Before we start discussing specific technologies, I would like you to recall a familiar scene.
You are playing a mobile game, such as a new 2D RPG. You have completed a difficult dungeon, and the system pops up a message indicating that you have obtained a 'legendary item.' You are very excited, but the next second, you might wonder: does this item really belong to me? If the game server shuts down, will it disappear? Can I sell it? If I can, where can I sell it? Will the procedures be cumbersome?
These fleeting thoughts are precisely the 'ownership dilemma' that today's game assets face. Web3 seems to provide an answer with blockchain and NFTs, but it brings along even more daunting new problems: having players manage private keys, pay gas fees, face obscure wallet interfaces... this is akin to forcing players to take a 'blockchain usage qualification exam' at the very moment they should be fully immersed in the game.
I have seen too many ambitious "Web3 games" die in the chasm of user experience. The game itself may be good, but once it involves on-chain operations, the smoothness drops to zero. This is also why, when I delved deeper into the Vanar chain, especially its VGN gaming network, I discovered a completely different approach: it seems to want players to not "perceive" the existence of the blockchain.
This sounds a bit contradictory, doesn’t it? A blockchain project wants to make itself "invisible". But I think this may be the most pragmatic, and possibly the only feasible path for Web3 games to break into the mainstream. The Vanar team itself has a deep background in games and entertainment; they understand a hard truth too well: players come for fun, not to learn new technologies. Their goal is to let the next billion users enter this ecosystem "unconsciously".
So, how to achieve this "invisibility"? The key lies in becoming a "plug-and-play" backend for game developers, which is the role the VGN network promises to play.
Let's first look at it from the developer's perspective. Imagine you are a producer in a game studio, you are interested in blockchain, and you want to introduce true ownership and a secondary market for players' equipment. But your team does not have cryptography experts, and you also do not want to reconstruct the entire backend architecture of the game, fearing that complex on-chain interactions will deter your core players.
At this point, what VGN may provide is a standard "SDK service package". Through simple API interfaces, your game server can call these services to achieve the following functions:
1. Asset issuance: Generate corresponding NFTs on the Vanar chain for a specific weapon or skin in the game with one click. The metadata, images, and even 3D models of this NFT can be efficiently compressed semantically and stored on-chain through the Neutron layer.
2. Player binding: No longer need players to prepare wallets themselves. The system can automatically generate a custodial or semi-custodial on-chain address for each player's game account, automatically storing the obtained NFTs. When players log into the game, they still see the familiar account system.
3. In-game transactions and off-market: Players can directly trade equipment in the game, with settlement logic completed by smart contracts, but the interface and experience are no different from your original game mall. At the same time, this equipment can also be listed in a unified VGN market, where players from other games can discover and purchase it—this theoretically opens up the imagination of "cross-game assets."
4. Controllable costs: The costs of all on-chain operations are fixed and low (Vanar claims a transaction cost of $0.0005 per transaction), which can be borne by the game operators as a marketing cost to enhance player experience and asset value, or deducted at a very low rate from transactions, completely avoiding the terrifying fluctuations in Gas fees on Ethereum.
For developers, this is like accessing a new service from Tencent Cloud or AWS. They do not need to know the exact physical location of the server and network protocols; they simply need to call the interface to obtain the functionality they want: verifiable asset ownership, a decentralized trading market, and cross-game asset interoperability potential. The blockchain, here, retreats to the background, becoming the backend infrastructure that supports the core value proposition of "trusted digital assets".
Next, let's look at it from the player's perspective. The player's experience chain should be seamless.
· Acquire: Defeat the Boss, a cool animation pops up, and the equipment enters the backpack. The entire process is no different from traditional games.
· View: On the equipment detail page, there is an additional small "verified" label, indicating that this item is unique and truly belongs to your on-chain asset. You can choose to view the on-chain proof in detail, but not viewing it does not affect usage at all.
· Transaction: Click "Sell" in the in-game market, enter the price, and confirm. No wallet pop-up requesting signature, no Gas fees to confirm. Once sold successfully, the earnings go into your game account, which can be used for other purchases or withdrawals.
· Cross-game display: Perhaps in the future, you can showcase the legendary sword you obtained in this RPG in the garage of another racing game in the Vanar ecosystem, as a symbol of honor.
Behind all this smooth experience, Vanar chain is silently handling ownership changes, transaction clearing, and cross-chain assets (if needed). It has wrapped all the complexities up, only presenting the results of "ownership" and "value" to players. This is why some analyses point out that what Vanar is doing is "tearing down the invisible wall for ordinary people entering Web3". That wall is the terrible initial interaction experience.
However, the strategy of an "invisible backend" also comes with huge controversies and risks. The core question is: is this not a regression to "centralization"?
If a player’s assets are stored in a wallet generated by the game, where the private keys do not belong to the player, is there a fundamental difference in control from a line of database code in a traditional game server? If the game company misbehaves or goes bankrupt, are these assets still safe? Vanar needs to use technical design (such as adopting multi-party computing custody solutions) and transparent rules to work hard to dispel this doubt, proving that on-chain assets, even through friendly front-end interactions, still have unalterable underlying ownership that is unaffected by single points of failure.
This raises another deeper question: If the blockchain is completely "invisible", how can the value of the VANRY token driving this network be reflected?
In the ideal VGN process, all on-chain operations require consuming VANRY as Gas fees. If the ecosystem thrives, massive game transactions will generate a continuous demand for VANRY burning. But there is a design game here: for user experience, Gas fees must be extremely low and fixed; for token value, burning demand must be sufficiently large. This requires the ecosystem to reach a huge scale critical point.
More critically, if game developers choose to bear the Gas costs for players, then they need to regularly purchase VANRY in the market. This creates a stable demand on the B2B side. But if developers pass the Gas fees onto players due to cost pressures or design choices, even if the amount is small, it will reintroduce that kind of "payment friction", disrupting the seamless experience. Therefore, the value capture of VANRY highly depends on whether the ecosystem can scale enough for developers to willingly pay this "backend service fee" and consider it a worthwhile investment.
I believe the path chosen by Vanar is an extremely pragmatic one, but filled with thorns. It acknowledges the reality: a purely "crypto-native" experience emphasizing self-custody cannot serve the masses in the foreseeable future. It chooses to embrace reality, letting users and developers use it first before discussing other ideals.
Its success or failure will not depend on how cool its AI-native architecture is (although that is important), but on whether VGN can really attract one or several heavyweight games with millions or tens of millions of users to settle in, and use real data to prove that this "invisible blockchain backend" can significantly enhance player retention, activity, and willingness to pay.
If successful, Vanar may not be a "star public chain" that ordinary users talk about every day, but it will become the silent and solid "value layer" beneath countless popular games and entertainment applications. Just like today we rarely talk about the HTTP protocol, but the entire internet is built on it.
The best technology is the technology that people feel does not exist. Vanar's ambition is not to become the star in the center of the stage, but to be the invisible power system that allows the entire stage to operate. However, whether the fuel of this system—the VANRY token—can see the day of bright lights remains uncertain.
After shaking hands with giants: Is the cooperation between Vanar and Worldpay honey or a trap?
Last year, when Vanar announced its strategic partnership with the global payment giant Worldpay, to be honest, my first reaction was surprise. This handshake between a "blockchain newcomer" and a "traditional financial giant" is not common in the industry. Who is Worldpay? It belongs to the fintech giant FIS, which has nearly $100 billion in annual revenue, processes over 40 billion transactions a year, and has a transaction flow of over $2.3 trillion, making it one of the most important infrastructure service providers behind Visa and Mastercard. Compared to it, the entire crypto world's daily transaction volume seems like a mere pittance.
This news undoubtedly gave the narrative of VANRY a shot in the arm. It seems to have instantly transformed from a "technical concept stock" into a potential stock with a "real-world connector". But after the excitement, I spent more time pondering the details of this cooperation and the far more complex chain reactions it may bring than what is apparent.
The public goal of the cooperation is "AI agent payments" and "PayFi". Vanar depicts a future scenario: your AI financial assistant, after analyzing your bills and investment portfolio, can autonomously decide and execute a payment, such as repaying a credit card bill or purchasing a stock. This payment may involve transferring assets from your crypto wallet, conducting compliance verification and settlement through the Vanar chain, and finally depositing into the target bank account in fiat currency through Worldpay's global network. PayFi goes a step further, trying to make any online store's checkout page seamlessly accept cryptocurrency payments, with Worldpay handling complex exchanges and settlements in the backend.
If this scenario is realized, it will be revolutionary. It means that blockchain and AI are no longer a closed geek toy, but an engine that can directly drive real-world economic activities. For Vanar, this is not just technical landing, but also a golden channel for acquiring massive, real, and valuable transaction flows. It solves a core pain point: how can cryptocurrencies pay real-world bills without changing user habits? The answer is to pipe through Worldpay, making crypto payments as simple as swiping a credit card.
However, alongside huge opportunities, there are often equally huge risks. My deepest concern is: in this grand value chain from "AI decision-making" to "fiat currency settlement", what indispensable position can the VANRY token occupy?
Let's deduce an ideal payment process that is most beneficial for VANRY: your AI assistant decides to pay a $100 electricity bill -> it creates a smart contract on the Vanar chain, stipulating the need to pay an equivalent amount of VANRY (or lock VANRY as collateral) -> the contract verifies the payment terms through the Kayon engine -> the contract automatically exchanges VANRY for USDC on the decentralized exchange (DEX) on-chain -> through Worldpay's compliance interface, exchanges USDC for fiat and pays the electricity company. In this process, VANRY is at least used once as an intermediary.
But what is the more likely scenario that is disadvantageous for VANRY? It is likely simplified to: AI assistant directly calling the existing USDC stablecoin from your wallet -> through an encapsulated payment contract (consuming a tiny amount of VANRY as Gas) -> completing fiat payment directly through Worldpay channel. In this process, VANRY merely plays the role of "fuel" like ETH on Ethereum, with negligible value. The main subject of value transfer—whether it is the stablecoin on the crypto side or fiat currency on the dollar side—is unrelated to VANRY.
This leads to a sharp question: If the trillion-dollar payment flow brought by Worldpay only rushes through the "toll booth" of the Vanar chain, leaving a few coins as tolls, while the vast majority of value flows to traditional financial systems and stablecoin issuers, what substantial meaning does this have for the long-term value support of the VANRY token?
This is very similar to the early internet's "siphoning effect". Emerging markets contribute traffic and data to the platforms of giants, but the bulk of profits is taken by centralized giants. Will Vanar ultimately become an "innovation lab" or "technology provider" exploring cutting-edge payment technology for Worldpay, earning a stable technology service fee while the imaginative space of its tokens is firmly locked?
I believe that to avoid falling into the trap of "making others' clothes", the Vanar team must strive for and achieve two things in cooperation:
First, deepen the on-chain settlement layer. It cannot only be a "megaphone" for payment instructions, but must become a "processing center" for assets and complex logic. For example, promoting the settlement of some small, high-frequency merchant transactions directly in the form of stablecoins like USDC on the Vanar chain, allowing Worldpay to serve as the entry and exit channel for fiat currency, while letting the chain be the place for value to reside and circulate. This way, on-chain DeFi activities, staking, and interest-earning scenarios can be activated.
Second, create "rigid demand consumption scenarios" for VANRY. This must be deeply bound to AI agents. For example, stipulating that AI agents must pledge or burn VANRY when running on the Vanar chain, calling its memory (Neutron) or reasoning (Kayon) services. Let VANRY become the "energy block" driving AI agents' thinking, rather than the "lubricant" that is only remembered after the payment phase.
I noticed that there are starkly different views in the community about this. Optimists see it as a "game-changer", believing this is the pipeline for VANRY to escape the small coin circle's internal competition and connect to the vast ocean of the real economy. Pessimists scoff, believing this is just another "partner announcement", no different from countless projects in the past that brought giants to the stage but ultimately failed to deliver.
My view may lie somewhere in between. I think this is a high-risk, high-uncertainty strategic gamble. If won, Vanar may establish extremely high barriers in the "blockchain payment" and "AI finance" tracks through this cooperation, becoming an indispensable middleware, and its token value will be reassessed as the transaction volume grows. If lost, it may only prove the feasibility of its technology, paving the way for traditional financial giants' digital transformation, while it itself reaps applause, a small technical fee, and still sluggish token prices.
Shaking hands with giants means entering a bigger stage, but it also means adhering to more complex game rules and facing a stronger gravitational field. Worldpay's compliance requirements, its extreme pursuit of stability, and its own vast interest network may impose various restrictions and modifications on the "little guy" Vanar. Whether Vanar can maintain its technical characteristics and economic model independence in cooperation will be a more severe test than technical development.
Standing on the shoulders of giants allows you to see further, but also be careful not to become a decoration by the giant's ear. True cooperation is not becoming someone's plug-in, but being an irremovable, continuously value-adding core gear in each other's ecosystem.
