MicroTradeLab

Rumors have a way of spreading quickly when markets are already on edge. That dynamic played out again after claims surfaced suggesting Robert Kiyosaki had sold Silver to buy more Bitcoin.

The story gained traction after conversations at the VRIC Vancouver Resource Investor Conference, yet the details behind it tell a very different and more instructive story about decision making, asset roles, and long term thinking.

Robert Kiyosaki addressed the situation directly after learning that a rumor was circulating about his Silver holdings. According to him, Silver was never sold. Bitcoin and Gold were partially sold to fund the purchase of a new home. That distinction matters because it shifts the narrative away from a sudden change in conviction and toward a practical life decision. The clarification removed confusion while also opening the door to a rare admission of regret.

FYI SILVER Fact:I was at VRIC Vancouver Resource Investor Conference. Great event for anyone serious about their financial education on gold and silver.At VRIC I was informed there is a rumor I sold all my silver to buy more Bitcoin.This is not true. The facts are:I…

— Robert Kiyosaki (@theRealKiyosaki) January 27, 2026

Why Robert Kiyosaki Calls Selling Bitcoin And Gold A Mistake

The regret Robert Kiyosaki expressed was not framed around missed price gains alone. The issue ran deeper than short-term market movement. Selling Bitcoin and gold interrupted a system he has relied on for years. That system involves holding long-term assets while using other tools to manage expenses.

Once BTC and gold left the portfolio, even for a clear purpose, the decision no longer aligned with that structure. That misalignment explains why the sale still feels wrong in hindsight.

Silver Remains Central In Robert Kiyosaki Strategy

Silver stands apart in Robert Kiyosaki thinking because it serves a specific purpose that goes beyond speculation. Silver is treated as protection rather than a trade. He views it as something to hold through cycles, regardless of market noise or personal financial needs.

That mindset explains why silver remained untouched even while Bitcoin and gold were sold. The asset functions as a foundation rather than a flexible lever.

Robert Kiyosaki continues to emphasize the role of debt used strategically. Income-producing real estate provides positive cash flow, which is then used to accumulate Bitcoin Gold, Silver, and Ethereum over time. This structure reduces pressure to sell core assets during moments that are not ideal. Cash flow absorbs shocks while long-term holdings stay intact. That approach keeps decisions deliberate instead of reactive.

Read Also: Institutions Are Not Watching Anymore: They’re Loading Bittensor (TAO) and Two Other Cryptos

This episode was not about defending a reputation or responding to online speculation. The focus stayed on process and structure. Robert Kiyosaki response highlighted how experienced investors think in terms of systems rather than single transactions. Moments like this often reveal more than bold predictions or dramatic calls.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel for daily crypto updates, market insights, and expert analysis.

The post Robert Kiyosaki Admits Regret Over Bitcoin and Gold as Silver Becomes His Safety Net appeared first on CaptainAltcoin.

Not because I don’t understand it. I do. I’ve been around long enough. But because every time someone says “we fixed gas,” it usually just means “we hid it better” or “we added another token you now have to care about.”
So when I first heard people talking about gasless USDT transfers on Plasma, I rolled my eyes a bit. Same reflex I’ve built over years. Sounds great on Twitter. Usually messy in reality.
Still, I kept watching it. Mostly out of curiosity. Stablecoins are where real usage actually lives, whether we like it or not.
What pulled me in wasn’t the tech — it was the use case
Most chains still behave like this:
You want to send $20 in USDT.
You realize you don’t have ETH.
You swap.
You overpay.
You wait.
You explain to your friend why crypto is “still early.”
@Plasma seems to be asking a simpler question:
Why does a stablecoin transfer need a volatile token at all?
At first, I wasn’t sure if that question even mattered. We’ve all gotten used to the ritual. Native token, gas token, fee market, etc. It’s just how things are.
But once you zoom out, it’s kind of absurd.
If USDT is the thing people actually want to move…
If it’s already the unit of account…
Why are we forcing a separate asset into every single interaction?
That’s the crack Plasma is trying to push through.
Gasless USDT transfers sound small — but they’re not
When people hear “gasless,” they usually think gimmick. Like some onboarding trick that works once and then falls apart.
What I noticed with Plasma is that it’s not framed as a promo feature. It’s treated as a default behavior.
You send USDT.
It goes through.
No side quest.
No “make sure you have X.”
No “bridge this first.”
No “wait for congestion to calm down.”
That changes the feel of the chain more than the mechanics.
I’ve seen this pattern before. The stuff that matters most in crypto isn’t the stuff people tweet about. It’s the friction you don’t hit.
And honestly, once you experience a transfer where nothing interrupts you, it’s hard to unsee how clunky everything else is.
Stablecoin-first gas feels obvious… which is why it hasn’t happened
One thing that kept bothering me over the years is how stablecoins are treated like guests on blockchains.
They’re everywhere.
They dominate volume.
They’re what normal people use.
But they’re still second-class citizens.
Gas is paid in something else.
Security is aligned to something else.
Incentives revolve around something else.
Plasma flips that ordering.
Instead of saying “here’s a chain, now plug USDT into it,” it feels more like:
“USDT is the center. Everything else supports that.”
You can pay fees in stablecoins.
You don’t need to speculate to participate.
You don’t need to explain volatility to someone who just wants to move money.
That might not excite degens, but it makes a lot of sense if you’re thinking about payments, remittances, or actual financial rails.
I kept comparing it to how people actually use crypto
I’ve watched friends in high-adoption regions use crypto in ways Twitter never talks about.
They don’t care about yield farms.
They don’t care about governance votes.
They care about:
Does it send?
Does it settle fast?
Does the value change while it’s moving?
Plasma’s sub-second finality matters here, but not in a benchmark way. It matters because waiting 30 seconds for “finality” feels broken once you’re used to instant messaging and instant payments.
And anchoring security to Bitcoin? I didn’t think much about that at first. Sounded like a branding choice.
But over time, I started seeing why they lean into neutrality and censorship resistance instead of raw throughput narratives.
If you’re building a stablecoin settlement layer, trust dynamics matter more than TPS.

What confused me at first
I’ll be honest — Plasma doesn’t scream for attention.
There’s no loud ecosystem race yet.
No meme coin army.
No constant “partnership announcements.”
That made me suspicious.
In crypto, quiet sometimes means dead. Other times, it means the team is still heads-down and opinionated.
It took me a while to understand that Plasma isn’t trying to be a general-purpose playground. It’s trying to be boring in a very specific way.
Boring like payments infrastructure.
Boring like settlement layers.
Boring like the stuff that actually lasts.
Once that clicked, a lot of design choices made more sense.
The EVM compatibility matters — but not how people think
Yes, it’s EVM-compatible.
Yes, it uses Reth.
Yes, developers can deploy familiar contracts.
But the more interesting part is who that attracts.
Not every builder wants to create the next experimental protocol. Some just want predictable execution and users who actually transact.
If #Plasma succeeds, I don’t think it’ll be because of flashy dApps. It’ll be because wallets, payment apps, and financial tools quietly build on top of it without needing to explain themselves.
That’s a very different growth curve than most L1s chase.

A real doubt I still have
Here’s the part where I’m not fully convinced yet.
Gasless and stablecoin-gas models often rely on someone subsidizing or abstracting fees.

That works great early on.
It works less great at massive scale.
How Plasma balances sustainability without reintroducing friction is still something I’m watching closely.
Another question is distribution.
Retail users might love this. Institutions might love the predictability. But ecosystems don’t grow automatically just because the design is clean.
You still need wallets, ramps, integrations, and social gravity.
Execution here matters more than ideology.
Why I’m still paying attention
After watching Plasma for a while, I realized something:
They’re not trying to convince crypto natives that this is exciting.
They’re trying to make stablecoin usage stop feeling broken.
That’s a quieter ambition. Harder to market. Easier to underestimate.
I don’t know yet if Plasma becomes the stablecoin settlement layer. Crypto is brutal, and good ideas don’t always win.
But I do know this:
Every time I send USDT and have to think about gas, I’m reminded why something like this needs to exist.
And once you see a chain treat stablecoins as first-class citizens, it’s hard to go back to pretending the old model makes sense.
I’m still watching.
Still skeptical.
Still interested.

$XPL

– Crypto Raju x