H A R E E M

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.

#vanar @Vanarchain $VANRY

Most people look at Plasma and immediately file it under the usual category: another fast EVM chain, optimized for payments. That description is technically true, but it completely misses what makes this network structurally different.

Plasma is not really competing on speed. It is competing on who pays.

The real product Plasma is trying to scale is something much more uncomfortable for blockchains: sponsored settlement. In simple words, Plasma is trying to make moving a stablecoin feel free to the person sending it, while pushing the cost, risk and coordination burden somewhere else. That “somewhere else” is the network itself — and more specifically, XPL.

If you view Plasma through that lens, XPL is not a gas token. It is the balance sheet that makes free money movement believable.

The design choice that reveals this most clearly is gasless USDT transfers. Plasma explicitly supports zero-fee USD₮ transfers through native contracts and paymaster logic, with guardrails and identity-aware controls described in the protocol documentation (Plasma docs – zero-fee USDT transfers). This is not a vague promise of “abstracted gas”. It is a narrow, engineered lane: simple stablecoin sends are sponsored, and everything else is not.

That narrowness is the point.

A fully open, fully subsidized transfer rail would be farmed into extinction. Plasma instead chooses the single action that dominates real payments behaviour — sending dollars — and optimizes only that. This is a payments network design, not a generalized blockchain design.

What is easy to miss is how aggressively this redefines what XPL must be.

If the average user never needs to hold XPL in order to move money, then XPL cannot survive as a convenience token. It must survive as a security and settlement asset.

You can already see the shape of usage on-chain. At the time of writing, Plasma’s explorer shows roughly 147.70 million total transactions, around 5.8 transactions per second, and an average block time of about 1.00 second (Plasmascan dashboard). On the stablecoin side, the USD₮0 contract alone shows roughly 4,959,875 token transactions (Plasmascan USD₮0 contract page).

Those numbers are still small compared to global payment rails, but they show something important: stablecoin movement is not a secondary workload on this chain. It is a first-class one.

And once the chain commits to sponsoring the dominant user action, the economics must flip. The chain has to earn its keep elsewhere — through security demand, validator economics, and non-sponsored transaction flow. That burden is carried by XPL.

This leads to the second, quieter part of Plasma’s strategy: it is not chasing “TVL” in the usual DeFi sense. It is chasing float.

In Plasma’s own “Where Money Moves” report, the initial deposit campaign reached 500 million dollars in under five minutes. The cap was then raised to one billion dollars and filled within roughly thirty minutes, with just under 3,000 participating wallets and a reported median deposit of about 12,000 dollars (Plasma newsletter – Where Money Moves, edition 7).

Separately, Crypto.news reported that Plasma’s public sale raised approximately 373 million dollars over ten days, roughly seven times above the original 50 million target, with more than 3,000 participants and an average allocation of around 83,000 dollars per wallet (Crypto.news).

These are not typical retail airdrop numbers. The wallet profile and the speed of capital inflow look much closer to early treasury and infrastructure positioning than speculative micro-participation.

Why does this matter for XPL?

Because a chain that sponsors payments must ultimately monetize distribution, not just blockspace. Stablecoin float sitting inside the ecosystem — in wallets, merchant tools, payroll flows, and institutional rails — is the asset Plasma is trying to convert into sustainable network revenue.

And the tokenomics make this intention unusually explicit.

According to Plasma’s own token documentation, XPL has an initial supply of 10 billion tokens at mainnet beta. Ten percent is allocated to the public sale, forty percent to ecosystem and growth, and the remaining fifty percent split evenly between team and investors. Validator rewards begin at a 5% annual inflation rate and decline by 0.5% per year until a 3% baseline is reached. The fee mechanism follows an EIP-1559 style model, with a base fee burn intended to counterbalance emissions as activity increases (Plasma tokenomics documentation).

This is not a neutral structure. It is a structure that only works if transaction demand and fee generation eventually become strong enough to absorb and offset a persistent issuance schedule.

In other words, Plasma is deliberately accepting early dilution in exchange for distribution and sponsored usage. The bet is that usage becomes structurally monetizable before XPL becomes permanently dependent on incentives.

You can see where the market currently places that wager. Plasmascan’s on-chain market data shows an XPL price around $0.11, an on-chain market capitalization of roughly $228.9 million, and a circulating figure used for that calculation of approximately 2.16 billion XPL (Plasmascan dashboard). These are not fundamentals. They are the size of the balance sheet Plasma is trying to grow into.

The third pillar of Plasma’s design is the one that actually determines whether any of this becomes infrastructure rather than a well-funded experiment: settlement neutrality.

For stablecoin settlement, finality is not mainly a performance metric. It is a governance property. Institutions and payment companies care about whether a transaction can be stopped, reversed, censored, or selectively delayed under pressure.

Plasma’s consensus design, PlasmaBFT, is a HotStuff-derived Byzantine fault tolerant system with a fast path that uses a two-chain commit mechanism, aiming for very short deterministic finality windows (Plasma consensus documentation). Combined with the roughly one-second block time visible on the explorer, a reasonable best-case estimate for finality would be in the range of two to three seconds.

This is an estimate, not a claim. It assumes steady leadership, no view changes, and low network latency. The important part is not the headline number. The important part is whether Plasma can eventually publish and sustain tight finality distributions — especially p95 under congestion.

Alongside this, Plasma is also building a Bitcoin-linked bridge design. The documentation describes a pBTC model backed one-to-one and a verifier and MPC-based withdrawal design intended to reduce trust assumptions (Plasma Bitcoin bridge documentation).

Most commentary treats Bitcoin anchoring as a marketing badge. In a stablecoin settlement context, it is better understood as a signal about neutrality. Plasma is positioning itself for an environment where validator coercion, regulatory pressure and infrastructure capture are more realistic threats than chain re-orgs.

This is precisely where XPL gains meaning for institutions. XPL is not what moves money. XPL is what backs the ledger that moves money.

There is a real and uncomfortable counterargument to all of this.

Gasless USDT transfers rely on controlled sponsorship infrastructure and identity-aware constraints. The documentation is open about this. That opens the door to the claim that Plasma is simply a centralized payments rail wrapped in EVM compatibility, with XPL playing a decorative role.

The criticism is fair — but incomplete.

If you subsidize money movement, abuse resistance is part of scaling. A permissionless paymaster that sponsors value transfers is not a public good, it is a subsidy extraction machine. Plasma’s real test is not whether sponsorship exists. It is whether sponsorship remains an edge-layer policy decision while settlement remains credibly neutral at the base layer.

If those two layers stay cleanly separated, Plasma can look somewhat centralized at the UX edge while remaining structurally decentralized where it matters most: block production, transaction inclusion and finality. If that separation collapses, XPL loses its purpose, and Plasma becomes fintech infrastructure with cryptographic plumbing.

This is why the real bet on XPL is not “stablecoins will grow.”

The real bet is that sponsored settlement itself becomes a defensible moat.

Plasma is trying to build a world where moving digital dollars feels like using the internet — invisible costs, predictable timing, and no need to understand the machinery underneath. But that invisibility only works if the machinery is over-engineered, well-funded and politically resilient.

If you want to track whether this vision is actually materializing, there are only a few things that really matter.

Watch the growth of USD₮0 transaction counts and how large a share of total network activity they represent over time (Plasmascan contract and chain dashboards). Watch how much fee burn eventually offsets validator emissions once the full validator and delegation system is active (Plasma tokenomics documentation). Watch real finality statistics — not marketing claims — especially p95 under congestion (Plasma consensus documentation and any public metrics they release). Watch the market structure impact around the public-sale token unlock scheduled for July 28, 2026 (Plasma tokenomics documentation). And finally, watch whether the Bitcoin bridge actually behaves as designed once exposed to real adversarial conditions (Plasma Bitcoin bridge documentation).

Plasma’s ambition is not to be the fastest chain.

It is trying to become the place where dollars move for free — and where XPL quietly pays the bill.

#Plasma @Plasma $XPL

Most people still look at Vanar through the wrong lens.
They ask whether Vanar can compete with other L1s on throughput, decentralisation or DeFi activity. But that comparison already misses what the team is actually building. Vanar is not optimising for capital. It is optimising for consumer attention that turns into digital property — game items, licensed collectibles, brand assets and identity-linked experiences.

A better way to think about Vanar is this: the real asset is not the chain itself, but the consumer surface area that forces settlement onto the chain. If enough people create, upgrade and trade digital assets inside everyday products, the blockchain stops being infrastructure and becomes the default back-end for ownership. In that world, VANRY is not just a gas token — it becomes the unit that quietly meters and secures all of that activity.

This is why Vanar’s origin matters far more than most people realise.

Unlike most “consumer L1s”, Vanar did not launch first and then try to buy an ecosystem. It grew out of an existing consumer pipeline. The project’s own whitepaper and exchange migration notices show that the earlier Virtua token (TVK) was migrated 1:1 into VANRY, with 1.2 billion tokens carried into genesis and the rebrand completed at the end of 2023 (sources: Vanar whitepaper, MEXC announcement).

That is not a cosmetic token change. It means Vanar inherited a user and product lineage instead of trying to manufacture one later with grants.

More importantly, Virtua itself now positions its marketplace and consumer experiences as being built on Vanar. Virtua is not an external partner you need to persuade. It is a built-in distribution channel. The same logic applies to the games pipeline through VGN.

This changes the adoption equation.

Most L1 ecosystems struggle because distribution is fragmented and optional. Under what I would call a “surface-area settlement” model, distribution is structural. The chain wins if the everyday places where people touch digital assets all route settlement to the same base layer.

That is the first pillar of the thesis: Vanar is vertically integrating consumer distribution into its base layer, not merely hosting apps.

The second pillar is much less glamorous but far more important for real users: predictability.

If you are building a financial product, variable fees and fluctuating confirmation times are tolerable. If you are building games, brand activations or entertainment experiences, they are not. Users do not accept random delays and shifting prices when they are crafting an item, redeeming a reward or buying a digital collectible.

Vanar’s own technical documentation explicitly frames its fee and inclusion model around predictability and fairness, and references a three-second block time as the baseline for reward logic (source: Vanar whitepaper). That design choice is not about winning benchmarks. It is about giving product teams something stable enough to build around.

You can already see whether this is just a design story or something people are actually using by looking at the public chain.

The Vanar explorer currently reports around 8.94 million blocks and about 193.8 million total transactions (source: Vanar explorer). From that, you can derive an average of roughly 21.7 transactions per block across the chain’s lifetime.

That number is not impressive or disappointing on its own. What matters is what it implies.

If you combine that with the three-second block assumption from the whitepaper, you can estimate that the chain has been running for about 310 days (this is an estimate and assumes relatively consistent block production). Using the same assumption, lifetime-average throughput works out to roughly 620,000 transactions per day.

Those are consumer-scale numbers, not empty-chain numbers. They do not prove quality, but they do prove that Vanar is not a ghost network.

The third pillar — and the one most investors gloss over — is how VANRY is meant to function inside this system.

The whitepaper states that new issuance is spread over roughly twenty years and that newly minted tokens are allocated approximately 83% to validators, 13% to development rewards and 4% to community and airdrop programmes, with no team allocation (source: Vanar whitepaper).

This is not a typical growth token structure.

If taken seriously, VANRY is being positioned as a long-term operating budget for two things only: security and ecosystem growth. In a consumer-driven network, that matters more than liquidity mining. Distribution is expensive. Retention is expensive. Content and partnerships are expensive. A token that is structurally aimed at funding those loops — rather than just bootstrapping TVL — is far better aligned with mainstream adoption.

The market, however, clearly does not price VANRY as if this model is working yet.

According to CoinMarketCap, VANRY’s circulating supply is about 2.256 billion tokens, with a stated maximum supply of 2.4 billion, a market capitalisation around 15 million dollars and roughly 5 million dollars in daily trading volume at the time of writing (source: CoinMarketCap).

Two simple and verifiable implications fall straight out of that.

First, only about 144 million tokens remain between circulating and the stated maximum supply — roughly 6% of the cap. This is an estimate and assumes the published circulating and max figures reflect actual issued supply accurately.

Second, daily trading volume represents roughly 35% of the total market capitalisation. That is very high turnover for a network that claims to be building consumer infrastructure.

This gap is the real tension inside Vanar today.

On one side, you have a chain with almost 200 million transactions and a clearly defined consumer pipeline. On the other side, you have a token that still trades like a micro-cap narrative asset with heavy speculative churn.

Either the market is underestimating the value of real consumer settlement — or a large share of the on-chain activity is not meaningful usage.

That brings us to the strongest and fairest counter-argument.

Vanar’s own documentation makes it clear that the network initially relies on a permissioned validator structure and that the foundation operates the early validator set, using a Proof-of-Authority and reputation-based model (source: Vanar whitepaper).

If you are sceptical, this raises a very uncomfortable possibility: that Vanar is not a neutral settlement layer at all, but a controlled platform that happens to use blockchain rails — and that VANRY is optional to the long-term business rather than central to it.

This concern cannot be dismissed with ideology. It can only be tested with behaviour.

If Vanar truly becomes a settlement layer for consumer digital property, three things must start to become visible over time.

First, the provenance of activity must line up with the consumer surface area. Contracts linked to Virtua commerce, VGN games and brand experiences should dominate real usage and, more importantly, show repeat interaction patterns instead of one-off bursts.

Second, validator control must actually expand beyond foundation stewardship. If decentralisation never meaningfully progresses, Vanar may still succeed as a platform — but the settlement premium that supports long-term token value will be capped.

Third, growth incentives must clearly translate into retention and distribution inside products, not into temporary activity spikes. The token budget only compounds if it buys long-lived users.

When you strip away the branding and the buzzwords, Vanar is making a very specific bet.

It is betting that the next wave of Web3 adoption will not start with wallets and finance. It will start inside games, entertainment, branded experiences and digital culture — and the chain that quietly underpins those experiences will be the one that captures value.

If Vanar succeeds, it will not be because it became a better crypto ecosystem.

It will be because it became an invisible consumer operating layer — and VANRY became the unit that people use without ever realising they are using a blockchain at all.

What decides that outcome over the next year is not announcements. It is whether Virtua’s marketplace activity actually settles on Vanar at scale, whether VGN creates closed-loop in-game economies that generate repeated transactions, whether validator participation broadens in a verifiable way, and whether real on-chain usage begins to matter more to the market than short-term trading volume.

That is the only path on which Vanar stops being “a consumer L1 narrative” and starts becoming consumer infrastructure.

#vanar @Vanarchain $VANRY