I approach @Vanarchain’s token model with caution. Many models seem reasonable early on, when liquidity is low and demand is driven by hype. The real test comes when significant capital flows in and users want to exit—then value depends not on utility, but on incentives and exit options.
Vanar’s tokens serve multiple roles—fees, staking, rewards—each creating supply pressure. The key question is: where does real demand come from, and is it enough to absorb ongoing issuance, or is most demand speculative?
I also look at token distribution and governance. How many tokens are held by the team, foundation, or funds? Can issuance be changed? Who controls the multisig, and can emissions be paused or reduced if the market drops? During prolonged price declines, selling pressure may rise, and new users may hesitate to buy. Will trust hold, or will they migrate to another chain with similar UX?
If Vanar subsidizes fees or rebates to improve UX, where does that funding come from, and how long will it last? When incentives end, will users remain? If the ecosystem is mainly games and entertainment, how does real revenue flow? Is there a buyback or value-sharing mechanism, or is the token merely an entry ticket and rewards system? Many systems see activity—and token value—fall as rewards decrease.
Vanar can introduce sinks like fees, staking, or token locks, but do these create real value or simply delay selling pressure? In crises—a bank run in a major game, an oracle failure—users will want liquidity. Are pools deep enough to allow exits? Are bridges a potential risk?
While Vanar’s UX, low fees, and entertainment apps attract users, the critical question is: is the token truly a store of value, or just an incentive to bootstrap adoption? When incentives shrink, what remains?
I’m not looking for promises of long-term sustainability. I’m examining assumptions under stress: can emissions be flexibly reduced, is governance transparent and decentralized, can upgrade rights be misused, and is there an exit path independent of intermediaries? If these aren’t clear, sustainability is just an assumption. The real question is how much autonomy you’re willing to trade for short-term experience and rewards.