There's a point I want to clarify first: my analysis here is neither to cheer for the project nor to bash it. Regarding the Plasma technical solution, my evaluation is "the direction is right, the rhythm is hard to grasp, and real implementation is even more difficult." From the initial market hype to the gradual pressure of reality, this is actually the most common storyline in the entire crypto industry: concepts first gain popularity, products fill in the gaps, and finally, time and market performance make the final judgment.

Today, I will outline this matter according to the timeline, trying to share some practical observations.

**Why the hype can emerge: it hits the most solid market gap**

Plasma's initial promotional angle was somewhat counterintuitive—it didn't want to become an "all-in-one public chain," but instead focused on one direction: stablecoin payments. This sounds very ordinary, but what is the reality? The most frequent real needs of on-chain users are often not NFTs or gaming contracts, but transferring stablecoins. The user experience of "on-chain hard currencies" like USDT directly determines the success or failure of global payment scenarios. A slight poor experience can cause the entire application to fall apart.

Because Plasma anchors its value proposition on "born to serve stablecoins, instant settlement in seconds, extremely low or near-zero fees, fully EVM compatible," the hype has the simplest reason: it is not competing with all other chains for developers but aims to capture the most fundamental entry point of "US dollar liquidity."

More importantly, by 2025, the entire crypto world has reached a consensus that "stablecoins are the cash flow of the application layer." Whether it's RWA tracks, payment scenarios, compliant ecosystems, or institutional participation, none can avoid the role of stablecoins. Plasma just happens to stand at the right spot of this trend.