Crypto-Master_1

A few months ago I tried sending a small payment across three different chains just to see where liquidity actually felt alive. I wasn’t looking at token prices. I was watching what people were actually using. What struck me was simple and a bit quiet: almost every meaningful transfer involved a stablecoin.
We still talk about Layer 1 competition as if ETH, SOL, or BTC are the center of gravity. But if you look at transaction volume instead of narratives, the texture changes. In 2024, stablecoin transfer volume crossed well over $10 trillion annually. That number matters because it exceeds Visa’s annual payment volume in some years. It tells you something uncomfortable. The dollar, wrapped on-chain, is already functioning as the real settlement layer for crypto activity.
That momentum creates another effect. Stablecoins now represent over $150 billion in circulating supply across USDT, USDC, and others. When that much synthetic dollar liquidity sits on-chain, the chain becomes less important than the dollar rail itself. Traders arbitrage in USDT. DeFi pairs settle in USDC. Even meme coin rotations usually route through stables first. Underneath all the noise, the foundation is dollar liquidity.
Understanding that helps explain why some infrastructure decisions feel outdated. Many chains were designed for general-purpose smart contracts first and stablecoins second. Gas tokens capture value through transaction fees. Blockspace becomes scarce. Users pay unpredictable costs just to move dollars around. That design made sense in 2017 when experimentation was the point. It feels less aligned now that stablecoins behave more like payment rails than experimental tokens.
When I first looked at Plasma, what stood out was not a flashy feature. It was the decision to treat stablecoins as the primary unit of economic activity rather than an application on top. That shift is subtle but important. On the surface, Plasma talks about zero-fee transfers and native stablecoin settlement. Underneath, it is rethinking what the base layer is actually for.
Zero fees sound simple, but they are not cosmetic. On most networks, fees serve two roles. They prevent spam and they capture value for validators. If you remove fees for stablecoin transfers, you are not just improving user experience. You are changing the incentive structure. Plasma’s model leans on alternative value capture, such as ecosystem-level incentives and liquidity positioning, rather than taxing every dollar movement. That changes how capital flows.
Meanwhile, stablecoin usage keeps rising in places where local currencies are weak. In 2023 and 2024, countries like Argentina and Turkey saw spikes in USDT trading volume relative to GDP. That context matters. People are not using stablecoins for yield farming. They are using them as digital dollars. When that behavior becomes steady rather than speculative, infrastructure that reduces friction starts to look less like a feature and more like a necessity.
There is also a liquidity map angle that few talk about. On Binance, a large percentage of spot pairs are quoted in USDT. Billions in daily volume route through stablecoin markets. If stablecoin-native chains lower transfer friction between venues, arbitrage tightens spreads. That means liquidity moves faster. Faster liquidity is not just good for traders. It quietly reshapes where capital prefers to sit.
Now layer in the Bitcoin angle. Wrapped Bitcoin products have grown into tens of billions in value across DeFi. That number reveals demand, but it also shows friction. Users want BTC liquidity without Bitcoin’s slower UX. Plasma’s native bridge thesis suggests that instead of forcing Bitcoin into complex wrappers, you design a settlement environment where BTC liquidity can interact with stablecoins more directly. If that holds, it reduces psychological and technical barriers at the same time.
Of course, risks remain. Stablecoins rely on centralized issuers. USDT and USDC depend on reserves held in traditional banks. If regulation tightens or banking partners shift, the foundation could wobble. There is also the question of spam resistance in zero-fee environments. If you remove transaction costs entirely, you must design other filters. That is not trivial.
Critics might argue that Ethereum already dominates stablecoin settlement, processing hundreds of billions monthly despite high fees. That is true. But high fees during congestion reveal something else. When gas spikes to $20 or $50 per transaction, small transfers become irrational. That creates a tiered system where only larger players can move efficiently. Plasma’s bet is that if stablecoins are the base layer, transfers should feel like moving dollars in a banking app, not bidding for blockspace.
Early signs in the market support this shift. Over 70 percent of on-chain transaction count in some periods involves stablecoins. That proportion matters because it shows usage concentration. We are not watching a diverse economy of tokens. We are watching a dollar-centric network with other assets orbiting around it. If that pattern continues, chains optimized for generic programmability may slowly cede ground to chains optimized for dollar throughput.
There is also a psychological shift underway. Traders increasingly evaluate chains by liquidity depth and settlement speed rather than developer count. When stablecoins move instantly and cheaply, that becomes the benchmark. A chain that cannot match that texture feels heavy. Plasma is building for that comparison, not for the old narrative of smart contract expressiveness.
Meanwhile, regulatory tone is softening in parts of the world. In the United States, discussions around stablecoin legislation have become more concrete. In Europe, MiCA frameworks are already active. If regulated stablecoins gain clearer status, their role as settlement assets strengthens. Infrastructure aligned with that reality may find itself in a favorable position.
None of this guarantees Plasma’s dominance. Execution matters. Liquidity bootstrapping is hard. Network effects are earned, not declared. But the framing feels directionally correct. If stablecoins are the steady layer underneath trading, payments, and even speculative cycles, then designing a chain around that assumption makes strategic sense.
Zoom out further and a pattern emerges. Crypto began as an experiment in decentralized money. Over time, it has quietly become an experiment in digital dollars. The asset that moves most is not ETH or BTC. It is USDT. That fact alone should reshape how we think about base layers.
If stablecoins are becoming the real base layer, then the chains that treat them as the foundation rather than the application are aligning with where activity already lives. The old model built chains for tokens and let dollars adapt. The new model builds chains for dollars and lets everything else orbit around them.
And if this trend continues, the chains that win may not be the ones with the loudest ecosystems, but the ones that quietly make moving a dollar feel like nothing at all.
#Plasma #plasma $XPL @Plasma

The first time I heard someone say “AI needs memory on-chain,” I almost dismissed it as another narrative wave. We have heard about faster chains, cheaper fees, smarter contracts. Memory sounded abstract. But the more I looked at VanarChain, the more I realized this is not about storage in the usual sense. It is about giving AI a place to remember in a way that can be verified.
Most AI today has short-term recall. A chatbot remembers your last few messages, maybe a session, then it forgets. Underneath that convenience is a problem. If AI is going to manage assets, automate payments, or execute agreements, it cannot rely on memory that disappears or sits in a private database. It needs a steady foundation. That is where VanarChain is positioning itself, not as just another Layer 1, but as infrastructure where intelligence keeps context.
On the surface, VanarChain looks familiar. It runs as an EVM-compatible chain. Transactions settle like any other network. Fees are paid in VANRY. But underneath, there is a focus on persistent memory layers like myNeutron, which is designed to store semantic context rather than just raw bytes. In plain terms, that means instead of saving only data, the chain can anchor meaning and relationships. If an AI agent interacts with a wallet, signs a contract, or executes a flow, that context can be written in a way that is traceable.
That detail matters more than it sounds. As of January 2026, the AI sector’s token market cap is hovering around 35 to 40 billion dollars, depending on the day, and volatility remains high. Meanwhile, on-chain AI agent transactions across multiple networks have crossed into the millions monthly. The surface growth looks impressive, but most of those agents still depend on off-chain memory. They act on-chain, but they think somewhere else. That separation creates risk.
VanarChain is betting that this gap becomes crypto’s next battleground. Not speed. Not throughput alone. Memory.
Understanding that helps explain why their recent push into cross-chain availability, starting with Base, is significant. Base currently processes hundreds of thousands of daily transactions, with active addresses frequently exceeding 300,000 per day during peak cycles. If Vanar’s memory layer can integrate into that environment, it is no longer a niche experiment. It becomes embedded where liquidity and users already exist.
When I first looked at Vanar’s Flows system, what struck me was how ordinary it felt. You define conditions, connect triggers, automate outcomes. It sounds like Zapier for blockchain. But underneath, it ties into Kayon, their reasoning engine, which aims to make AI decisions explainable. That is not a small detail. In finance, explainability is not a luxury. If an AI liquidates a position or reallocates funds, users will ask why.
On the surface, you see an automated action. Underneath, there is logic stored, memory referenced, reasoning recorded. That layering is subtle but powerful. It enables something new: AI that does not just act, but can show its thinking trail. Early signs suggest that as regulators in the US and Europe look closer at automated financial systems in 2026, this type of transparency may become less optional and more expected.
Of course, there are counterarguments. Some developers argue that memory should stay off-chain because it is cheaper and faster. Storing data on-chain has always been expensive. Even with optimized designs, every byte has cost. That remains true. If VanarChain scales memory-heavy applications, fee pressure could increase. And if usage does not materialize, the memory narrative could fade like others before it.
But the trade-off is about trust. Off-chain memory is private and mutable. On-chain memory is slower but auditable. If AI is going to handle billions in value, which environment feels steadier? We already see institutions testing tokenized real-world assets that require audit trails stretching years, not days. A chain that anchors both transactions and contextual memory starts to look less like an experiment and more like infrastructure.
Meanwhile, VANRY’s market behavior reflects this tension. Over the past year, it has seen cycles of accumulation during AI narrative spikes and pullbacks during broader market corrections. In early 2026, daily trading volumes have frequently ranged in the tens of millions of dollars. That liquidity tells you there is attention, but attention alone is not durability. The real test is whether developers build sustained applications on top of this memory layer.
That momentum creates another effect. If one network proves that AI memory anchored on-chain reduces fraud, improves automation reliability, or simplifies compliance, other chains will respond. We have seen this pattern before. When DeFi protocols proved that automated market makers could replace order books for certain use cases, the design spread. When rollups showed that scaling through Layer 2 could work, the ecosystem followed.
Memory may follow the same path. Quiet at first. Underestimated. Then standard.
There is also a deeper shift happening underneath crypto markets right now. The conversation is moving from infrastructure as speed to infrastructure as intelligence. In 2021, the race was about transactions per second. In 2023 and 2024, it was about modular design and rollups. In 2026, as AI agents start to execute trades, rebalance portfolios, and manage DAO treasuries, the question becomes different. Where does the intelligence live, and who can verify it?
VanarChain is not the only project exploring this space, but it is one of the few making memory a central theme rather than a side feature. That focus gives it texture. It feels earned rather than reactive. If this holds, it could redefine how we think about smart contracts. They may evolve from static rule sets to dynamic agents with long-term context.
Still, uncertainty remains. Developer adoption is uneven. Competing AI chains are emerging. Broader market cycles can drown out nuanced infrastructure stories. And users may not immediately care where AI memory sits as long as apps feel smooth.
But history suggests that what feels invisible at first often becomes foundational. DNS was invisible. Cloud storage was invisible. Even blockspace itself was invisible until fees spiked.
Memory is like that. Quiet. Underneath. Holding everything together.
If AI is going to manage capital at scale, the network that controls not just execution but remembered context may quietly control the future of crypto.
#Vanar #vanar $VANRY @Vanar

I used to think stablecoins were just passengers on blockchains. Useful, yes, but secondary. Then I started looking more closely at Plasma, and what struck me wasn’t what it adds to crypto. It’s what it quietly removes.
Most chains treat the dollar like an imported guest. USDT or USDC arrive from elsewhere, pay gas in another token, and live inside an economy that isn’t really designed for them. Plasma flips that assumption. It builds around the dollar itself, particularly USD₮, and asks a different question: what if the stablecoin isn’t the application, but the foundation?
Right now, stablecoins are not small. As of early 2026, the combined market cap of stablecoins is hovering around 150 billion dollars, with Tether alone accounting for more than 90 billion. That number matters because it tells us where liquidity actually sits. Traders park in stablecoins during volatility. Exchanges settle in them. DeFi TVL often rises and falls with stablecoin flows. They are already the base layer of crypto behavior, even if the infrastructure hasn’t fully admitted it.
Plasma seems to have admitted it.
On the surface, it looks simple. Zero-fee USD₮ transfers. An EVM execution layer so developers can deploy familiar Solidity contracts. A native Bitcoin bridge to pull BTC liquidity into the same environment. If you glance quickly, it feels like just another L1 with a niche.
Underneath, though, the assumptions are different. Zero-fee USD₮ transfers are not just a cost reduction. They change user behavior. When moving a dollar costs nothing, people move dollars more often. That affects velocity. It affects arbitrage spreads. It affects how quickly capital rotates between pools. Early signs from Plasma’s documentation and updates suggest they are optimizing blockspace specifically for stablecoin settlement rather than speculative gas bidding.
Translate that into plain language and it means this: instead of designing a city and then figuring out where the banks go, Plasma is designing a banking district first and letting the city grow around it.
That design choice creates a different texture. On Ethereum, gas prices fluctuate because demand for blockspace is competitive and denominated in ETH. On Plasma, if USD₮ transfers are structurally free and prioritized, the economic center shifts. The stablecoin becomes the steady unit of account for everyday movement, while the network token plays a supporting role rather than acting as the primary toll booth.
Understanding that helps explain why the idea of a “dollar chain” isn’t marketing fluff. It’s an architectural stance.
There’s also the Bitcoin bridge. As of early 2026, Bitcoin’s market cap remains above 1 trillion dollars, but most of that capital is idle. BTCFi has tried to unlock it through wrapped tokens and sidechains, yet liquidity fragmentation remains a problem. Plasma’s native bridge is trying to reduce the friction between BTC and stablecoin-native DeFi. On the surface, it lets Bitcoin holders access EVM apps without jumping through five layers of wrapping. Underneath, it’s about concentrating dollar and Bitcoin liquidity in the same settlement environment.
That concentration matters. When stablecoin liquidity and Bitcoin liquidity coexist in a system optimized for dollar transfers, new patterns emerge. Lending markets denominated entirely in USD₮ become more predictable. Payment rails feel closer to traditional finance. For traders who think in dollars, not in volatile tokens, that psychological shift is significant.
Still, the obvious counterargument is hard to ignore. If everything revolves around USD₮, doesn’t that increase reliance on a centralized issuer? Tether remains a company with banking relationships and regulatory exposure. A dollar chain is only as stable as the dollar token inside it. That risk does not disappear just because fees are zero.
But risk exists everywhere in crypto. Ethereum depends on ETH economics. Solana depends on its validator set and uptime. Plasma depends on stablecoin credibility. The difference is that Plasma is explicit about its dependency. It is not pretending the dollar is just another asset. It is building as if dollar liquidity is the anchor of the entire system.
Meanwhile, the broader market context makes this timing interesting. In recent months, volatility has returned to Bitcoin and altcoins, while stablecoin dominance has ticked upward during sell-offs. That pattern reveals something subtle. When traders feel uncertain, they retreat to dollars, not governance tokens. If that behavior persists, chains optimized for stablecoin settlement could capture more consistent activity than chains built around speculative gas economies.
There is also a cultural layer to this. DeFi fatigue is real. After the yield farming cycles of 2020 and the collapse waves of 2022, many participants now prefer steady returns and predictable costs. A chain that minimizes friction around the most used digital dollar aligns with that mood. It feels less like chasing upside and more like building plumbing.
When I first looked at Plasma, I wondered if it was too narrow. Designing around USD₮ seemed almost limiting. But the more I thought about it, the more it felt like focusing on the actual center of gravity. Stablecoins are already the default trading pair on major exchanges. They are the parking lot for capital. They are the bridge between crypto and real-world value. If that remains true, a dollar chain is not a niche. It is a logical next step.
Of course, execution remains to be seen. Zero-fee models must be subsidized or balanced elsewhere. Validator incentives need to hold up under stress. If usage spikes dramatically, can the economics sustain it without reintroducing hidden costs? Those are open questions. Early infrastructure often looks elegant before scale tests it.
Yet something about this approach feels steady. Instead of trying to outcompete every L1 on TPS headlines or meme coin velocity, Plasma is leaning into settlement as its identity. It is betting that in a market flooded with experimental assets, the most powerful anchor is still the dollar.
That momentum creates another effect. If developers start building applications that assume frictionless dollar transfers as a baseline, design choices shift. Microtransactions become viable. On-chain payroll denominated in USD₮ feels natural. Cross-border remittances avoid gas anxiety. The chain’s identity becomes less about speculation and more about utility.
We are already seeing the outlines of a pattern in crypto. The early era was about programmable money. The middle era was about speculative tokens and liquidity mining. The current phase seems to be about infrastructure that quietly supports real flows of value. Plasma fits that pattern. It is not loud. It is not chasing novelty. It is asking what the base currency of crypto already is and building from there.
If this holds, the idea of a dollar chain will not feel unusual in a few years. It will feel obvious.
And maybe that’s the point. The chains that matter most in the next phase might not be the ones shouting about new primitives. They might be the ones that quietly accept where liquidity already lives and build the foundation underneath it.
#Plasma #plasma $XPL @Plasma

When I first started paying attention to AI showing up on-chain, what unsettled me wasn’t the speed or the demos. It was the quiet realization that these systems were no longer just tools. They were beginning to act. And once something can act, the question isn’t how impressive the stage looks, it’s who wrote the rules.

That’s where VanarChain started to feel different to me. Not louder. Not flashier. Just more deliberate. Most networks courting AI energy right now and they are obsessed with performance theater. Faster inference. Bigger models. Higher throughput. But underneath that noise, Vanar seems focused on something less glamorous and more durable: governance, memory, and constraint.

The timing matters. In early 2026, on-chain AI activity is no longer theoretical. Autonomous trading bots now account for an estimated 12 to 18 percent of DeFi volume depending on the week, based on aggregated DEX analytics. That number isn’t impressive because it’s big. It’s impressive because it keeps recurring. These agents don’t sleep, don’t panic, and don’t forget.
They act based on prior state. And that persistence creates a new kind of risk.

On the surface, most chains treat AI agents like very fast users. They submit transactions. They trigger contracts. They pay gas. Underneath, though, those agents are carrying context across time. They remember past outcomes. They adapt strategies. That memory layer exists mostly off-chain today, tucked into private databases or opaque services. Which means when something goes wrong, the chain can see the action but not the reasoning.

Understanding that helps explain why Vanar leans so heavily into structured flows and persistent state. Instead of asking how to execute faster, it asks how decisions are formed, recorded, and constrained. A flow, in simple terms, is a mapped sequence of logic that defines what an agent can do, when it can do it, and under which conditions it must stop or explain itself. On the surface, it looks like orchestration. Underneath, it’s accountability encoded as infrastructure.

This distinction matters more than it sounds. In January 2026 alone, three high-profile DeFi incidents involved AI-driven strategies that behaved exactly as coded but produced outcomes no one wanted. In one case, an autonomous liquidity manager amplified volatility during a low-liquidity window, extracting value but destabilizing the pool. The chain executed flawlessly. The intent was nowhere to be found.

Vanar’s approach suggests a different assumption. That if AI is going to act on-chain, its decision space needs boundaries that are visible and enforceable. Not just permissions, but memory. Not just execution, but traceability. When an agent makes a move, the question shouldn’t only be whether it was valid. It should be whether it was expected, justified, and reversible.

Of course, this creates friction. Encoding rules slows things down. Early benchmarks from Vanar’s public testing show transaction finality that’s steady rather than explosive, with throughput sitting comfortably below the headline numbers chains love to advertise. But context matters. Those numbers reflect flows that carry metadata, checkpoints, and decision logs. You’re not just moving tokens. You’re moving responsibility.

There’s a counterargument worth taking seriously. Some builders argue that constraints kill innovation. That AI systems learn best when unconstrained, adapting freely to environments. That writing rulebooks too early risks freezing the future. I get that instinct. It mirrors early debates around financial regulation. But what’s different here is speed. AI agents iterate orders of magnitude faster than humans. Without guardrails, mistakes don’t stay small.

Meanwhile, the market is quietly signaling what it values. Despite the broader altcoin rotation in February 2026, infrastructure tokens tied to compliance, auditability, and control have shown steadier drawdowns than pure speculation plays. It’s not a bull signal. It’s a trust signal. Capital tends to linger where uncertainty is at least legible.

That momentum creates another effect. Once rules are explicit, coordination becomes possible. Multiple agents can operate within shared constraints without tripping over each other. Think less swarm, more traffic system. Not because it’s elegant, but because it reduces catastrophic edge cases. Vanar’s flows start to look less like developer tools and more like civic infrastructure for machines.

What struck me while digging deeper is how unambitious this sounds on the surface. No promises of dominance. No claims of replacing everything. Just a steady insistence that agency without accountability doesn’t scale. That’s a hard sell in a market addicted to spectacle. But it’s also how durable systems tend to be built.

There are risks here too. Encoding rules assumes we know which behaviors matter. We don’t. Early rulebooks often miss edge cases or bake in biases. And if governance around those rules ossifies, adaptation slows. Vanar’s challenge will be keeping its foundations firm without making them brittle. Early signs suggest this is an active concern rather than an afterthought, but it remains to be seen how it plays out under stress.

Zooming out, this fits a broader pattern. As AI systems move from assisting humans to acting alongside them, infrastructure is shifting from enabling possibility to enforcing responsibility.
The same way financial rails evolved from speed to settlement guarantees, AI rails are beginning to value memory, audit, and restraint. Not because it’s idealistic, but because the cost of failure compounds faster now.

If this holds, the next wave of on-chain innovation won’t be defined by who can make AI act first. It will be defined by who can make it answer for what it does.

And that’s the part that sticks with me. In a space obsessed with stages, Vanar is spending its energy on the rulebook. Quietly. Underneath everything else. Because once the actors arrive, it’s already too late to start writing the rules.
#Vanar #vanar $VANRY @Square-Creator-a16f92087a9c

When I first looked at Plasma, what stood out wasn’t speed, throughput, or some shiny metric people usually lead with. It was how little it seemed to care whether I understood what was happening underneath. And that sounds like criticism until you realize it’s probably the point.
For years, crypto has quietly trained users to become part-time infrastructure managers. You don’t just send money. You choose a network, worry about gas, time your transaction, bridge assets, track confirmations, and hope nothing breaks along the way. We normalized that friction because early adopters were willing to tolerate it. But the market has changed. Stablecoins now move more than $10 trillion annually across blockchains, a figure that matters because it’s already larger than many traditional payment rails. Most of that volume isn’t coming from people who care about block times. It’s coming from people who just want the transfer to work.
That shift helps explain why Plasma feels different in texture. Plasma is not trying to educate users into becoming better crypto participants. It’s designing around the assumption that users are done learning. The surface experience reflects that. Zero-fee USD transfers, gas sponsorship, stablecoin-native contracts. On the outside, it looks boring. Underneath, it’s a deliberate rejection of how most chains frame their relationship with users.
Take the zero-fee model. On the surface, it reads like a marketing hook. Underneath, it changes who bears complexity. Instead of pushing cost management onto users, Plasma pushes it into the system itself. Fees still exist. Infrastructure still needs to be paid for. But those costs are abstracted away and handled through paymaster-style mechanics and application-level sponsorship. What that enables is not cheaper transactions, but predictable ones. If this holds, predictability becomes the real product.
That predictability matters because stablecoin users behave differently from speculative traders. A trader might tolerate a $7 fee if the upside is there. Someone sending $120 to family or paying a supplier won’t. Right now, stablecoins account for roughly 70 percent of on-chain transaction volume during low-volatility periods, according to multiple market trackers. That number is revealing because it shows where actual usage settles when speculation cools. Plasma is designing directly for that baseline.
Meanwhile, the choice to anchor trust back to Bitcoin settlement is another signal. On the surface, a Bitcoin bridge sounds like a technical feature. Underneath, it’s about borrowing credibility. Bitcoin settles around $30 billion per day on average, depending on market conditions. That scale matters not because Plasma needs that volume, but because it ties its security assumptions to something users already trust without needing to understand why. It’s an earned foundation rather than a promised one.
Understanding that helps explain Plasma’s EVM strategy too. Developers get familiar tools. Users never have to know what EVM means. The chain behaves in a way people expect money to behave. Transactions clear. Balances update. Nothing dramatic happens. In crypto terms, that’s unusual. Most chains want you to feel the machinery. Plasma seems to want the opposite.
There’s an obvious counterargument here. Abstracting complexity can hide risk. If users don’t see fees, do they understand tradeoffs? If gas is sponsored, who controls access? Those questions are valid. Abstraction always shifts power somewhere else. Early signs suggest Plasma is betting that centralized-feeling UX can coexist with decentralized settlement, but that balance remains to be tested under stress.
Market timing adds another layer. As of early 2026, stablecoin market cap sits just above $140 billion. That number matters because it has grown even during periods when altcoin volumes collapsed. While attention cycles rotate, stablecoin usage compounds quietly. Plasma’s design seems aligned with that slow growth rather than the fast narrative spikes that dominate social feeds.
What struck me is how little Plasma asks from the user emotionally. No loyalty. No ideology. Just use it if it works. That restraint is rare in crypto, where projects often demand belief before they earn trust. Plasma flips that order. Trust is built through repetition, not persuasion.
If this approach spreads, it hints at a broader pattern. Crypto infrastructure may be entering a phase where invisibility becomes the competitive edge. Not hiding risks, but hiding ceremony. The chains that matter might be the ones people forget they’re using.
The sharpest realization is this. Plasma isn’t designing for the next crypto user. It’s designing for the moment crypto stops being a thing people notice at all.
#Plasma #plasma $XPL @Plasma

A new chapter has been written in Japan's politics, which has galvanized investor enthusiasm globally. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's recent "supermajority" has not only stirred the Japanese stock market but also safe havens like Gold and Bitcoin. Japan's famous index Nikkei 225 has crossed the level of 57,000 for the first time, marking a record in the country's history.

About 10 years ago, James Howells accidentally threw away a hard drive during a cleanup. He had forgotten that it contained his Bitcoins.

Now that the value of his Bitcoins is approximately 18 million 40 thousand US dollars, he intends to spend millions on excavating the landfill in Newport, UK, in an effort to find the missing hard drive.