The Governance Value of VANRY: It's More Than Just 'Voting Rights'
Regarding the governance function of VANRY, I feel it has been discussed a lot, but the challenge lies in how to implement it effectively.
According to its roadmap, VANRY stakers will be able to vote on core matters such as protocol upgrades and the use of treasury funds in the future.
This sounds quite standard, but what I want to emphasize is that effective governance requires very low technical and participation thresholds.
For example, will Vanar provide an easy-to-understand voting interface and translate complex proposals (such as adjustments to technical parameters) into clear options?
Or will ordinary token holders give up voting due to high understanding costs, resulting in power being concentrated in the hands of a few?
Moreover, can governance truly address critical issues, such as the specific decisions on projects funded by the ecological fund, or will it remain limited to some minor parameters?
I believe the true release of VANRY's governance value depends on these pragmatic mechanism designs.
Only when enough token holders feel that their votes are meaningful and easy to exercise will governance not be just a hollow phrase.
$VANRY
