Children lacking parental affection always try every means to be naughty and mischievous, aiming to gain attention and prove their existence. However, recently I saw a peculiar one. —@Vanarchain , I pay attention to it not because of its technical route, but because of a very counterintuitive description — the 'de-perception' blockchain experience.
The first impression this sentence gives me is that it's a trick! Absolutely a trick! Isn't blockchain always emphasizing its presence? Wallets, signatures, gas, confirmation time... these have almost become the identity markers of Web3. So if we 'de-perceive', what is left of the chain?
But the deeper I understand it, the more I feel that Vanar's thinking might just hit the biggest pain point of blockchain at the moment.
We have become accustomed to equating 'using blockchain' with a series of highly ritualistic operations: opening a wallet, confirming pop-ups, waiting for transactions, worrying about failures. For crypto natives, these steps even carry a sense of familiarity. But if you pull back the perspective to the real world, you will discover a problem: true mass adoption should not make users aware that they are 'using technology.'
The 'de-perception' proposed by Vanar does not mean hiding blockchain but deliberately reducing its presence in the user's mind. The chain is still running, assets are still settling, and the rules are still decentralized, but what users perceive is just a coherent and natural experience flow. This design philosophy is essentially transforming blockchain from 'the product itself' into 'the infrastructure behind the experience.'
This reminds me of the early evolution of the internet. Today, when we use online services, few people care about the details of TCP/IP and HTTP protocols. They have not disappeared; they have just been abstracted to the background. What Vanar wants to do is, to some extent, similar: to let blockchain step back and give the stage to content, interaction, and real scenarios.
From the perspective of experience design, this is actually a more challenging path. Because once you decide to 'de-perceive,' it means you can no longer rely on users' patience for blockchain. Any lag, complex operations, or conceptual burdens will be infinitely magnified. Vanar clearly realized this in its design; it emphasizes the continuity of the overall process rather than the 'decentralized purity' of individual on-chain operations.
I personally tend to agree with this trade-off. Because when blockchain begins to carry the experiences of the real world, it faces not a group of early users willing to learn new concepts, but ordinary people who have no interest in technology. For them, blockchain is not a selling point; it may even be a burden. #Vanar Choosing to minimize 'perception' is essentially taking on complexity on behalf of the user.
Of course, this kind of design will also spark controversy. Some will question: if users cannot perceive blockchain, what is the meaning of decentralization? This question itself is very representative. I tend to believe that the value of decentralization does not lie in being repeatedly emphasized, but in whether it plays a role at critical moments. As long as the underlying rules remain public and immutable, users do not need to be reminded every day that 'you are using blockchain.'
The role that Vanar Chain plays here is more like an 'invisible skeleton.' It does not attempt to seize user attention but ensures that the experience operates stably in the background. This positioning also explains why Vanar prefers to discuss real applications, content, and identity, rather than blindly piling up on-chain parameters. Because once the experience becomes central, the presence of the chain must be restrained.
From a more macro perspective, 'de-perception' is actually a signal of maturity. It means that blockchain is no longer eager to prove itself but is beginning to think about how to integrate into the existing world. This contrasts sharply with the way many Layer 1 projects compete on performance and narrative. Vanar does not try to make users understand blockchain; instead, it attempts to make blockchain understand users.
Of course, I do not believe this path has been successfully validated. The premise of going de-perceived is that the underlying layer must be stable and secure enough. Once a problem arises, users may not even be able to understand 'where the problem comes from,' which actually amplifies the risks. Thus, this kind of experience design has extremely high demands for execution, far exceeding those that only serve crypto natives.
Writing to this point, I prefer to view Vanar Chain as an experiment rather than a completed answer. It is probing a very real question: **If blockchain really wants to enter daily life, in what posture should it appear?** Should it declare its presence loudly or quietly support everything?
Personally, I lean towards the latter. I do not believe the future blockchain world will be one where everyone discusses gas and nodes. True mass adoption will certainly occur at a moment when 'users are hardly aware of the existence of blockchain.' Vanar chooses to start from the experience layer, actively reducing presence, which seems restrained and clear-headed in the current context.
Of course, de-perception does not mean de-responsibility. What Vanar will face next is how to maintain transparency and trust while reducing perception. This is a problem that is more difficult than technology. But at least in terms of design philosophy, it has already taken a step that is different from most chains.
If I were to give @Vanarchain a periodic evaluation, I would say: it is not trying to redefine how powerful blockchain is, but is pondering when blockchain should 'exit the stage.' And this may very well be a transformation that blockchain must undergo to enter the real world.
