When the market is volatile, an interesting phenomenon often occurs: projects that once seemed very popular start to falter, while some less hyped projects continue to thrive. This doesn't necessarily mean they are about to take off, but at least it indicates that—holders haven't completely abandoned their positions.

Take the Plasma project as an example; its performance is quite worth pondering. It didn't choose to aggressively generate buzz at the peak of the hype, but instead took a steady approach. This strategy might seem less aggressive in the early stages of a bull market, but during this oscillating period, it actually helps to mitigate systemic collapse risks.

By examining the details of $XPL's price movements, you can spot the clues. During its pullbacks, there was no panic-driven plunge, and trading volume didn't suddenly dry up. Such conditions usually imply a relatively stable participant structure, not dominated solely by short-term speculative funds. When the market turns positive, this kind of structure makes it easier to sustain the trend.

Interestingly, community discussions about Plasma rarely revolve around price fluctuations; instead, they focus on how to position the project and the next steps. Looking at the entire market, such a discussion atmosphere is uncommon, which in some ways indicates that many people are optimistic about its long-term prospects.

In this phase full of uncertainties, the logic for choosing projects needs to change. Don't just think about "Will it go up?" but more importantly, "Will it survive?" No one can say for sure if Plasma will ultimately be a winner, but based on its current stable performance, it’s at least worth paying continuous attention to.