When on-chain funds are frequently moved, the user experience directly translates into real money costs. These costs can vary widely—setting aside transaction fees, whether to pay for priority during congestion, worrying about bridge risks when cross-chain transferring, or taking extra steps during deposits and withdrawals—these seemingly trivial frictions add up to a significant burden. I didn’t pay much attention at first, but later I realized that small issues stacking up can become major problems, especially for users with small fund sizes. The interaction costs can be alarmingly high, and sometimes a single mistake can wipe out a week's worth of gains.

Plasma has chosen a different path—positioning itself in the stablecoin payment space and treating friction as its sworn enemy. It’s not a public chain aiming to cover all scenarios at once; instead, it focuses on one thing: making stablecoins the primary asset and creating transfer experiences that are close to everyday payments. For ordinary users, this isn’t a grand vision but a daily necessity—can they quickly and cheaply move USDT to where they want, can they settle transactions conveniently, and can they make fund flows predictable? Whether these issues can truly be solved determines if I will actually use it or just casually mention it when prices rise.

To gauge a chain’s strength, I usually look at three dimensions. First, the amount of on-chain capital; second, the activity level of fund circulation on the chain; third, who bears the costs and benefits of this system. Recently, the stablecoin market cap on Plasma is about $1.94 billion, with a decline of approximately 5.78% over the past week. Among them, USDT accounts for about 82.53%, making it the dominant player. The layer-1 24-hour transaction fees are around $256, and layer-1 revenue is roughly in the same range. What’s even more worth paying attention to is the data performance at the application layer…