and how much is "incentive-driven"? What is its long-term significance for Plasma?
The official review from Plasma mentions that Aave's deposits reached approximately $5.9B 48 hours after launching on Plasma, peaking at $6.6B in mid-October; it also emphasizes the "low USDT borrow rate" and various assets (such as stablecoins and mainstream collateral assets entering via cross-chain) that help in the cold start of the credit market. From a numerical standpoint, this is no longer a scale that an "ordinary new chain" can achieve.
The official review from Plasma mentions that Aave's deposits reached approximately $5.9B 48 hours after launching on Plasma, peaking at $6.6B in mid-October; it also emphasizes the "low USDT borrow rate" and various assets (such as stablecoins and mainstream collateral assets entering via cross-chain) that help in the cold start of the credit market. From a numerical standpoint, this is no longer a scale that an "ordinary new chain" can achieve.
I am Mei Ying, and today I will explain Plasma to Xiaobai: what is it like?
Many projects start off talking about consensus, TPS, EVM, and ordinary people only get more confused after listening. I prefer to explain Plasma using three analogies: First, it is like the "highway for stablecoins"—your stablecoins shouldn't require you to study the route and buy gas (Gas) every time you make a transfer; it's best if you can just get on the road and go, arriving at your destination directly. What Plasma aims to do is to make this road smoother, with fewer potholes, making transfers feel more like everyday payments rather than technical operations.
Second, it is like a "cash register system on the chain"—for merchants, the most important aspects are a simple payment process, stable receipts, clear reconciliation, and controllable costs. If stablecoins can be as natural as card or QR code payments, merchants will be willing to integrate. Plasma prioritizes optimizing stablecoin payments, aiming to make "receiving payments" a capability that can be scaled up and replicated, rather than just a geeky toy.
Third, it is like a "settlement network for stablecoins"—payment is not just about sending money; it also requires settlement, reconciliation, and even using funds for more efficient turnover. Plasma attempts to connect payments, capital flows, and on-chain financial scenarios, enabling stablecoins to evolve from "transactional transfers" to "money that can be truly used."
Plasma is not about making you learn more on-chain knowledge, but rather allowing you to use it with less learning. I will continue to break down its experience details and progress signals.
Let's pay attention together!
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
Many projects start off talking about consensus, TPS, EVM, and ordinary people only get more confused after listening. I prefer to explain Plasma using three analogies: First, it is like the "highway for stablecoins"—your stablecoins shouldn't require you to study the route and buy gas (Gas) every time you make a transfer; it's best if you can just get on the road and go, arriving at your destination directly. What Plasma aims to do is to make this road smoother, with fewer potholes, making transfers feel more like everyday payments rather than technical operations.
Second, it is like a "cash register system on the chain"—for merchants, the most important aspects are a simple payment process, stable receipts, clear reconciliation, and controllable costs. If stablecoins can be as natural as card or QR code payments, merchants will be willing to integrate. Plasma prioritizes optimizing stablecoin payments, aiming to make "receiving payments" a capability that can be scaled up and replicated, rather than just a geeky toy.
Third, it is like a "settlement network for stablecoins"—payment is not just about sending money; it also requires settlement, reconciliation, and even using funds for more efficient turnover. Plasma attempts to connect payments, capital flows, and on-chain financial scenarios, enabling stablecoins to evolve from "transactional transfers" to "money that can be truly used."
Plasma is not about making you learn more on-chain knowledge, but rather allowing you to use it with less learning. I will continue to break down its experience details and progress signals.
Let's pay attention together!
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
Why do I say that 2026 is the big year for the "stablecoin payment narrative"?
Many people talk about stablecoins, always fixated on whether "it is about to take off again", but I am more concerned with: it is increasingly becoming a "default settlement method". Cross-border transfers, overseas shopping, subscription payments, sending money to friends, and even paying small teams – these scenarios are forcing users to need a tool that is more stable, more user-friendly, and closer to the everyday payment experience. The problem is that on-chain payments have always been stuck at the "last mile": needing to prepare Gas, choosing a network, confirming unstable times, and small transfers may even be deterred by fees. If the experience is not smooth, it is difficult to scale the scenario.
The reason why Plasma is worth following is that it puts the focus back on "the payment itself": making stablecoin transfers smoother, more like Web2, while connecting payment, capital circulation, and the possibilities of on-chain finance. You can understand it as building a "stablecoin funding highway", where the goal is not to show off skills, but to make people truly willing to use it every day. In the next 30 days, I will use a more relatable and down-to-earth approach to gradually break down: how it solves entry barriers, how it forms a flywheel, and how we should rationally track its progress.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
Many people talk about stablecoins, always fixated on whether "it is about to take off again", but I am more concerned with: it is increasingly becoming a "default settlement method". Cross-border transfers, overseas shopping, subscription payments, sending money to friends, and even paying small teams – these scenarios are forcing users to need a tool that is more stable, more user-friendly, and closer to the everyday payment experience. The problem is that on-chain payments have always been stuck at the "last mile": needing to prepare Gas, choosing a network, confirming unstable times, and small transfers may even be deterred by fees. If the experience is not smooth, it is difficult to scale the scenario.
The reason why Plasma is worth following is that it puts the focus back on "the payment itself": making stablecoin transfers smoother, more like Web2, while connecting payment, capital circulation, and the possibilities of on-chain finance. You can understand it as building a "stablecoin funding highway", where the goal is not to show off skills, but to make people truly willing to use it every day. In the next 30 days, I will use a more relatable and down-to-earth approach to gradually break down: how it solves entry barriers, how it forms a flywheel, and how we should rationally track its progress.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
Login to explore more contents