In the past few weeks, I have been closely monitoring the follow-up data of Plasma: from the launch of the mainnet beta at the end of September to the current expansion of on-chain stablecoin volume, TVL, and transaction scale, and then to the recent significant corrections in price and TVL. This chain, 'born for stablecoins,' has transitioned from a highly topical launch to a stage where it truly faces the market's period of rationality. Before and after the mainnet launch, Plasma attracted funds through various pre-storing activities, and shortly after its official launch, it surged to the forefront of stablecoin supply and DeFi TVL; statistics indicate that in the first 10 days, the on-chain stablecoin balance approached 7 billion USD, DeFi TVL exceeded 8 billion USD, and the on-chain transaction volume of USDT reached 50 billion USD in a short period, leaving many established public chains behind.
However, summarizing Plasma solely with 'digital surge' actually underestimates the ambition of this chain. Officials and various research institutions have repeatedly emphasized a key term: emerging markets. Plasma is not trying to seize market share in the already highly financialized mature markets of Europe and America but is entering regions in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East where 'USDT has become a necessity' to shift the daily income and expenditure of cross-border workers, foreign trade bosses, and small merchants onto a settlement railway optimized for USDT. IOSG's research specifically pointed this out—Plasma focuses on USDT, targeting areas that are highly dependent on dollar stablecoins but where traditional banking services are expensive and inefficient, making zero-fee USDT payments a necessity rather than just a speculative vehicle.
From the perspective of technical rules, the entire architecture of Plasma is written around 'stablecoin experience'. At the bottom is an EVM-compatible PoS mainnet, which uses PlasmaBFT consensus and Reth execution to stack a high throughput and sub-second confirmation settlement layer. On this basis, the most crucial product rule is zero-fee USDT transfers: the protocol maintains a paymaster system that sponsors gas for USDT direct transfers from verified addresses, allowing users to send USDT without having to consider 'whether to buy native gas first'—as long as they have stablecoins, they can use it. The official documentation states clearly—sponsorship is deliberately narrowed to simple USDT transfers, in conjunction with identity and risk control measures to prevent exploitation, thus maintaining the experience without becoming 'unlimited public subsidies'.
If we consider the chain itself as the 'back-end settlement layer', then Plasma's latest round of big moves is actually about taking over the 'front-end banking experience' itself—Plasma One. It is positioned by the official statement as a 'stablecoin-native neobank', which, put in simple terms, means you complete functions like depositing dollars, card spending, earning interest, and zero-fee transfers all in one app, traditionally scattered across bank accounts, payment cards, CEXs, and on-chain protocols. According to the official page and various media reports, Plasma One offers a very aggressive combination: an annualized return of over 10% on stablecoin balances, up to 4% cashback on card spending, and virtual/physical cards usable in over 150 countries with 150 million+ merchants, with all accounting and settlement done in USDT.
From the perspective of 'Azu getting hands-on', let me share some feelings. Recently, I worked with a friend doing remote development in Southeast Asia to try it out: I exchanged part of my funds for USDT through a CEX, withdrew it directly to Plasma, and then transferred it to him on-chain. The traditional approach would either require him to provide a CEX account, incurring fees on both sides and waiting for deposits and withdrawals, or going through a bank SWIFT, which I wouldn’t want to view the fees and arrival times for. On Plasma, the rhythm of this chain is very simple: I one-click withdraw USDT to the chain, and after the other party receives the coins, they can use zero-fee transfers to continue splitting it with their wife, suppliers, or store it in Plasma One to earn interest—there are no intermediate steps like 'buying gas' or 'converting to local currency', and one can noticeably feel that the account confirmation speed is very fast, with records appearing on the chain browser after just a refresh. The essential change in this experience is: cross-border income and expenditure have shifted from 'an occasional big deal' to 'a small action done casually like sending a message.'
Take a step further. If you shift your perspective from individual to merchant, the rules of Plasma become even more interesting. Many small shops in Latin America and Southeast Asia are already accustomed to receiving USDT, but they usually either scan a wallet QR code from an exchange or rely on local OTC wallets. Once they need to convert back to fiat or settle, they have to take a detour. What Plasma aims to do is allow merchants to directly receive USDT at an address bound to Plasma One, earning on-chain yields while being able to pay for goods or withdraw at any time using cards. Media reports mention that Plasma One is building local agents and corridor networks targeting emerging markets, using a peer-to-peer method to transform 'dollar stablecoins' into something comprehensible and usable in the real economy. This is somewhat akin to the traditional clearing institutions + bank joint operation, but the underlying system has transitioned from a closed mainframe to an open public chain.
Of course, as an experienced on-chain player, I won’t just focus on one side of the story. Plasma did indeed deliver an extraordinarily impressive performance during its launch phase: some analysis pointed out that shortly after its launch, the scale of stablecoins on the chain once exceeded several billion dollars, with its TVL ranking and USDT settlement scale squeezing into the global top few, even being described as one of the 'most successful L1 launches in history.' However, entering November, market sentiment began to cool, and the price of XPL has fallen by about eighty percent from its peak, with both TVL and the scale of stablecoins showing a noticeable decline. An analysis article from a trading platform pointed out that this was due to factors including the exit of early liquidity subsidies and the retreat of leveraged funds, as well as the anticipation of large-scale unlocking leading to early cashing out. From a user's perspective, this round of volatility at least released two signals: first, even infrastructure supported by big capital and leading institutions cannot escape cycles and realizations; second, even if the market adjusts, there still remains a considerable scale of stablecoins and applications on-chain, indicating that 'judging the project's life and death solely by price' is inherently unreliable.
When considering both the advantages and risks together, my judgment on Plasma now is: it has proven that the 'stablecoin dedicated chain + neobank frontend' product model has strong demand at least in its early stages. However, how far it can go in the future depends on whether several specific tasks can be accomplished. The first is whether it can continuously make zero-fee USDT transfers and multi-asset payment gas the industry default, which will determine whether developers are willing to host payment dApps on this chain. The second is whether Plasma One's yield and cashback mechanisms can operate long-term within a regulatory framework rather than remaining in the phase of relying on subsidies for new user acquisition. The third is whether its local teams and compliance corridor constructions in emerging markets can truly be implemented; otherwise, all the imaginations of 'inclusive finance' can easily turn into mere presentations.
As Azu, if I were to give friends wanting to try Plasma an 'operating guide', I would suggest you arrange your pace like this. First, only use a small position that you can afford to lose, guided by the official documentation and wallet tutorials, to transfer some USDT to Plasma, and do a few zero-fee transfers yourself to experience the difference from the chains you usually use. Second, if you already have needs for cross-border payments, remote wages, or foreign trade settlements, pay attention to the open progress of Plasma One and see if your country is on the first batch of supported lists, starting with small amounts and short cycles of fund flow, treating it as a supplement to traditional channels rather than a replacement. Third, if you are a DeFi player or developer, you should spend time understanding the sources of on-chain yields, staking and delegation rules, contract risks, and regulatory situations rather than being impulsively driven to jump in by enticing numbers like '10%+ annualized + 4% cashback'. Ultimately, all stories about stablecoin infrastructure must return to a simple question: in the worst-case scenario, do you still have an exit strategy?
Writing this, I reiterate: Plasma is no longer just a 'new public chain code'; it is an attempt to rewrite the infrastructure using dollar stablecoins as the foundation. It features impressive product design and very real volatility and uncertainty. My sharing is merely a perspective from an experienced on-chain player, not investment advice. Any decision should be based on your own research and risk assessment.
