Let me first explain the background: this is not the first time I have looked at the Vanar project, but in the past, I didn't pay much attention to it; to put it bluntly, it is just 'another AI chain.' The reason I am bringing it up again recently is not because it has become more vocal, but because it has pushed itself in a more challenging direction: payments, RWA, compliant settlements, agentic payments—no matter how beautifully these are presented, they ultimately come down to hard issues like 'how rules are enforced, how data is stored, who is responsible, and how to trace back when problems arise.'
I don't want to write those grand and empty 'visions for the future' in this article; I will review according to my own most realistic logic: what exactly does Vanar's chain want to solve in engineering; what are the key shortcomings that it has exposed; as an ordinary participant, what data should I focus on to judge whether it is really making progress, rather than just relying on emotional fluctuations.
First, let's use the latest data to bring it back to reality: VANRY is currently 'small volume with high elasticity,' not an 'emotionally immune body.'
Yesterday (around January 21, Singapore time), I specifically checked the data from several mainstream market pages: the price of VANRY is around $0.009, with a 24-hour fluctuation range of approximately $0.0086 to $0.0097; its market value is around $20 million; circulation is about 2.2 billion coins, with a maximum supply of 2.4 billion coins; the 24-hour trading volume is at the level of 7-9 million dollars (different platforms may have variations). Why do I emphasize these numbers? Because they determine how you view it.
This scale implies two things:
First, it is not completely illiquid; at least 'someone is trading,' and the spreads are not so outrageous that you can't make a move.
Second, it is particularly sensitive to messages and emotions. Any exposure at a venue, collaborative news, product updates, or exchange activities may temporarily amplify price elasticity; conversely, once the hype subsides, the coin price will quickly return to a state of 'no one talking, no one promoting.'
So if someone comes up and tells you 'this project is stable,' I would first let them lay out the data: a small market cap is just a small market cap; the advantage is elasticity, the disadvantage is pressure. What you need to do is not to follow the slogans but to keep an eye on whether it can continuously produce 'verifiable progress.'
Second, the core I focus on this time is not 'AI,' but rather Vanar's desire to embed 'data ownership' and 'executive rules' into the default capabilities of the chain.
Vanar currently talks about many keywords: AI-native, Neutron, Kayon, PayFi, identity, compliance... I am most afraid of projects that 'string together a bunch of words and call it a roadmap,' so I force myself to change the question: If all the marketing copy were removed, what is Vanar actually trying to do at the system level?
I am now more willing to express it in a coarser way: it wants to upgrade 'the chain' from just being responsible for transaction execution to a foundational system capable of carrying data, preserving context, and running business processes within rule boundaries.
In this direction, what I care most about is actually the Neutron type of attempts to 'place files/data deeper on the chain.' Because in real business, especially in payments, RWA, and compliant settlement, you can never avoid one question: Where is the evidence? Who owns the data? Is it at risk of being lost at any time? Is it dependent on third-party storage? As long as you still rely heavily on off-chain storage or external databases, it will be very difficult to achieve 'on-chain as evidence' when disputes arise. This is not idealism; it is the most realistic pain point in compliance scenarios.
I do not exaggerate when I say: If Vanar's 'on-chain data carrying' cannot be realized, then talking about PayFi and RWA will be very challenging; but if it can indeed make data ownership and traceability a default ability, then it will not be in the same category as a bunch of chains that only compare TPS.
Of course, I also want to pour cold water on it: on-chain storage is not something that can be achieved just by shouting slogans; cost, efficiency, usability, and toolchain are all very challenging. If you ask me to conclude 'it will definitely succeed' right now, I can’t do it. I can only say that it has chosen a more difficult but more realistic path.
Third, let's talk about consensus and governance: I am now more concerned about how to balance the PoR+DPoS structure between 'institution-friendly' and 'decentralization skepticism.'
The most recognizable aspect of Vanar's consensus mechanism is the combination of Proof of Reputation (PoR) and Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS). When I wrote about it before, I leaned more towards 'concepts'; this time I will take a more realistic perspective: if it wants to serve payment and compliance scenarios, it must answer 'who is responsible, who takes the blame, how to hold accountable when problems arise.' PoR is actually trying to solve this type of problem using 'real-world reputation costs.'
However, it also brings an unavoidable point of controversy: the foundation's participation in selecting validators will be naturally viewed by many as 'more centralized.' I don’t want to take sides; I only express my judgment method: don’t argue concepts with me; let the facts speak.
I will focus on three things to judge whether it is moving in a healthier direction:
1) Is the type of validators becoming more diverse: not just a few institutions, but whether there is expansion in regions, business types, and infrastructure providers.
2) Validator transparency: Are the lists, operational information, and staking distribution becoming clearer, and can the community understand it?
3) Community delegated participation: If only a handful of large addresses are delegating, then this mechanism is easily questioned as 'formally decentralized'; if delegation participation becomes broader, it at least indicates that its security and governance do not rely solely on a single point.
Fourth, regarding staking and exit mechanisms, I prefer to clarify the 'rules' directly: lock-up periods, unbinding, and whether there are penalties.
I have seen some node service providers organize Vanar's staking mechanism parameters. Here, I will express what I consider the most critical points in plain language (I write this to let you know about participation costs, not to push you to stake):
Vanar's block production rhythm is very fast, with rewards distributed based on blocks; however, automatic compounding is usually not the default, and you need to claim and redelegate yourself; unbinding/exit has a cycle, commonly stated as around 21 days of unbonding (you need to plan liquidity in advance); another sensitive point is that some information shows its penalty/slash mechanism is relatively mild and may not even be activated, but I recommend that you rely on official documentation and on-chain actual parameters, not just second-hand summaries.
Why do I write these details? Because many people only look at APR when participating in 'chain ecology' without considering exit restrictions, and they are most likely to be locked in liquidity during market fluctuations. Especially for small-cap assets like VANRY, when volatility comes, being locked in becomes very passive. If you want to participate, you must understand the rules first; this is not 'professional,' it's about survival.
Fifth, how do I view recent hot events: sharing the stage at ADFW is not a 'victory,' but it is indeed evidence of route confirmation.
I know you want the backing of 'hot topics' for rankings. Recently, the most significant 'event line' for Vanar is its appearance at Abu Dhabi Finance Week in December 2025, discussing agentic payments, tokenized assets, stablecoin regulations, dispute resolution, and capital operation alongside traditional payment giants like Worldpay.
My attitude towards these kinds of events is very clear: it is not grounded proof, but it is evidence of route choice. Why? Because the direction of payments and compliance settlement is not something you can just ride on. To stand on such a stage, you must shift your language system from 'chain jargon' to 'financial infrastructure context.' You will find that what they discuss is not 'cheap gas,' but 'rule execution, responsibility boundaries, traceability, and dispute resolution.' This is consistent with Vanar's attempt to make the chain a 'usable system.'
But I will not give it a medal because of this. I hope to see 'whether there are traceable advancements after the meeting': Are there new payment integration pilot projects? Is there a clearer PayFi route? Are there tool upgrades on the developer side? Are there any active changes on-chain? Without these, no matter how well it is presented on stage, it is just exposure.
Sixth, if you ask me to choose an 'easily overlooked but most decisive success or failure' indicator: can developers use it at low cost?
I always look at chains not just from the perspective of 'is the technology good,' but rather 'are developers willing to use it.' Vanar emphasizes EVM compatibility, which is crucial for ecological expansion because it can lower the migration threshold: Solidity developers do not need to learn an entirely new language system, and the toolchain can also reuse some components.
But EVM compatibility is just the admission ticket, not the victory condition. The real victory condition is: can you provide the capability that makes it 'a must-use'? For example, better on-chain data carrying, more suitable compliance/payment rule components, and modules that make identity and permission management easier. If you are just EVM+fast, you will be beaten down by a bunch of chains.
So I judge whether Vanar is making progress by focusing on very specific things:
1) Is the documentation continuously updated and not just 'skin-deep updates,' but updates that can solve real problems for developers?
2) Have the experiences of on-chain explorers, node tools, and RPC stability improved?
3) Are there real applications showing evidence of use that are 'not just coming for incentives': for example, certain applications generating fixed call volumes and user behaviors, rather than short-term volume brushing.
Seventh, my current attitude towards VANRY: its risk is not 'lack of narrative,' but 'the gap between narrative and data.'
I may say something that is not pleasant: Vanar's narrative is actually not weak; its problem is more like the kind of gap encountered by many infrastructure projects — your stated direction is very strong, but if you cannot provide enough continuous, verifiable data, the market will treat you as being in the 'concept phase.'
So I set a very simple but effective observation framework for myself, brothers, you can directly copy it for use:
I focus on four types of things each week, not emotions:
1) On-chain activity: Are there any trend changes in the number of addresses, number of transactions, and contract calls?
2) Developer signals: documentation updates, SDK/tool updates, updates to ecological application versions.
3) Collaborative advancement: Has it moved from 'shared stage/announcement' to 'pilot/integration/launch' in the next step?
4) Token dimensions: Has liquidity and trading volume structure become healthier, rather than relying solely on one-day explosive volume?
If these four types of improvements can continue to appear, I would be more willing to consider it as 'walking the real path'; if it only occasionally explodes into a hot topic, and the data remains stagnant for a long time, I would consider it a 'high-elastic trading target,' rather than a 'long-term systemic opportunity.'
Eight, finally, my conclusion (not pretending to be certain): Vanar has chosen a hard path, but the threshold for the hard path is 'verifiable progress speed.'
I don't want to shout slogans here. My current, more realistic state is: I recognize its direction, but I do not guarantee its results. I am willing to keep an eye on it because it has placed itself in the tracks of payment, RWA, and compliant settlement, which will truly determine the value of the next round of infrastructure; at the same time, I will remain vigilant because this path is most afraid of 'sounding very similar but progressing very slowly,' and the market's patience will be exhausted first.
Brothers, if you are also looking at VANRY, I suggest you not just ask 'can it still rise,' but ask a more critical question: Is it using data to prove that it is becoming a usable system? If so, its valuation logic will change; if not, it can only continue to rely on event-driven short-term fluctuations.
What do you all want to see me write in my next article? I can continue to break down Vanar's system: for example, analyze the positioning of Neutron/Kayon based on 'real application needs,' or write about the PoR controversy based on 'how to achieve transparency,' anyway, I do not follow templates, I only follow content that can add value.
