If you are still viewing it from the perspective of 'just another public chain',@Vanarchain can actually become increasingly awkward the more you study it. 📉
It's not that its parameters are inadequate, but rather that you are using the wrong ruler.
The core issue that Vanar cares about has never been 'how many transactions can be recorded in a second', but rather:
👉 Can a system's actions be completed fully on-chain without losing connection?
🤖 What truly holds developers back has never been TPS.
Those who have worked on slightly more complex on-chain systems have basically all stepped into the same pit:
The logic is fine, the model can run, and the demo can be demonstrated, but as soon as it enters the real environment, problems start to arise.
Why?
Because a single 'action' is broken down into too many segments:
This step is calculated off-chain
That step is verified on-chain
Settlement follows another set of logic
Finally, add a record
Looking reasonable in single-step view, but when running in multi-threading, it relies entirely on manual glue code holding it up 😵💫
Chains are good at remembering results, but not friendly to processes; this is the root cause of many systems not going far.
🔩 What Vanar has been emphasizing is actually 'execution integrity'
You will find that in Vanar's official materials, the frequency of occurrence of execution is unusually high.
This isn't a habit issue of writing white papers, but an architectural orientation issue.
What it attempts to do is very clear:
👉 Turn execution → verification → accounting into a continuous system path
👉 Instead of 'doing the work first, then figuring out the reconciliation later'
In this design, actions themselves are treated as the basic units on the chain, rather than as appendages to transactions.
This is actually two different approaches compared to the traditional 'transaction center-based' chain.
🧠 Once we enter the era of Agents, problems will be amplified infinitely
Imagine a long-running AI Agent:
Requires repeated calls to the model
Needs to read historical states
Must continuously pay for computing power, interfaces, and data
Every step must be traceable and settleable
If the bottom layer is only designed around 'single transactions', then execution will inevitably be fragmented.
With too many intermediate steps, relying on off-chain services for support, the system's stability starts to be compromised ⚠️
Vanar considers payment capabilities and execution paths within the same structure,
This matter is not sexy in narrative, but extremely critical in engineering.
⚖️ Of course, this path is not easy
Compressing the execution logic into the protocol layer has very realistic costs:
The system is heavier
The design is more complex
Flexibility seems not as good as 'light bottom layer + free assembly of applications'
But those who have worked on complex systems understand:
Complexity will not disappear, it will only shift.
If you don't solve it at the bottom layer, it will become an implicit cost for developers to maintain in the long run 🧾
🧩 Therefore, rather than calling it a 'public chain', it might be better to call it an execution network
Vanar seems to be answering a long-ignored question:
When a chain starts to carry continuous behavior instead of occasional transfers, what should it look like?
TPS is instantaneous capability,
Whether the execution chain is closed is a long-term capability.
In the short term, transaction data may not be that lively;
But once the system starts to run 'continuous actions', the gap will be quickly magnified.
By then you will find:
Some chains will forever just be ledgers;
Some chains can truly serve as operating environments.
And Vanar is clearly designing towards the latter.🧱✨