First: The VANRY in the testing phase should not be 'taken seriously'.
If you look at VANRY from the early stages of system construction, it is almost destined to be underestimated. Because at this stage, the way it appears determines that it will not be considered a 'core variable'. Testing, trial runs, verifying stability, and checking if the interface is usable—there is only one logic behind these actions: first, see if it can run. At this stage, VANRY's role is more like a 'necessary but replaceable cost item'; it exists but is not important. The team's focus is on whether the system throws errors, whether calls are smooth, and whether uncontrollable problems arise under continuous operation, rather than the settlement itself. This is also why many people have the illusion at this stage: VANRY seems to be just a transitional consumable with no stickiness. But if you truly understand how systems are adopted, you will know that this 'neglect' is actually a necessary stage for all infrastructure before entering the main process.
Second: Once the system begins to operate stably, costs are no longer 'consumables,' but 'constraints.'
When the testing passes and the system enters the continuous operation phase, a very critical yet inconspicuous change occurs: VANRY begins to shift from 'can it be used' to 'how much and how to control it.' At this moment, the settlement is no longer just a series of scattered consumptions but starts to be incorporated into the overall operating logic. The team no longer cares whether a single call is expensive but is concerned with how many times will occur in a month and what scale will emerge in a year. It is also at this stage that fixed, predictable costs begin to reveal their true value. For the system, uncertainty is not an experiential issue but a risk issue. If a cost item cannot be calculated in advance, it cannot be written into the rules. And at this stage, VANRY begins to take on the role of 'cost within the rules.' It is no longer a unit that can be consumed casually but a variable that must be taken seriously.
Third: From 'use as much as needed' to 'first determine the budget.'
The real turning point appears in the third stage. At this point, the system is no longer an experiment but an infrastructure that undertakes real tasks. AI Agents begin to be granted higher permissions, automated processes start to take over more repetitive work, and the call frequency is no longer sporadic but continuous. At this moment, the language within the team will change: they no longer discuss 'how much this call costs,' but start discussing 'how to allocate the budget for this quarter.' Once entering the budgeting phase, VANRY's nature undergoes a fundamental change. It is no longer an expenditure but a resource quota. It is no longer passively consumed but actively planned. You will find that once VANRY is written into the budget sheet, it becomes difficult to replace easily, because what is being replaced is not a single call but an entire set of processes that have already run smoothly.
Fourth: Why 'fixed budget' is the most difficult type of demand to replace.
Many people underestimate the weight of the two words 'budget.' In the world of systems, a budget means certainty, responsibility, and stable expectations. Once an infrastructure is included in a fixed budget, it implies three real consequences: First, it has passed stability verification; second, it has been deemed indispensable under current conditions; third, its replacement cost is far higher than continuing to use it. It is at this stage that the demand for VANRY begins to have a very strong stickiness. This stickiness is not driven by emotions, but by processes. It will not disappear immediately due to changes in market heat, nor will it be abandoned because of shifts in short-term narratives. Its only reason for existence is: without it, the system becomes more troublesome.
Fifth: From an investment perspective, the real turning point is not in 'usage,' but in 'budgeting.'
If you try to capture the value release rhythm of VANRY through 'usage growth,' you will likely feel delayed. But if you change your perspective to observe how many systems have completed 'budgeting,' you will discover a completely different picture. The testing phase can go through repeated trial and error, the operating phase can optimize replacements, but the budgeting phase often means long-term binding. It is precisely for this reason that the real turning point for VANRY has never been the first time it is used, but the first time it is written into a fixed budget. When this moment occurs, the market may not have reacted yet, but the system has already made a choice.
Sixth: Why this path is inherently unsuitable for generating short-term emotions.
Lastly, I will make a possibly unpopular but very realistic judgment. The path that VANRY takes from testing costs to fixed budgets is inherently unsuitable to be packaged as 'explosive narrative.' It does not have sudden user influxes, nor does it have overnight jumps in metrics. Its growth resembles changes in backend logs rather than refreshes on frontend pages. But precisely because of this, it is closer to the way infrastructure value forms in the real world. You can choose to ignore it, or you can choose to be impatient, but as long as the system is running and the budget is being executed, VANRY's role will become increasingly difficult to replace.
The core of what I want to explain is just one sentence:
When VANRY moves from 'use as much as needed' to 'first determine the budget,' it has completed the most critical and also the most hidden identity transformation.
