ARMalik3520

Pertama kali saya benar-benar memperhatikan pasokan yang beredar, itu tidak ada di beberapa buku putih atau di dasbor. Saya merasakannya dengan cara yang sulit—menyaksikan token yang saya kira saya pahami terus jatuh, meskipun penggunaannya terlihat baik. Sesuatu terasa tidak tepat. Harganya tidak cocok dengan cerita yang saya kira saya tahu. Dan kemudian saya menyadari: pasokan diam-diam berubah di balik layar.
#traderARmalik3520
Pasokan yang beredar terdengar klinis, tetapi ini adalah salah satu metrik paling manusiawi dalam kripto. Ini tentang pilihan. Siapa yang bisa menjual, siapa yang belum bisa, dan siapa yang memutuskan untuk tidak. Di permukaan, ini hanya angka: berapa banyak token yang dapat diperdagangkan secara bebas hari ini. Di baliknya, ini adalah peta insentif, janji, kunci, dan emisi yang menunggu untuk dimainkan.

#Plasma $XPL @Plasma
Ketika saya pertama kali melihat XPL, bukan grafik harga yang menarik perhatian saya. Itu adalah cara orang-orang berdebat satu sama lain, seolah-olah mereka membandingkan kunci inggris dengan cangkir ukur dan menyebut salah satunya "lebih baik."

#traderARmalik3520
Itulah yang sering hilang dalam debat XPL versus stablecoin. Mereka memperlakukan keduanya sebagai token pembayaran dan berhenti di situ. Tapi setelah Anda duduk dan melihat bagaimana masing-masing sebenarnya berperilaku di on-chain, perbedaannya mulai menunjukkan tekstur. Bukan dalam bahasa pemasaran, tetapi dalam bagaimana nilai bergerak, menetap, dan diam-diam terakumulasi di bawah.

Ketika saya pertama kali tersandung pada Vanar Chain saat itu masih mengatasi hari-hari Virtua-nya, harganya terasa lebih menjanjikan, berputar di kisaran sen dengan buzz gaming masih tertinggal. Saat ini, awal Februari 2026, harganya diam-diam berada di sekitar $0.0065, kapitalisasi pasar tetap sekitar $14 juta, volume berputar di angka jutaan rendah pada sebagian besar hari. Jika Anda telah menahan, penurunan itu mungkin terasa berat. Tetapi melihat grafiknya mengabaikan cerita yang lebih lambat di bawahnya. Tim tidak sedang memompa meme atau mengejar tren saat ini. Mereka sedang merangkai sesuatu yang lebih mendasar: sebuah Layer 1 di mana AI tidak hanya disisipkan—itu sudah menjadi bagian dari bagaimana

#Plasma $XPL #traderARmalik3520
When I first pulled up Plasma’s charts, I wasn’t looking for a big story. I was just curious. New chains launch all the time, most of them spike briefly, then fade into the background. But the numbers sitting there felt… heavier. Not loud. Not flashy. Just heavy in a way that makes you pause and look twice. Stablecoins were piling in, and they weren’t rushing out.
That’s what made this interesting.

Within a day of Plasma’s beta going live in late September, more than $2 billion in stablecoins had moved onto the network. On its own, that number sounds dramatic. What matters more is what it represented. This wasn’t volatile capital chasing a price candle. This was dollar-pegged money choosing a place to sit. By the end of that first week, total value locked crossed roughly $5.5 billion. In practical terms, that meant Plasma had already leapfrogged networks that had been live for years.
TVL can be a misleading metric if you treat it like a scoreboard. It’s better thought of as a temperature check. It shows how comfortable capital feels being somewhere. Stablecoin-heavy TVL is especially telling because those assets don’t move unless there’s a reason. They aren’t there to gamble. They’re there to earn quietly, steadily, or to be used.
What struck me is how quickly Plasma’s TVL wasn’t just large, but concentrated. Most of the capital wasn’t scattered across speculative pools. It was sitting in lending markets, liquidity vaults, and basic infrastructure. By October, total locked value had pushed past $6.3 billion, briefly overtaking Tron. That comparison matters because Tron has long been one of the largest stablecoin settlement layers in crypto. Plasma wasn’t just growing fast. It was stepping into a role.
To understand why, you have to look at how Plasma was built. On the surface, the pitch is simple. Zero-fee stablecoin transfers. Fast settlement. No friction. That’s the part people repeat on social media. Underneath that is a more important detail: Plasma treats stablecoins as the base layer, not as one asset class among many. When you move USDT or USDC on Plasma, the experience feels closer to moving cash than interacting with a DeFi protocol.
That design choice changes behavior. If moving funds is cheap and instant, capital circulates more often. If capital circulates, it can be reused. That reuse is what turns idle dollars into productive ones. This is where the TVL growth starts to make sense rather than feeling like hype.
Aave’s deployment on Plasma shows this clearly. Around $4.5 billion of liquidity flowed into Aave markets on Plasma alone. That’s roughly half of Aave’s non-Ethereum TVL at the time. For a protocol that’s already deployed everywhere that matters, that kind of concentration isn’t accidental. Liquidity providers go where their capital works harder with less friction. Plasma offered that, at least early on.
Of course, incentives played a role. Early yields were attractive, and XPL rewards sweetened the deal. That’s not a criticism. It’s how DeFi bootstraps itself. The real test is what happens when those incentives cool. Will the stablecoins stay?
Here’s why that question cuts both ways. On one hand, incentive-driven liquidity is famously fickle. When yields drop, mercenary capital leaves. On the other hand, stablecoin liquidity behaves differently from speculative token TVL. A pool full of volatile assets can evaporate overnight. Stablecoins don’t chase momentum the same way. They move when risk, efficiency, or trust shifts.
And trust is the quiet variable here.
Across DeFi more broadly, stablecoins already make up the foundation. On Ethereum, they’ve accounted for well over half of total locked value during multiple cycles. That tells us something simple but important. DeFi runs on dollars, even if it talks in tokens. Plasma leaned into that reality instead of pretending otherwise.
The risk, of course, is concentration. A network that revolves around stablecoins inherits their vulnerabilities. Peg risk. Issuer risk. Regulatory pressure. If something breaks at the stablecoin layer, it breaks everywhere at once. Plasma doesn’t escape that. In fact, its specialization amplifies it.
But specialization also enables focus. Payments, lending, and real-world asset rails make more sense on a chain where the base unit is stable. You don’t need to hedge price volatility just to move value. That lowers the mental and financial cost of using the chain. It’s not exciting in a loud way. It’s practical.
Zooming out, Plasma’s rise lines up with a broader pattern. DeFi liquidity has been waking up again after a long stretch of caution. Total TVL across the ecosystem has been climbing, not because people are suddenly reckless, but because yield and utility are starting to feel earned again. Stablecoins are central to that revival. They offer participation without existential exposure.
What Plasma reveals is that liquidity isn’t just returning. It’s becoming more selective. Capital is choosing environments that feel purpose-built rather than general-purpose. Chains don’t need to do everything. They need to do one thing well enough that money feels comfortable staying.
When I think about Plasma’s TVL growth, the part that lingers isn’t the speed. It’s the calmness of it. No viral mania. No dramatic spikes and crashes. Just steady accumulation of dollars looking for a foundation.
If this trend holds, we may look back at Plasma not as an outlier, but as an early example of where DeFi is settling. Less noise. More plumbing. Less speculation layered on top of speculation, and more focus on making money behave like money on chain.
The thing worth remembering is simple. Liquidity doesn’t fall in love with narratives. It settles into systems that feel usable. Plasma’s stablecoin TVL isn’t loud, but it’s saying something very clearly.@Plasma