CRYPTO_RoX-0612

Web3 has always sounded like a beautiful promise, a world where people truly own their digital life, where money moves like a message, where identity is not rented from platforms, and where creators do not need permission to build a future. But when I look at what slows adoption down, it is rarely the big ideas that fail, it is the small moments of friction that scare normal people away, like confusing wallets, unpredictable fees, complicated settings, and apps that feel fragile under pressure. If we are serious about bringing the next 3 billion users into Web3, we have to talk less about slogans and more about what people actually feel when they use a blockchain for the first time, then the second time, then the hundredth time when it becomes routine. That is exactly why a comparison like Vanar Chain vs. Solana matters, because both chains aim for scale and mainstream usage, but they take different roads, and the road you choose shapes everything: the developer experience, the user experience, the cost model, the reliability story, and the risks you inherit along the way.

Vanar Chain’s core strategy begins with a practical truth that most teams learn the hard way: developers drive ecosystems, and developers usually build faster when they can use tools they already understand. Vanar leans into EVM compatibility, which means it aligns with the Ethereum Virtual Machine environment that many Web3 developers already know, and that choice is not just technical, it is a growth strategy, because if it becomes easy to port contracts, reuse audits, reuse developer knowledge, and integrate with familiar wallet patterns, then builders can move quicker, and quicker building often translates into more apps, more experiments, and more chances to discover what mainstream users truly want. Now the part that touches mainstream adoption most directly is the fee model, because fees are emotional whether people admit it or not, and a person might tolerate a slow app, but they do not tolerate feeling tricked, so unpredictable fees can feel like a trick even when no one intended it. Vanar promotes a fixed fee approach designed to make transaction costs stable and predictable, and instead of forcing users into a constantly shifting auction, this approach is meant to feel more like product pricing, where people know what will happen before they click, which is especially important for consumer use cases like gaming, microtransactions, social apps, and onchain actions that happen frequently, because in those worlds you want the cost to be boring, stable, and forgettable, not dramatic and stressful. Vanar also leans into an AI native narrative, and while buzzwords can be noisy in crypto, the adoption question is simple: does the chain help developers build the next generation of applications where intelligent automation, richer data flows, and smarter user experiences become normal, because if we’re seeing a future where AI agents pay, trade, subscribe, negotiate, verify, or manage digital rights on behalf of users, then chains that treat advanced application needs as first class citizens may have an edge, but the real proof will not be in the slogans, it will be in what developers can actually build, how reliable it is, and how natural it feels for normal people.

Solana’s design is built around one bold idea: a blockchain can behave like high performance infrastructure if you engineer the whole pipeline end to end, from time ordering to consensus to execution to propagation. Solana introduced Proof of History as a way to create a cryptographic time reference that helps the network agree on ordering with less overhead, and when combined with its broader consensus and networking design, the network aims for fast confirmation and high throughput without demanding high fees from users. A major difference in Solana’s world is how execution can take advantage of parallelism, because Solana is designed to process many independent actions at the same time when they do not touch the same state, and that matters a lot when millions of people are doing different things across many apps, because that is how you get closer to the feeling of a modern app platform where the system does not slow down just because many users are active. Fees in Solana’s model are usually very low, and during congestion Solana allows optional prioritization fees, meaning users or apps can pay a bit more to signal urgency when compute is contested, and the adoption challenge is not that this mechanism exists, it is that mainstream users should never have to think about compute units or priority settings, so the ecosystem has to wrap these mechanics in good defaults and smart UX so the complexity stays invisible. Another part of Solana’s adoption story is that performance has a cost and that cost shows up in validator operations, because high throughput networks often demand strong hardware and strong networking, and that can push the ecosystem toward professional operators, so long term trust depends on how broad and distributed validator participation remains.

When I compare these two approaches, I see two different ways of respecting mainstream users, because Vanar is trying to respect the user’s emotional need for predictability and simplicity while respecting developers by meeting them where they already are with EVM compatibility, and Solana is trying to respect the user’s desire for speed and low cost by engineering a high performance base layer that can carry heavy load. The truth is both approaches can win, but they fail differently, because a predictability first chain can struggle if demand grows faster than capacity and the fixed pricing assumptions get stressed, while a performance first chain can struggle if complexity leaks into the user experience during congestion and people feel confused when transactions fail or require special settings. That is why the technical choices matter so much, because they shape developer adoption, they shape fee behavior, they shape decentralization pressures, and they shape whether the chain feels like a dependable product or an ongoing experiment.

If we are going to talk seriously about the next 3 billion users, we need to watch the metrics that reflect daily reality, not just headlines. For Solana, I would watch confirmation times under load, transaction failure rates during congestion, fee behavior during peak usage, validator diversity, network incident frequency, and how quickly reliability improvements ship after problems are discovered, because reliability is not a marketing claim, it is something you measure over time. For Vanar, I would watch whether fee predictability holds in practice during real demand, how quickly the developer ecosystem grows, how stable the network is under stress, how easy it is for wallets and apps to integrate, and whether the AI oriented direction becomes real developer primitives that people actually use. On both chains, I would also watch the boring but powerful indicators that decide mainstream trust: uptime, RPC reliability, time to recover from incidents, security record, and the quality of the onboarding experience for a brand new user, because the first five minutes matter more than most people admit.

Both chains face risks that could shape their future, and it is better to say them clearly than to hide them. Vanar’s biggest challenge is that predictability has to survive real world pressure, because fixed fee models must be priced carefully, and if fees are too low relative to resource usage, spam and abuse become easier, while if fees are adjusted too often, predictability can start to feel like a promise that keeps moving, and beyond fees there is the challenge of turning vision into adoption, because EVM compatibility is a strong starting point, but long term success depends on unique advantages that make developers and users choose it for reasons beyond familiarity. Solana’s biggest challenge is reliability at scale and complexity management, because high performance systems can be sensitive, and during heavy demand even small issues can become visible to users as failures, delays, or confusing behavior, and Solana also has to manage the ongoing tension between performance and decentralization, because validator requirements can shape who participates. Both chains also face shared industry risks like smart contract vulnerabilities, integration risks, regulatory uncertainty, and the simple fact that mainstream users have little patience for anything that feels unsafe, because adoption is emotional and people want to feel protected and in control when money and identity are involved.

I think the most realistic future is not a single winner that replaces everyone else, but a world where different chains specialize and mature while learning from each other, because the market is big enough for multiple networks if they deliver real value and real trust. Solana will likely keep pushing performance and refining reliability so the experience feels more like a global app platform, while the ecosystem keeps improving how fees and transaction landing work so congestion does not feel like chaos. Vanar will likely keep pushing its product style approach to fees and its developer friendly EVM foundation while trying to prove that its broader application direction can deliver consumer experiences that feel smooth, stable, and emotionally safe. If it becomes true that the next wave of Web3 is less about trading and more about everyday digital life like gaming, social identity, micro ownership, creator economies, and automated commerce, then the chains that make Web3 feel invisible and effortless will be the ones that truly grow, and that is not only a technical race, it is a human design problem, because the chains that win will treat the user’s trust as something sacred, not something to gamble with.

At the end of the day, the next 3 billion users are not waiting for perfect decentralization debates or fancy benchmarks, they are waiting for experiences that feel simple, fair, and dependable, and when Vanar focuses on predictability and familiarity while Solana focuses on speed and performance, I see two different attempts to make Web3 finally behave like something normal people can love. If we’re careful, if we’re honest about trade offs, and if builders keep turning complexity into calm experiences, the future can unfold in a way that feels quietly powerful, where Web3 is not a scary new world, but a gentle upgrade to how people live, create, and own their digital lives.
@Vanarchain $VANRY #Vanar

I pagamenti sono uno di quei miracoli quotidiani che smettiamo di notare fino a quando qualcosa va storto, e poi diventa improvvisamente personale, perché un "piccolo" ritardo può significare che l'affitto è in ritardo, un fornitore non spedisce, o un cliente se ne va al checkout, quindi quando confronto Plasma XPL con le reti di pagamento legacy, sto davvero confrontando due filosofie diverse riguardo alla fiducia, alla velocità, ai costi e a chi porta il peso quando il mondo diventa caotico. Le ferrovie legacy sono state costruite per un mondo in cui le banche e le reti di carte erano il naturale centro di gravità e ogni transazione doveva viaggiare attraverso vari livelli di intermediari, mentre Plasma è in fase di costruzione per un mondo in cui le stablecoin stanno già muovendo volumi massicci e le persone vogliono che il denaro si comporti più come Internet, il che significa veloce per impostazione predefinita, globalmente coerente e abbastanza semplice da non punirti per l'invio di piccole quantità. Stiamo vedendo le stablecoin passare da un'idea di cripto di nicchia a qualcosa di più vicino a un asset di liquidazione di uso generale, e Plasma si posiziona come infrastruttura progettata attorno a quella realtà piuttosto che trattarla come una caratteristica secondaria, quindi il vero confronto non è "vecchio contro nuovo", è "istituzione prima contro utente prima", e quella differenza cambia tutto in come il sistema si sente quando lo usi effettivamente.

PROSSIMI MILIARDI
Le persone amano discutere su quale catena sia più veloce, quale sia più economica e quale vincerà, ma quando guardo a ciò che effettivamente sopravvive nel mondo reale, continuo a tornare a una verità più semplice: i prossimi miliardi non arriveranno perché un grafico sembra impressionante, arriveranno perché gli utenti normali toccano la blockchain senza provare paura, confusione o shock dei costi, e perché i costruttori possono spedire prodotti che rimangono stabili anche quando la rete è occupata. Ecco perché Vanar Chain, Ethereum e Solana valgono la pena di essere confrontati in modo serio, perché ciascuno rappresenta una risposta diversa alla stessa grande domanda, che è come possiamo far sentire la blockchain come un'infrastruttura affidabile invece di un esperimento ad alto rischio. Ethereum ha la gravità più profonda oggi perché è diventato il luogo in cui standard, liquidità e cultura degli sviluppatori a lungo termine si sono riuniti nel corso di molti anni, e quel tipo di gravità è difficile da replicare perché si accumula silenziosamente, mese dopo mese, attraverso strumenti, audit, portafogli, stablecoin e istituzioni che preferiscono il regolamento più sicuro che possono trovare. Solana proviene da un angolo diverso e afferma che le prestazioni devono essere native, non opzionali, perché se vuoi app che sembrano internet per i consumatori, hai bisogno di conferme rapide, costi bassi e un design che non costringe gli utenti a pensare a strati e ponti ogni volta che cliccano un pulsante. Vanar entra in gioco con una promessa pratica che parla direttamente ai costruttori e alle aziende che vogliono prevedibilità, soprattutto per quanto riguarda i costi, e aggiunge una narrativa proiettata verso il futuro attorno all'architettura nativa dell'IA, sostanzialmente dicendo che la prossima generazione di app non si limiterà a spostare token, gestiranno dati più ricchi e logica intelligente in un modo che sembra più semplice da costruire e più facile da scalare.

Introduction
When I sit and look at how money is starting to live on blockchains, it feels like we are watching the second act of a long story, not the beginning anymore, and in this second act the main character is not Bitcoin or some new meme token, it is the stablecoin, the digital dollar that people actually want to send, save, and spend. At first, everything was thrown on big general chains like Ethereum and later on fast alternatives, and everyone hoped that stablecoins would simply fit in, but as usage grew, fees spiked, networks became crowded, and the experience often stopped feeling like real money and started feeling like a complicated tech product that normal people could not trust. Now we are seeing new chains that say very clearly that they exist for stablecoins first, and Plasma XPL is one of the clearest examples of this new thinking, so if we put it side by side with traditional blockchains and follow the story step by step, we can see how the whole sequence of stablecoin settlement is changing in a very real and human way.

Why stablecoin settlement needed a new path
Stablecoins were supposed to be simple, just a token that stands for one dollar and moves smoothly on the internet, but if you have ever tried to send a small amount of USDT or USDC on a busy day on Ethereum, you already know where things started to break, because you are forced to pay gas in ETH, the gas price jumps around with network demand, and a basic transfer can suddenly cost more than the amount you are actually sending, so the dream of cheap digital cash turns into a confusing and sometimes painful experience. That is the reason so much stablecoin volume slowly migrated to cheaper networks, especially chains like Tron where sending USDT is usually much cheaper and faster, and exchanges and users followed those low fees quite naturally, since nobody wants to pay several dollars just to move a simple payment. Even there, though, users still need the native token of the chain for gas, they are still sharing block space with every other type of transaction, and they are still relying on general purpose designs that were not created with stablecoins as the number one priority, so we ended up with a world where stablecoins are huge and important, but they are basically guests living on platforms that were never truly built around their needs. At this point it becomes obvious why people started asking if there could be a network where stablecoins are not an afterthought but the center, a place where the fee model, the consensus, the developer tools, and even the bridges are tuned around the fact that digital dollars are what most real users care about.

What Plasma XPL is in simple terms
Plasma XPL comes in exactly at this moment and says that it is a Layer 1 blockchain whose whole identity is stablecoin settlement, not as a slogan but as a technical and economic design choice, so instead of trying to be the chain for everything, it tries to be the chain where stablecoins finally feel like native money. It is an EVM compatible chain, which means developers can write smart contracts in Solidity and use familiar tools that they already know from Ethereum, and wallets can integrate it without reinventing their whole stack, but under the surface the protocol is tuned differently, with a high performance Byzantine Fault Tolerant consensus that focuses on fast finality and high throughput, so payments do not sit in a pending state for a long time. The network makes stablecoins, especially USDT, first class citizens, offering zero fee transfers for common payment paths, support for paying gas in assets that users already hold, and bridges that connect to other ecosystems while anchoring the security story to more mature networks. In this way Plasma keeps one foot in the familiar Ethereum world, so it can reuse tooling and DeFi designs, while also shaping the base layer to truly match what a global stablecoin rail needs.

Why Plasma was built when traditional chains already exist
It is very fair to ask why someone would build another Layer 1 when we already have Ethereum, Tron, and other big networks running at scale, and the honest answer appears when we look at what each chain is really optimizing for instead of what the marketing lines say. Ethereum is a general purpose world computer, designed to support everything from DeFi and NFTs to on-chain games and experiments, and stablecoins are just one very important use case among many, which is why fees are sometimes high and unpredictable, because the network has to allocate space between all those competing transactions. Tron, in contrast, ended up as a low fee highway for token transfers and especially for USDT, which is why so much stablecoin volume lives there now, but even Tron was not designed purely to be a stablecoin settlement engine, it is still a broad platform that carries all kinds of activity. These chains are good at what they do, but they were not built from scratch with the simple question in mind, what would it look like if the only thing we cared about was moving and settling digital dollars in the cleanest way possible. Plasma XPL is trying to answer that question directly, and that is why its design leans into stablecoins so heavily, even if it still allows other applications. It accepts that we are in a new phase where specialized infrastructure can make sense, because the volume and importance of stablecoins are now big enough to justify a chain that treats them as the main character instead of another token standing in line.

How the system works step by step
If I walk through Plasma from the point of view of a normal user or a fintech that wants to route payments, the flow becomes easier to understand and feels less like a science fiction movie and more like a modern payment network that just happens to be on-chain. First, stablecoins such as USDT are brought into the Plasma ecosystem through bridges and liquidity programs, so there is real value on the chain from day one, not just an empty network waiting for someone to use it. Then, when you want to send a payment, your wallet prepares a transaction that moves stablecoins from your address to someone else on Plasma in the same way you might send an ERC 20 token on Ethereum, but the difference is how fees and confirmation behave. The protocol is designed so that common USDT transfers can be effectively zero fee for the user, the gas is either subsidized or handled in a way that does not require you to manage a separate volatile token, and the transaction is included and finalized quickly by the validator set using the Plasma specific BFT consensus, so you get strong finality in a short time. That quick finality means you do not have to guess how many blocks to wait, and merchants or services can treat the payment as settled without living in fear of a reorganization several minutes later. Alongside this, the network can periodically commit snapshots of its state to more secure base layers, using them as anchors, which strengthens the long term security of the history. For you as the end user, all of this complexity is hidden behind a simple experience where you open a wallet, see a balance in a familiar stablecoin, press send, and the other person receives a confirmed payment without having to worry about gas tokens or confusing network fees.

The role of the XPL token
Under everything, the XPL token acts like the spine of the network, keeping validators honest, aligning incentives, and giving the system a way to pay for security. Validators stake XPL in order to participate in consensus, which means they lock capital that can be punished if they misbehave, so the chain can tolerate a certain level of faulty or malicious participants without breaking. Fees that are not part of the special zero fee stablecoin paths are paid in XPL or in supported gas assets, and those fees are shared among validators and sometimes burned, so there is an economic loop that connects usage of the chain with rewards and with the long term token supply. Over time, governance features can grow around XPL as well, letting holders vote on protocol changes, parameter tweaks, and ecosystem funding, which gradually turns the token into the way the community makes collective decisions. In parallel, listing on major venues such as Binance gives XPL a liquid market where its price reflects, in an imperfect but visible way, the expectations people have about the future usage, security, and value capture of the Plasma network, so the token is both a technical instrument within the chain and a signal in the larger crypto economy.

Traditional blockchains as stablecoin rails
To see clearly where Plasma stands, it helps to look at traditional blockchains as stablecoin rails and to notice what they do well and where they strain under the weight. Ethereum provides unmatched composability, deep liquidity, and very strong decentralization, so if you are a DeFi protocol or a big institution you may want your core assets and strategies to live there, but for everyday stablecoin payments the gas model is often a problem because users must hold ETH and gas can jump suddenly. Tron solves a large part of the cost issue by keeping fees low and stable, which is why so many people use it for cross exchange transfers and cross border payments with USDT, yet it still keeps the classic structure that separates gas from the asset being moved, and its governance is more concentrated than that of Ethereum, which some users are comfortable with and others are not. Other chains exist along this spectrum, each with trade offs around speed, cost, decentralization, and developer experience. Plasma climbs into this landscape not as a direct enemy, but as a chain that says it wants to narrow its purpose and focus mainly on stablecoins as money, which lets it make more aggressive choices around fees, UX, and protocol features that might not make sense on a general platform. In practice this means that in a multi chain world, people can choose which rail fits their use case, and stablecoin settlement can migrate to Plasma in cases where its design offers a better balance of experience and security.

Technical choices that matter for stablecoin settlement
The difference between marketing talk and real change usually lives in the unglamorous technical decisions, and Plasma makes several choices that directly shape how stablecoin settlement feels. The high performance BFT consensus with quick finality is not just about bragging rights, it determines how fast a merchant can safely treat a payment as final and how similar the experience feels to using a card or a mobile wallet, because the fewer confirmation rounds needed, the less mental friction the user faces. EVM compatibility means developers do not have to learn a completely new model, they can port or extend existing smart contracts, tools, and patterns from Ethereum and its ecosystem, which helps Plasma bootstrap applications faster and gives users familiar interfaces tuned to the new network. The stablecoin native fee design lowers one of the biggest onboarding barriers, which is the annoying requirement of holding a separate gas token just to move your stablecoin, and when that barrier disappears, it becomes much easier to onboard people who do not care about speculation and just want a simple payment rail. The decision to anchor or bridge to older, more secure networks gives Plasma an extra layer of guarantee for long term settlement and creates a mental link for risk conscious users who like the idea that underneath this new high speed rail there is still a connection to the older, battle tested layers of the crypto ecosystem.

Important metrics people should watch
If we treat Plasma XPL as a serious attempt to reshape stablecoin settlement, then watching only the price of XPL is not enough, and a more useful set of metrics starts to appear. One of the most important is the amount of stablecoins actually sitting and moving on the chain, because a network that claims to be the home of digital dollars needs to show real volume and active addresses rather than just promises. Closely related to that is the number of daily or monthly active wallets making stablecoin transfers, since that tells us if end users and businesses are building real habits on Plasma or only testing it occasionally. Another key family of indicators involves fees and latency, such as the effective cost of a typical USDT transfer for a user and the average time to final confirmation, and over months and years these numbers reveal whether the zero fee and fast finality promises hold under stress or fade when the chain gets busy. On the security side, validator participation, stake distribution, and the size and diversity of the validator set show how robust the consensus really is, because a network can be technically clever but still fragile if too much power sits in too few hands. For token holders, circulating supply, staking rates, and emission or burn patterns are also important, since they describe how the economic side of the network evolves, especially when lockups end or protocol changes modify fee handling. Finally, ecosystem metrics like the number of live applications, integrated wallets, payment processors, and compliant on and off ramps help answer the question that matters the most in the long run, is Plasma becoming part of the everyday financial life of people and businesses, or is it just another experimental chain that traders use for a while and then forget.

Risks and challenges facing the project
Every serious project carries risks, and Plasma is no exception, so it is healthier to face them directly than to pretend they do not exist. One of the most obvious risks lies in its deep reliance on stablecoins themselves, especially on a single dominant one, because if a large portion of the economy on Plasma concentrates in one stablecoin and that issuer ever faces a serious crisis of confidence, regulatory shock, or reserve failure, the shock will hit the chain harder than it would hit a more diversified platform. Another major risk is the intense competition for the role of preferred stablecoin rail, since networks like Tron already process enormous volumes, Ethereum and its Layer 2s keep improving usability and cost, and new specialized chains keep appearing with similar ideas about using stablecoins as gas and optimizing for payments, so Plasma has to build not only good technology but also lasting relationships, trust, and liquidity to avoid being lost in the noise. There is also protocol risk, because combining fast BFT consensus, EVM execution, and bridging or anchoring logic introduces complexity, and history has shown that even well audited systems can encounter bugs or economic exploits when real users and adversaries push them to the edge. On top of that, token related risks such as unlock schedules, incentive design, and concentration of holdings can create volatility or centralization pressure if they are not managed carefully over time. Beyond the purely technical and economic aspects, the larger regulatory environment around stablecoins and payment networks is still changing, with new laws and rules appearing in different regions, and a chain that openly positions itself as global payment infrastructure will inevitably face questions about compliance, monitoring, and collaboration with regulated financial institutions, which can be challenging to balance with the open and permissionless spirit that gave blockchains their power in the first place.

How the future might unfold
If we try to imagine the future honestly, it probably will not be a simple story where one chain wins everything and all the others disappear, instead it feels more like a world of many rails that quietly work side by side. In such a world, Ethereum continues to be the place where complex DeFi strategies, high value settlements, and rich composable applications live, even if many of those flows eventually bridge to cheaper networks when it is time to move value around. Tron and similar chains can keep acting as high volume engines for basic transfers, especially for users who are sensitive to cost and already comfortable with their tools. Plasma, if it succeeds, finds a clear place as the rail that feels most like a native stablecoin network, where payments in digital dollars are easy to start, cheap or free to send, quick to settle, and deeply connected to wallets, apps, and services that regular people use without needing a crash course in crypto. In the best case, the chain disappears into the background of life, which is what good infrastructure usually does, and people simply say things like I am paid in this digital dollar, I send money to my family over the app, and it always arrives fast, without even worrying about which specific protocol handled the transaction. In a more modest outcome, Plasma still pushes the whole ecosystem forward by proving that stablecoin specific designs can work and by forcing other chains to rethink their fee models, gas tokens, and user experience, so even if it never becomes the single dominant rail, it still changes what users expect from any network that wants to handle their digital money.

Closing note
When I think about Plasma XPL and traditional blockchains together, it feels less like a clash and more like a natural next step, as if the first generation of networks tested what was possible, the second generation chased speed and lower fees, and now we are stepping into a phase where stability, usability, and human friendly design finally move to the center of the stage. Stablecoins have quietly become the part of crypto that ordinary people understand most easily, because a digital dollar is something they can relate to, and Plasma is one of the clearest attempts to give that familiar unit of value a home that truly fits its role. There are still risks, questions, and a lot of work to do, but when we watch how the pieces are moving, we are seeing the old idea of money meeting a new kind of infrastructure, and somewhere in that meeting there is room for a future where sending value across the world feels as simple as sending a message to a friend.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma

Non sono interessato a confrontare due ticker come se fossero la stessa cosa, perché VANRY e YALA sono costruiti per lavori diversi, e quando le persone ignorano questo, finiscono per prendere decisioni emotive basate sul rumore invece che sul design. Stiamo vedendo un problema comune nel crypto dove la conversazione si intrappola nell'azione dei prezzi, ma la vera verità risiede negli obiettivi, perché gli obiettivi ti dicono cosa deve andare bene, cosa si romperà per primo e quale tipo di rischio stai realmente sostenendo. Vanar Chain è posizionato come un Layer 1 nativo per l'IA e un stack più ampio che mira a supportare applicazioni ricche di dati ed esperienze integrate con l'IA attraverso un'esecuzione veloce, costi bassi e un ambiente che sembra familiare agli sviluppatori EVM. Yala, nel contesto del DeFi di Bitcoin, mira a sbloccare la liquidità di Bitcoin permettendo al valore supportato da BTC di muoversi attraverso il DeFi senza costringere i possessori a vendere il loro BTC, il che di solito significa un sistema costruito attorno a meccaniche di stablecoin sovra-collateralizzate, regole di liquidazione e stabilità del peg, e questa differenza da sola è il motivo per cui le mappe di rischio non sono solo diverse per dimensione ma anche per forma.

Plasma (XPL) è costruito attorno a una tesi semplice. Le stablecoin sono già lo strumento di pagamento dominante nel crypto, e le catene che guideranno la prossima evoluzione funzioneranno meno come piattaforme di trading e più come veri e propri binari di regolamento finanziario. Raggiungere questo obiettivo richiede velocità e affidabilità, ma richiede anche un'integrità di regolamento indiscutibile.
Plasma introduce un design di sicurezza stratificato che offre conferme rapide attraverso la propria rete, ancorando periodicamente gli impegni chiave a Bitcoin. Questo processo è inteso a rendere significativamente più difficile e pubblicamente rilevabile le riscritture della storia delle transazioni profonde. Per una blockchain che punta a diventare un'infrastruttura di stablecoin, questa combinazione ha una grande importanza.

Attivi del Mondo Reale
Introduzione
La finanza non può funzionare con piena trasparenza pubblica. Nei mercati reali, la riservatezza non è facoltativa. Le istituzioni devono proteggere i dati dei clienti, le posizioni, i flussi di tesoreria e le strategie di trading. Allo stesso tempo, i regolatori e i revisori richiedono conformità verificabile, registri puliti e report difendibili.
Questo è lo spazio che la Dusk Foundation sta mirando attraverso il Dusk Network, una blockchain di Livello 1 fondata nel 2018 con una missione chiara: costruire un'infrastruttura finanziaria regolamentata e che preservi la privacy, dove la riservatezza e la verificabilità siano progettate nel protocollo sin dall'inizio.

Introduzione
Walrus (WAL) sta emergendo come un'infrastruttura dati decentralizzata di nuova generazione progettata per risolvere una delle principali limitazioni della tecnologia blockchain. Le blockchain sono eccellenti per registrare la proprietà, le transazioni e le regole, ma non sono costruite per memorizzare file di grandi dimensioni in modo efficiente. Con la crescita di AI, giochi, media e piattaforme metaverso, il mondo ha bisogno di un sistema in grado di memorizzare enormi quantità di informazioni in modo sicuro, affidabile e senza fare affidamento su un'unica azienda. Walrus punta a diventare quella fondazione.

La Vanar Chain è una blockchain di tipo L1 costruita con un obiettivo specifico: rendere il Web3 pratico per gli utenti quotidiani e le vere aziende, non solo per le comunità native della crittovaluta. Invece di ottimizzare solo per la flessibilità degli sviluppatori o il throughput grezzo, il posizionamento di Vanar si concentra sull'adozione di massa attraverso settori che hanno già una enorme domanda di consumatori: giochi, intrattenimento, esperienze digitali e coinvolgimento del marchio. L'idea è semplice: se il Web3 deve raggiungere miliardi di persone, deve arrivare attraverso prodotti che la gente già comprende e apprezza, non attraverso concetti tecnici che devono imparare.