Crypto NexusX

When I think about most blockchains, I picture a glass storefront: bright lights, everything visible, nothing hidden. That kind of transparency is perfect for open markets and public experimentation. But regulated finance does not work like that. In real financial systems, you are expected to prove what happened, but you are not expected to broadcast every position, strategy, counterparty, and workflow to the entire world.

That is where Dusk feels different. It is not trying to be a mystery box chain where nothing can be verified, and it is not trying to be a fully public ledger where every move becomes permanent public data. It is aiming for something more realistic: selective privacy with accountability. The simple idea is this: reveal what is necessary to the right party at the right time, and keep the rest from becoming public exhaust that competitors and attackers can harvest.

The way Dusk approaches that goal is not mainly through slogans. It is built into the structure. Dusk describes its network as modular, with a base settlement layer and an execution layer that can support familiar smart contract development. Their own framing explains a foundation that focuses on consensus, data availability, and settlement, with DuskEVM sitting above it to support Solidity style building without making teams abandon existing tools. That separation matters because regulated finance is allergic to systems where the rules of settlement shift every time an app upgrades. If settlement is the spine, you want it stable. Then you let apps evolve on top.

What also stands out is how Dusk treats the token and staking mechanics like operational infrastructure, not just a community feature. Their tokenomics documentation is unusually direct: an initial supply of 500 million DUSK, another 500 million emitted over 36 years with a decaying schedule, and a max supply of 1 billion. Fees use LUX as a subunit, where 1 LUX equals 10 to the minus 9 DUSK. These are the kinds of details institutions actually care about because they translate into predictable budgeting and risk models.

Staking is also described in practical terms. The docs mention a minimum stake of 1000 DUSK and explain stake maturity as 4320 blocks, which their staking guide translates to roughly 12 hours assuming about 10 second blocks. Whether someone loves or hates staking, the point here is that Dusk is documenting how the system behaves like an operator would document a service, not like a hype thread would.

If you want an honest reality check, you look at live network activity, not just design. On the DuskEVM explorer, the public stats show the chain is producing blocks at around a 2.0 second average block time, with roughly 472 thousand blocks and 472 thousand transactions listed at the time of viewing, and a small wallet address count displayed. I am not going to twist that into a victory speech. It reads like a system that is running and being used, but still early in visible EVM activity. In an institutional context, early and controlled is not always a weakness, but it does raise the bar for what comes next: proving the rails can handle real issuance, trading workflows, reporting requirements, and growth without losing the privacy and auditability balance.

This is where the ecosystem story becomes more meaningful than generic partnership noise. The NPEX track is interesting because it pulls Dusk toward regulated market reality, where compliance and standards are not optional add ons. In late 2025, there was a release describing Dusk and NPEX adopting Chainlink interoperability and data standards in the context of regulated institutional assets on chain. Whether people like press releases or not, the practical takeaway is that standards and interoperability are what turn a chain into infrastructure, because assets need data, identity constraints, and consistent messaging to move safely between systems.

And then there is the unglamorous part that matters most if you are serious about financial infrastructure: incident handling and operational discipline. Dusk published a bridge incident notice describing unusual activity involving a team managed wallet used in bridge operations and stated that bridge services were closed pending review. That is not the fun part of building, but it is the real part. Systems that want to host regulated value have to show they can detect problems, contain them, communicate clearly, and fix processes. No serious institution is evaluating only the sunny day scenario.

So my human take on Dusk is this: it is trying to build a chain that behaves like one way glass. From the outside, the system can be inspected and verified. From the inside, participants are not forced to turn their entire financial life into public data. That is why the modular design matters, why the token and staking rules are written like operational documentation, why standards focused integrations are a serious signal, and why the network metrics and incident response are the parts to watch instead of slogans.

If Dusk succeeds, it probably will not be because it becomes the loudest chain. It will be because it becomes the quiet place where complicated institutions can do simple things reliably: issue, trade, settle, and audit, without leaking everything to the public internet. And if it fails, it likely will not be because the idea is wrong. It will be because the hard part is not the concept of privacy plus auditability, it is the grind of execution, integrations, and real workflows at scale.

#dusk @Dusk $DUSK

Plasma makes me think of that one friend who doesn’t talk a lot at the table but somehow ends up paying the bill, booking the cab, and making sure everyone actually gets home. Not flashy. Just… useful in the exact way real life demands.

Most blockchains feel like they’re built for people who enjoy blockchains. Plasma feels like it’s built for people who just want money to move without drama. And stablecoins are the closest thing crypto has to “money that normal humans already understand.” Dollars-on-chain aren’t a theory anymore they’re a habit. So Plasma’s core idea is simple: if stablecoins are the daily habit, then the base layer should treat them like the main event, not an add-on.

The biggest “human” problem with stablecoins isn’t speed. It’s the awkward little moment you’ve probably seen a hundred times: someone has USDT, they want to send USDT… and then you tell them they need another token to pay gas first. That’s not a technical issue, it’s a trust issue. It makes the whole experience feel like a trick. Plasma tries to remove that moment by sponsoring gas for direct USD₮ transfers (through a relayer/paymaster setup), and it doesn’t pretend this is magic—it describes controls meant to keep the “free lane” from turning into a spam magnet. That detail matters. Free systems that don’t anticipate abuse usually don’t survive the first real wave of users.

What I like about that choice is how opinionated it is. Plasma isn’t saying “everything is free forever.” It’s saying: “the one action that should feel frictionless is sending stablecoins.” That’s a very “payments brain” way to design. You subsidize the behavior you want to become normal, and you don’t subsidize the rest unless you can defend it.

Underneath that, Plasma’s tech choices are basically trying to make payments feel emotionally safe. Sub-second finality isn’t just a performance flex—it’s a psychological one. When you’re settling real value, people don’t want “probably final.” They want “done.” Plasma describes PlasmaBFT as a Fast HotStuff–style approach meant to keep finality quick and predictable. Again, the vibe isn’t “look at our fancy consensus,” it’s “reduce the time a user is staring at the screen wondering if their money vanished.”

Then there’s the “keep it familiar” layer: EVM compatibility. If Plasma wants stablecoin settlement to spread, it can’t demand that builders reinvent their whole toolkit. Plasma’s docs position it as an EVM chain, with standard workflows carrying over. That’s not exciting, but it’s the kind of boring that makes adoption possible—like using the same plug shape so appliances actually work in your house.

Now here’s where I get more grounded: I always look at what a chain is doing, not just what it says. On Plasmascan, the network stats show a lot of real motion already—around 148M total transactions and about 3.49M total addresses in the charts view snapshot, with block time shown around ~1 second. “Live” doesn’t mean “dominant,” but it does mean the chain isn’t just a diagram in a deck. It’s running, producing blocks, and accumulating history.

And the project’s own network configuration pages also read like someone is thinking operationally: it’s labeled “Mainnet Beta,” Chain ID 9745 is provided, and the public RPC is clearly described as rate-limited—basically nudging serious teams toward proper infra partners instead of pretending the free endpoint should carry production traffic. That’s a very “grown-up payments” signal: don’t let the cheapest path become the default failure point.

The token story is where Plasma’s personality shows up in a different way. If stablecoin sends can be gasless, then the chain can’t rely on “everyone needs the gas token just to breathe” as its economic backbone. Plasma’s tokenomics docs outline a 10B total supply and a distribution that reserves large chunks for ecosystem and strategic growth, along with an immediate unlock tranche at mainnet beta intended for incentives, liquidity, and integrations. That reads like a chain that understands adoption is purchased with effort and partnership, not just memes.

External technical reviewers echo the utility angle too. In an Aave governance technical evaluation, Plasma is described as using XPL for gas and for participation in consensus/governance. That’s important because it suggests XPL is meant to matter for security and coordination—not only for charging tolls on simple transfers.

If you zoom out, Plasma also seems to be positioning itself for the part of stablecoin adoption that people don’t tweet about: compliance and institutional settlement workflows. That’s why I pay attention when mainstream compliance tooling supports a chain. Chainalysis announced automatic token support for Plasma, explicitly framing it around stablecoin settlement performance and usage. That’s the kind of thing that matters when a payment provider asks, “Can we monitor this? Can we investigate this? Can we satisfy our risk team?”

The Bitcoin-anchoring security idea fits into that same “rail mindset.” I don’t read it as a performance claim. I read it as a neutrality claim. In payments, neutrality is a product feature: people want confidence that the rules won’t quietly change when it becomes inconvenient for someone powerful. Using Bitcoin as part of the security narrative is Plasma’s way of borrowing credibility from the most widely recognized “hard to rewrite” base layer in crypto. But it’s also where complexity lives—bridges and anchoring mechanisms are never simple forever, and the real test is how transparently and reliably they operate as usage grows. Plasma’s own materials suggest a phased rollout of features around the mainnet beta, which is at least honest about maturity.

So if I had to say what Plasma feels like in plain language: it’s trying to turn stablecoin transfers into something you don’t think about. Like tapping a card. Like sending a text. The chain becomes background infrastructure.

And that’s a risky ambition, because background infrastructure doesn’t get credit. People only notice it when it fails. If Plasma gets the basics right—fast finality that actually feels final, “free” flows that don’t get abused, compliance coverage that reduces institutional friction, and a token model that still makes sense even when the simplest transfer isn’t paying fees—then Plasma doesn’t need to be loud. It just needs to become the place stablecoins naturally settle when nobody wants extra steps.

That’s the kind of project that won’t look exciting day to day. It’ll just quietly show up everywhere, until one day you realize you’re using it without thinking exactly like a real payment rail.
@Plasma #Plasma $XPL
#plasma

When I look at most Layer 1 blockchains, they start to blur together. Faster blocks, lower fees, bigger promises. It often feels like watching different brands sell the same car with slightly different paint. What made me pause with Vanar is that it is not only talking about performance. It is talking about behavior. About how people actually use digital products in real life.

Most blockchain systems are built like financial engines. They are great at moving value from one wallet to another, but they are not designed around everyday digital habits. Tapping, playing, collecting, updating profiles, interacting with apps dozens of times a day. Vanar seems to be designed with those small, frequent actions in mind. The kind of activity you see in games, entertainment platforms, and social apps, where people expect things to just work without thinking about wallets, gas, or confirmations.

That background in gaming and entertainment is not just a branding angle. It shapes the type of network behavior Vanar is aiming for. Environments like Virtua Metaverse and VGN games network are not slow, careful financial spaces. They are fast moving digital worlds where users click constantly, trade items, earn rewards, and expect smooth experiences. If a blockchain can support that kind of activity at scale, it is practicing for a future where mainstream apps quietly use blockchain in the background.

Looking at the onchain numbers gives at least some signal that there is real movement. The Vanar explorer shows activity in the range of hundreds of millions of transactions and tens of millions of wallet addresses. Those figures alone do not prove deep adoption, but they do show the network is not sitting empty. There is enough usage to suggest that applications are actually interacting with the chain, not just existing as whitepapers. The real question over time will be what kind of activity is driving those numbers and whether it continues without heavy incentives.

Then there is the token side, which is where things get practical very quickly. On Etherscan, VANRY appears as an ERC 20 token with billions in total supply and thousands of holders. Data sites like CoinMarketCap sometimes show slightly different circulating or maximum supply figures depending on how they calculate and update their data. That difference is common in crypto, but it is a good reminder that token metrics should always be double checked rather than taken at face value.

What makes VANRY interesting is that it lives in two worlds at once. On Ethereum, it benefits from liquidity, visibility, and familiar infrastructure. On Vanar itself, it is positioned as the native currency that helps power activity on the network. That means its long term value is tied not only to market trading but also to how much real usage happens on Vanar. If applications grow and users keep interacting onchain, the token has a clearer role. If activity fades, the token story becomes much harder to justify.

Vanar’s staking and validator structure also says something about its priorities. The network uses a delegated proof of stake style approach with a more curated validator set. That can help with reliability and performance, especially for consumer focused applications where downtime or instability can push users away fast. At the same time, it means the decentralization model is more managed than completely open. It is a tradeoff between control and resilience, and it shows that Vanar is leaning toward stability for real world style applications rather than pure ideological decentralization from day one.

What I find most interesting is the bigger bet underneath all of this. Vanar is not just trying to be a place where transactions happen. It is trying to be a place where applications can store richer data, run more complex logic, and support experiences that feel closer to modern software than early crypto tools. If that works, users may end up interacting with blockchain powered apps without even realizing it, the same way people use cloud services every day without thinking about servers.

In the end, Vanar’s future will not be decided by how bold its slogans sound. It will be decided by whether real people keep using applications built on it when the excitement fades and incentives cool down. If the network can quietly handle millions of small, meaningful interactions without friction, then it will have achieved something many blockchains talk about but few deliver.
#vanar @Vanarchain $VANRY

I’ll be honest: most “real-world adoption” claims in crypto start to sound the same after a while. Everyone says they’re building for the future, but the future always seems to require one more wallet popup, one more bridge, one more confusing step.

What feels different to me about Vanar is that the focus isn’t on making people care about the blockchain it’s on making sure they don’t have to.

The easiest way I can describe it is this: Vanar feels less like it’s building a flashy new ride, and more like it’s building the systems that make the whole amusement park run smoothly. Ticketing, power, logistics, security the invisible stuff. When that part works, nobody talks about it. They just enjoy the experience.

That mindset shows up in how Vanar presents itself. It doesn’t just talk about being an L1 chain; it talks about being a full stack meant to support real consumer-facing experiences gaming, entertainment, brand activations, and digital environments where people already spend time. The chain is there to support those worlds, not to be the main character.

One of the more interesting technical ideas in their stack is something called Neutron. Strip away the branding, and the pitch is pretty practical: making large data lighter and more usable onchain. Vanar claims Neutron can compress 25MB of data down to 50KB using what they call “Neutron Seeds.” If you’ve ever dealt with media-heavy apps game assets, rich collectibles, branded digital items you know how fast “onchain” becomes “we’ll just store it somewhere else.” The Neutron approach is basically saying: what if we didn’t have to push all that important context off-chain just to make things work?

But stories are cheap, so I look at the boring numbers. Vanar’s mainnet explorer shows millions of blocks produced and hundreds of millions of transactions processed, along with tens of millions of wallet addresses created. Those aren’t vanity metrics by themselves, but they do suggest this isn’t an empty chain waiting for its first real users. There’s ongoing activity, and that’s table stakes for anything claiming real-world relevance.

The token side also feels more like infrastructure than hype. VANRY is positioned mainly as the fuel of the network — paying for transactions and participating in staking under a delegated proof-of-stake model. That’s not glamorous, but it’s exactly what consumer-facing ecosystems need: predictable, usable plumbing behind lots of small actions.

Looking at the Ethereum version of the token gives another angle. The public contract data shows a fixed maximum supply in the low billions, several thousand holders, and steady daily transfer activity. It’s not the kind of explosive churn you see with pure speculation tokens. It looks more like a steady heartbeat which is actually what you want if the goal is to support applications, not just trading.

Where this starts to feel more tangible is through consumer platforms tied to the ecosystem. Virtua, for example, describes its NFT marketplace and digital experiences as being built on Vanar. That matters because onboarding doesn’t happen through technical documentation it happens in places where people are already motivated to participate: games, digital collectibles, branded virtual spaces. If users show up for the experience and the blockchain quietly handles ownership, transactions, and provenance in the background, that’s when “adoption” stops being a buzzword.

There have also been practical ecosystem steps that make life easier for users, like exchange integrations that allow direct deposits and withdrawals on the Vanar network. Those updates might not be exciting to read about, but they reduce friction and friction is what usually kills mainstream curiosity before it turns into real usage.

So my personal read is this: Vanar isn’t trying to win a race for the loudest chain. It’s trying to become the quiet infrastructure under experiences that already make sense to everyday users. Less “look at our blockchain,” more “everything just works.”

Whether that vision pays off won’t be decided by slogans. It’ll show up in whether consumer apps built on the network keep attracting repeat users, whether transaction activity reflects real product usage, and whether the data-heavy promises like Neutron actually translate into smoother, richer experiences without users ever needing to think about what chain they’re on.
#vanar @Vanarchain $VANRY
#Vanar

Most blockchains feel like glass houses: everything visible all the time. That’s great for transparency, but it’s kind of absurd for regulated finance, where confidentiality isn’t a luxury it’s part of how markets stay fair. Traders don’t want their positions broadcast. Institutions can’t have client activity leaking into public view. And yet, the system still needs to be provable when it counts: audits, disputes, compliance checks, reporting.

What Dusk is trying to do (and what makes it interesting to me) is build that “selective visibility” into the base design — private by default, auditable when required. That’s not a slogan that magically solves everything, but it matches how real financial plumbing actually works.

The easiest way I’ve found to explain it is to imagine a building that was designed for regulated activity. There are private rooms, and you don’t get to wander into them just because you’re standing outside. But there’s also a security desk, logs, and controlled access. You can prove what happened without turning the whole building into a fishbowl.

Dusk’s architecture leans into that. The docs describe a modular stack where the base layer (DuskDS) handles settlement/consensus/data availability, and then execution environments sit on top of it. That modularity matters because regulated systems hate being rebuilt. You don’t want to rip up the foundation every time someone wants a new product or workflow. You want a stable floor and flexible rooms.

The EVM part is also telling. DuskEVM is positioned as an EVM-equivalent environment so developers can build with familiar tools. But what caught my eye is the honest tradeoff in the docs: DuskEVM currently inherits a 7-day finalization period from the OP Stack design, with the project aiming for faster finality later. That’s not a “cool feature,” it’s a real constraint. In finance, finality is basically your settlement clock. A week-long settlement window changes risk and how people structure guarantees. So to me, this reads like a deliberate sequence: get compatibility and distribution first, then tighten settlement properties when the stack is ready.

On the token side, I don’t think DUSK is best understood as “the thing you buy and hope goes up.” It behaves more like a combo of a utility meter and a membership bond.

As a meter, it pays for computation via gas. Dusk even uses a smaller unit (LUX) where 1 LUX = 10⁻⁹ DUSK, and the fee math is the standard gas_used × gas_price. As a bond, staking is the credibility deposit for securing the network, with a minimum stake requirement of 1000 DUSK to participate. (docs.dusk.network) That “bond + meter” framing matters in the world Dusk is aiming at, because the expensive part isn’t always retail DeFi spam — it can be verification overhead, compliance controls, and predictable settlement rails.

If I’m trying to judge whether a chain like this is becoming real infrastructure, I pay less attention to partnerships and more attention to boring operational progress. One clear signal is that the node software (Rusk) keeps getting shipped and refined. The Rusk repository shows releases into late January 2026 (for example, v1.4.4 dated 2026-01-30). That’s not glamorous, but it’s the kind of thing that quietly makes networks usable for integrators and operators.

Another practical piece I like is that Dusk documents event-driven integration through its HTTP API and “universal event system” approach — basically acknowledging that external systems need clean, reliable ways to consume chain events, not just read a block explorer. That’s one of those details retail usually ignores, but it’s exactly where institutional adoption often breaks down.

One area where I’d be cautious (and where I think people should be careful in general) is supply and representations. Dusk has had ERC-20 and BEP-20 representations historically, and the docs explicitly mention migration mechanics. (docs.dusk.network) In situations like that, supply figures on trackers can drift or lag. CoinMarketCap currently lists a circulating supply around 496,999,999 DUSK, while CoinGecko lists 500,000,000. (coinmarketcap.com) (coingecko.com) I’m not saying either is “wrong” — I’m saying if you’re doing real research, you don’t want your whole model built on a number you can’t reconcile.

If I had to summarize my current “feel” for Dusk in one sentence, it’s this: it’s less about being the most exciting chain, and more about being the chain that tries to make regulated finance feel normal on-chain private where it should be private, provable where it has to be provable, and built with enough boring integration work that somebody serious could actually use it.
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

Most new blockchains try to feel like new worlds. Plasma feels more like a piece of financial plumbing. Not flashy, not ideological, just built to move digital dollars from point A to point B without drama. The kind of system people only notice when it fails.

That difference in attitude shapes everything about it.

Plasma is not trying to reinvent what smart contracts can do. It is starting from a simpler question. What would a blockchain look like if stablecoin payments were the main event instead of a side effect of DeFi?

One of the clearest answers is how it handles fees. On most chains, sending a stablecoin means first dealing with a separate gas token. You top up ETH or something similar, hope fees are low, and then finally send your dollars. Plasma treats that entire dance as a design bug. For basic USDT transfers, the network uses a relayer system that can sponsor the gas so the sender does not need to hold the native token just to move stablecoins. The sponsored flow is intentionally narrow and focused on simple transfers rather than open ended contract calls, which keeps it closer to a payments feature than a general subsidy. (plasma.to)

That choice says a lot. Plasma is not trying to make everything free. It is trying to make one very specific action feel natural and low friction, the same way sending money inside a banking app does not require you to understand how the bank settles behind the scenes.

There is a second layer to this. Plasma also supports paying gas with approved ERC 20 tokens, including stablecoin like assets, through a protocol level paymaster design. That means apps can keep users operating in dollar terms while still covering network fees in the background. (plasma.to) For consumer and business payment products, that is huge. In traditional payments, the end user rarely thinks about network fees. Merchants, wallets, or processors absorb and manage those costs. Plasma is building that assumption directly into the chain instead of forcing every app to reinvent it.

Speed and finality matter too, but here again the framing is practical rather than flashy. PlasmaBFT, the chain’s consensus design, is built to deliver fast and predictable finality using a BFT style approach derived from Fast HotStuff. (plasma.to) For traders, latency is about opportunity. For payments, latency is about trust. When a transaction confirms quickly and consistently, wallets and merchants can treat it as done with far less hedging in the user experience. That changes how confidently products can be built on top.

Looking at live network data makes this feel less theoretical. Plasmascan shows around 147.90 million total transactions, with recent throughput around a few transactions per second and block times displayed at roughly one second. (plasmascan.to) Those numbers are not about chasing records. They show steady usage on a network that is clearly being used as a settlement layer rather than an experimental playground.

The stablecoin itself sits at the center of this activity. The USDT0 token page on Plasmascan shows a large holder base, around 175 thousand addresses, and a visible on chain market cap estimate in the billion dollar range depending on timing. (plasmascan.to) That tells a story. The chain is not just hosting a stablecoin. The stablecoin is acting like the unit of account that everything else orbits.

Liquidity access is another quiet but important piece. NEAR Protocol has publicly shared that its Intents framework supports USDT0 deposits and withdrawals on Plasma. (x.com) The bigger idea here is that users do not necessarily need to care where liquidity lives as long as the system can route them to it smoothly. For a payments focused chain, that kind of abstraction is critical. A payment rail that is hard to enter or exit will always feel smaller than it is.

On the exchange side, Kraken has announced support for USDT0 funding via the Plasma network. (blog.kraken.com) Exchange support is where theory meets operational reality. It creates a direct bridge between retail usage, treasury management, and larger scale flows. That kind of connectivity is what turns a specialized chain into part of the broader financial circulation.

All of this raises the obvious question about the native token, XPL. Plasma’s tokenomics documentation outlines an initial supply of 10 billion XPL and describes how the token is used for fees and validator incentives. It also notes that tokens purchased by US buyers are locked for twelve months, unlocking on July 28, 2026. (plasma.to) The economic structure appears to follow a simple principle. Make the most basic stablecoin movement easy and in some cases subsidized, but let more complex activity and institutional grade usage drive fee demand and validator rewards. In other words, smooth the onramp but keep the engine room paid.

The ecosystem is also beginning to explore what happens when payments meet credit. Clearpool has shared that it received 400 thousand XPL in ecosystem support to expand PayFi related products on Plasma. (clearpool.medium.com) That matters because real world payment systems lean heavily on financing, float, and working capital. If Plasma becomes a place where stablecoin flows can be paired with on chain credit, it starts to resemble a digital version of the hidden balance sheet machinery that powers traditional payment networks.

Then there is Plasma One, the card and app layer that connects stablecoin balances to everyday spending with cashback in XPL and yield opportunities tied to the ecosystem. (plasma.to) Whether that specific product dominates is less important than the direction it points. Plasma is not only building a chain. It is seeding end user experiences that make the chain feel like part of normal financial life rather than a separate crypto universe.

What stands out to me is how narrow and focused the ambition is. Plasma is not trying to be the home for every kind of on chain experiment. It is trying to make sending digital dollars feel as routine as sending a message. That is a smaller story than most Layer 1 narratives, but it might be a more realistic path to everyday relevance.

The real test will be whether simple, low friction stablecoin transfers evolve into a deeper economy of paid activity. Explorer data over time should reveal whether contract interactions, fee paying usage, and financial applications grow around the basic transfer layer. If they do, Plasma could become less like a shortcut for moving funds and more like a foundation where dollar denominated activity actually lives. If not, it risks becoming a very efficient highway that people drive across but rarely stop on. Either way, it is one of the clearer attempts to design a blockchain around the behavior people already understand, moving money, rather than the behavior crypto enthusiasts wish they would adopt.
@Plasma #Plasma $XPL
#plasma