Most L1s are still judged with the same old checklist: how fast, how decentralized, how many developers, how much TVL. I think that framework breaks down completely when you look at Vanar.
Vanar is not trying to win the developer market first. It is trying to solve a much harder problem: how you turn ordinary consumer activity – playing a game, collecting a digital item, interacting with a brand – into on-chain state without the user ever feeling like they “used crypto”.
That is the mental model I believe fits Vanar best.
It is not a smart-contract platform competing for builders. It is a consumer-to-state conversion stack. And VANRY is the budget that pays for that conversion to happen quietly, cheaply and repeatedly.
Once you look at Vanar this way, the product choices stop feeling scattered.
They start to line up.
The first thing that really stands out is how aggressively Vanar designs around not introducing crypto friction. In their own team discussion, they describe a flow where a player inside a Web2 game sees a normal login prompt and is routed into the VGN ecosystem through a single sign-on layer – and, in their words, the user has “entered Web3 without knowing it” (Vanar AMA on Medium).
That detail is much more important than it sounds.
For consumer products, onboarding is everything. If a user has to learn wallets, seed phrases, gas and networks before they even care about the product, you already lost them. Vanar is trying to make the blockchain disappear behind a familiar surface.
But that only works economically if the underlying cost of writing state is both extremely small and predictable.
This is where Vanar’s whitepaper makes a very concrete claim: transactions are fixed at about $0.0005 per transaction (Vanar whitepaper). That is not a vague “low fees” promise. It is an explicit unit cost.
Their documentation then explains how the protocol maintains that fixed-fee experience using a price feed for VANRY to translate USD pricing into token terms (Vanar docs – fixed fee and USD/VANRY pricing).
If you take this seriously, the strategic implication is big.
Vanar is not trying to make users pay gas. It is trying to make it cheap enough that apps, games and brands can pay for users instead.
That is why VANRY should not be framed primarily as a retail utility token. It behaves more like a usage budget that sponsors and platforms consume in the background to keep user flows smooth.
The second piece that matters is distribution.
A lot of chains talk about gaming and brands. Vanar is unusually focused on how distribution actually enters the ecosystem. In the same AMA, the team describes onboarding a large Web2 publisher with 10 game studios, specifically because their SSO and product stack make it possible to integrate Web3 without disrupting the player experience (Vanar AMA on Medium).
That is not a grant program. That is a product-led integration pitch.
Upstream from that, one of Vanar’s headline publishing partners, Viva Games Studios, publicly claims more than 700 million downloads across its games and lists 105 employees on its own site (Viva Games Studios – About page).
This number does not mean Vanar suddenly has hundreds of millions of users. It is important to be honest about that. It represents potential reach, not actual on-chain conversion.
But it defines the size of the funnel Vanar is trying to tap into.
And Vanar’s positioning toward brands makes the same point from a different angle. Their brand material explicitly talks about “zero-cost options for brands” combined with fixed and low transaction costs (Vanar brand guidelines). That only makes sense if Vanar expects sponsors and platforms – not end users – to be the primary buyers of on-chain capacity.
Again, this loops back to VANRY.
If users never touch a token, then the only sustainable source of demand for VANRY must come from:
• apps covering user fees
• infrastructure operators and validators
• ecosystem access and governance requirements
In other words, VANRY’s value capture depends on how much real consumer activity is being quietly converted into state.
The third part of Vanar’s story is the one most people dismiss too quickly as marketing: the AI and “semantic memory” stack.
Normally, “AI chain” claims are shallow. But the way Vanar frames this is slightly different. They describe a multi-layer architecture where the base chain is combined with a semantic memory layer (Neutron) and an AI reasoning layer (Kayon), including vector storage, similarity search and low-latency inference (Vanar chain product page).
Whether every technical promise materialises is secondary. What matters is the product direction.
Vanar is aiming to increase what I would call state density per user action.
Most consumer blockchains only record sparse events: mint, transfer, trade.
Games, metaverse environments and brand experiences are not sparse systems. They are made of identity, progression, entitlements, history, behaviour and relationships. The more of that can live in a persistent and queryable state layer, the more valuable the chain becomes to the product owner.
This is where Vanar’s consumer focus and its AI narrative intersect in a meaningful way. If each interaction writes richer, reusable and machine-readable state, then the chain is no longer just a settlement layer. It becomes a memory layer for consumer experiences.
For VANRY, this matters because richer state usually means more writes, more storage and more compute. If Vanar succeeds, demand for VANRY scales with how deeply consumer products integrate on-chain memory into their core logic, not just with how many NFTs get minted.
A very reasonable counterpoint is that this still sounds like too many stories at once: gaming, metaverse, AI, brands, sustainability. And the market clearly shares some of that skepticism.
At the time of writing, VANRY trades around $0.00647, with roughly $3.27 million in 24-hour volume and about $14.6 million in market capitalisation. Circulating supply is about 2.256 billion, with a 2.4 billion maximum supply (CoinMarketCap).
On CoinGecko, VANRY is down roughly 13.4% over the past 7 days (CoinGecko). Binance’s market data shows about –22.46% over 30 days, –36.82% over 60 days, and –48.69% over 90 days (Binance price page).
That is not what a market looks like when it believes a powerful adoption flywheel is already working.
The on-chain numbers themselves are also easy to misread. The Vanar explorer currently reports about 193,823,272 total transactions, 28,634,064 wallet addresses, and 8,940,150 blocks (Vanar explorer).
Those are large figures, but they do not automatically mean tens of millions of real people. Address creation is cheap, and activity can be automated or incentive-driven.
The more honest way to use these numbers is diagnostic, not promotional.
If Vanar’s model is real, then over time we should see:
• transactions per active address rising
• repeated usage patterns tied to identifiable consumer applications
• fee stability under load
not just bigger cumulative counters.
It is also worth noting that Vanar’s consensus design starts from a permissioned or semi-permissioned validator set, with a Proof-of-Authority base and a reputation-driven onboarding model described in its documentation (Vanar consensus documentation). That choice likely improves reliability and operational control in early consumer deployments, but it increases the burden on the project to show a credible path toward decentralisation and neutrality later.
So where does this leave the thesis?
Vanar is making a very specific bet.
If it can truly maintain a ~$0.0005 fixed transaction experience, hide blockchain complexity behind SSO-style flows, and persuade existing consumer platforms to push real activity through its stack, then Vanar becomes something much closer to a consumer infrastructure layer than a crypto playground.
In that world, VANRY is not competing with other L1 tokens on speculation narratives. It is competing as an internal operating currency for applications that treat blockchain as invisible infrastructure.
If Vanar fails, it will not fail because its VM was slower than another chain’s VM. It will fail because one of three things breaks: the costs stop being predictable, the onboarding stops being invisible, or the distribution partners simply do not convert into sustained on-chain behaviour.
The next things that actually matter – and that directly affect whether VANRY ever becomes economically meaningful – are very concrete.
First, whether the fixed-fee mechanism described in the whitepaper and pricing API documentation holds up in real usage, rather than remaining a design promise (Vanar whitepaper; Vanar fixed-fee docs).
Second, whether activity on the explorer begins to show real consumer usage patterns – repeated interactions from the same cohorts, not just expanding address counts (Vanar explorer).
Third, whether “zero-cost for brands” becomes a visible go-to-market strategy where sponsors demonstrably cover large volumes of user actions (Vanar brand guidelines).
And finally, whether the semantic memory and AI layers translate into observable product behaviour – richer on-chain objects, deeper application logic, and higher state density per session – rather than remaining a narrative wrapper around a standard execution layer (Vanar chain product page).
If Vanar succeeds, it will not look like a DeFi chain that accidentally picked up gamers.
It will look like something much quieter, and much harder to notice: a consumer infrastructure layer that people use every day without realising they are using a blockchain at all.
