azu_crypto1

AI Concept Coin Disperse: Vanar writes the "Thinking Chain" as a 5-layer brain, $VANRY is the true AI L1

Ancestral conclusion: @Vanarchain is really not the kind of conceptual chain that casually attaches an "AI module" to a white paper, but a complete 5-layer stack designed from the ground up according to AI workload — L1 settlement layer, semantic memory Neutron, reasoning engine Kayon, application layer Axon, automation layer Flows, clearly stated on the official website: The Chain That Thinks.

Most projects claiming to be "AI public chains" are essentially ordinary EVMs, with a reasoning service hanging on top, treated as an add-on. Vanar's approach is completely opposite: any on-chain application can naturally access memory, reasoning, and workflows without needing to integrate a bunch of external APIs, which is evident from the repeated emphasis on the official website and X about the "AI-native infrastructure stack."

Personally, I care most about these two layers, Neutron and Kayon. Neutron compresses files and dialogues into on-chain semantic Seeds, myNeutron even achieves "no loss of memory when changing models," with the official examples being ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini; Kayon performs reasoning on top of these Seeds and chain data, turning "why this decision was made this way" into an auditable process, rather than a black box answer. Once Axon and Flows are widely deployed, AI entities can not only chat but can also autonomously complete payment, settlement, and risk control actions on Vanar.

From the perspective of on-chain players, when I now look at Vanar ecosystem projects, I no longer just ask the old questions like "Is it EVM? How fast is the TPS?" but will casually add a couple of questions: Which layer of the AI stack does it actually use? Is Neutron really used for memory, and Kayon for reasoning? Will it bring sustained stack usage and settlement demand to $VANRY ? If the answer is affirmative, then for me, #Vanar and $VANRY are not just ordinary new public chains, but a complete set of "thinking infrastructure" that is slowly being filled.

Gas abdication, stablecoins ascend: Plasma makes "just use USD₮ on-chain" the default setting

Azu gets straight to the point: the vast majority of public chains love to say they "embrace stablecoins," but in architecture, they still follow the universal chain model. USDT is just one of countless ERC-20 tokens, with transaction fees and Gas experience left entirely to the applications to cover. If you want to send some money to your family, you first have to teach them how to buy native coins and how to reserve Gas; this kind of UX is still far from being a "global payment infrastructure."

Plasma feels completely different to me. The official website states upfront: this is a "high-performance Layer 1 designed from scratch for stablecoins, specifically serving global USD₮ payments," while retaining full EVM compatibility. More importantly, the team simply writes Stablecoin-Native Contracts as protocol-level components, directly providing zero-fee USD₮ transfers, custom Gas Tokens, and confidential payment capabilities through official operational modules, rather than forcing every project to reinvent the wheel. Behind the zero-fee USD₮ transfers is a protocol-level Paymaster/Relayer sponsoring the Gas for simple transfers, and users only see "transfer=0 fees," without needing to first stock up on $XPL as intermediate fuel; then adding Custom Gas Tokens, stablecoins in the whitelist, and even pBTC, can be used directly for payment.

This setup of "stablecoins as first-class citizens" also reflects on its ecological design. The consensus layer uses a combination of PlasmaBFT + Reth optimized for high-throughput payments, with the goal not to create flashy DeFi, but to honestly focus on payroll disbursement, merchant acquiring, and cross-border settlements—turning stablecoins into an API that is ready for use at any time. When the chain really gets a bunch of applications that "only need to use stablecoins," you will look back at those universal L1s still competing on TPS and inflated ecological charts and understand what path you are truly choosing.

@Plasma $XPL #plasma

Many projects talk about RWA to the point of calluses, but when it comes to implementation, it’s just about "waiting for cooperation, waiting for licenses, waiting for ecosystems". @Dusk This time there will be no pretense, three things are connected: DuskTrade is responsible for bringing real assets on-chain, DuskEVM is responsible for allowing developers and institutions to start directly, and Hedger is responsible for making privacy a "confidential yet auditable" compliant form—this looks like a system aimed at regulated finance, rather than a jigsaw puzzle of concepts.

The first move is DuskTrade (launching in 2026): developed in collaboration with the regulated Dutch exchange NPEX, aiming to move tokenized securities worth over 300 million euros on-chain, where trading and investing are no longer "self-indulgent on-chain," but a compliant entry point connecting to real-world assets; more critically, the waiting list opens in January, this is not a PPT, this is a real action of queuing to get on board. You can understand it as: integrating the "compliance track of traditional securities" into the settlement efficiency of Web3.

The second move is DuskEVM (official stance: mainnet in the second week of January): the EVM compatible application layer directly shatters the barriers—Solidity contracts, existing toolchains, and developer habits do not need to change, just deploy and run, settlement returns to Dusk's L1. For institutions, this means that "compliant asset issuance/trading" finally has a more respectable execution environment; for developers, this means that RWA and compliant DeFi no longer need to start from scratch.

The third move is the strongest: Hedger. Privacy in regulated finance is not about "hiding," it is about "being explainable, accountable, and auditable". Dusk uses zero-knowledge proofs + homomorphic encryption to hide transaction details from the market while retaining audit channels when rules require it; Hedger Alpha has already launched, which is equivalent to advancing "compliant privacy" from a slogan to a verifiable engineering reality. What you want is not "anonymity," but a type of privacy that institutions dare to use, regulators can see, and the market cannot discern intentions.

If you are still using "EVM compatibility" as a selling point, then you may underestimate Dusk's ambition: it is using a combination of punches to sequentially place real assets, usable execution layers, and compliant privacy, then waiting for the market to push liquidity and demand up. $DUSK The truly valuable aspect is not short-term sentiment, but once this compliant track is operational, growth will not rely on shouting. #Dusk $DUSK

Azu Research Report: Don't Be Deceived by Appearances! The Real Moat of Red Stuff is Not 'Good Looking', But This 'Double Standard' Mechanism

I am Azu. Many people stop at '2D erasure coding sounds advanced' when discussing Red Stuff, but the key to Walrus is not beautiful typesetting; it’s about using different thresholds for two dimensions, specifically serving the asynchronous reality of the open network where 'messages may be delayed, nodes may drop, and opponents may disrupt your rhythm'.

The document states clearly: the significance of the low-threshold dimension is to provide honest nodes that did not timely receive symbols during the writing process with a 'makeup entry' — they do not have to wait for the whole network to synchronize, and they can restore the missing part, allowing writing to be closer to the real internet rather than relying on 'false synchronization' to hold on. This is like upgrading the system's fault tolerance from 'hope it doesn't drop packets' to 'even if it drops, it can self-heal'.

The high-threshold dimension is even more ruthless: it must support the security boundaries of the read path and the challenge period. Walrus clearly points out that in an asynchronous network, attackers can exploit network delays — for example, slowing down nodes, creating a 'seemingly compliant' illusion, or even attempting to gather challenge materials without actually storing data. The reason Red Stuff can still support storage challenges in an asynchronous environment is precisely because this high-threshold dimension raises the bar for 'reading and verification', making delays no longer a cheat for opponents.

What I like about Walrus is this: it is not writing papers in an ideal network, but repeatedly emphasizing in official articles that Red Stuff is the 'engine' of Walrus, aiming to achieve high resilience, effective recovery, and strong security simultaneously in an asynchronous environment. Looking again at the real signals on Twitter: the official data from the Haulout mainnet hackathon — 887 people registered, 282 submissions, participation from 12+ countries, indicating that developers are indeed completing assignments around this underlying capability rather than just forwarding narrative graphics.

Simply put, Red Stuff's '2D' is not decoration, but entrusting recovery to the low-threshold dimension and security and verifiability to the high-threshold dimension — this is the structured answer that a storage protocol aimed at the open network should have.

@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #Walrus

Web3 is not lacking new public chains; what it lacks are products that can prove they are 'AI ready': Vanar has provided three report cards.

Azu is teaching a course: today, making a 'new L1 application layer', the biggest competitor is not other chains, but the fact that 'people actually already have paths to take'. The underlying highways of Web3 are plentiful; what is truly scarce are systems that can run autonomous driving—specifically, allowing agents to have long-term memory on-chain, interpretable reasoning, secure automatic execution, and also ensuring that each step is accounted for.

Why is Vanar able to articulate this well? Because it proves it not through PPT, but through product delivery. myNeutron brings 'semantic memory' and 'persistent context' down to the infrastructure layer: a knowledge base follows you across different AI platforms, offering semantic search and on-chain backup, so agents do not lose memory every time they restart. Kayon turns reasoning into an on-chain capability: querying on-chain data with natural language and enterprise backend data, outputting context with auditable logic, and also performing compliance checks before payments happen—this is the prerequisite for institutions to dare to use AI agents for real money. Lastly, there is Flows: turning 'understanding' into 'doing', adding guardrails for agents, and turning intelligence into controllable automated operations, instead of handing private keys to a black box.

For crypto investors, the positioning of $VANRY is clearer: it is not an 'AI narrative ticket', but rather the fuel and pricing unit for this intelligent stack—memory writes, reasoning calls, workflow executions, and cross-chain interactions all require payment settlement on-chain. More importantly, Vanar uses a fixed-fee tiered mechanism to compress common transactions to the lowest level (around $0.0005 equivalent), making the 'unit action cost' of agents predictable and scalable. What you are betting on is not the next wave of slogans, but whether the real call volume brought by these products can turn settlement frequency into a long-term curve.

@Vanarchain $VANRY #Vanar

Using stablecoins 'like air': Plasma's product thinking is a bit harsh

Azu is here, let me start with a bold statement: most 'payment chains' simply turn transfers into demonstrations, rather than turning payments into products—users still have to learn Gas first, buy coins first, wait for confirmations, and worry about failures and being stuck.

Plasma's approach is more like creating an operating system: focusing solely on one thing—global stablecoin payments. In the public testnet, it has clearly separated the core: the consensus side uses PlasmaBFT to pursue faster determinism, while the execution side remains EVM compatible, allowing developers to directly migrate using familiar Solidity and toolchains, reducing the friction of 'having to relearn to go on-chain'.

What truly amazed me is that fee friction is 'systemically handled'. The official documentation is quite firm: the paymaster maintained by the protocol will sponsor Gas for eligible USD₮ (USDT0) transfers, with a very narrow scope, only covering transfer/transferFrom, while controlling costs and preventing abuse through identity verification and rate limiting. External integration is also not just empty talk—they provided engineering documentation for the Relayer API: the backend obtains an API Key, makes EIP-712 signatures, and then uses EIP-3009 authorized signatures to complete the gasless transfer process.

More importantly, Plasma hasn't sold the 'all-in-one illusion': the mainnet beta will start with PlasmaBFT + (modified) Reth EVM, and capabilities such as confidential transactions and Bitcoin bridges will be gradually rolled out as the network matures. They also emphasized on Twitter that USDT0 has connected over 141B of the USDT ecosystem—this means Plasma is not creating a 'new coin narrative', but compressing the liquidity, settlement, and experience of stablecoins into a scalable underlying capability.

I will continue to monitor three things: whether real transfer volumes can be sustained, whether sponsorship costs can be controlled, and how $XPL forms a closed loop in security budget and ecological incentives.

@Plasma $XPL #plasma

Hedger turns EVM transactions into 'compliant confidential documents', this is the hard narrative of $DUSK

I am Azu, let me be straightforward: on-chain privacy, if it is just 'hidden', will never enter regulated finance; what is truly valuable is 'keeping secrets from the market while being auditable by regulators'. Dusk's core logic in the white paper is very clear - privacy and compliance are not either/or, but should be engineered into the same set of default capabilities: what should be public is public, what should be confidential is confidential, but at the same time, it must be able to provide verifiable explanations and evidence when needed.

This is also why I am more focused on Hedger: it is not a tool for you to 'avoid regulation', but rather a compliance privacy engine for DuskEVM, using homomorphic encryption + zero-knowledge proof to pull sensitive information like transaction amounts, balances, and intentions back from 'broadcasting across the entire network' to a state of 'confidential but auditable'. For institutions, this means a closer experience to dark pools/market making: order intentions are no longer exposed, reducing the risk of being targeted and front-run; but when rules require it, evidence can be provided, and accountability can be established, meeting the hard requirements of compliance auditing.

More importantly, it has already started to run: Hedger Alpha has launched and is open for testing (official information), during the testnet phase, key actions like Shield/Unshield and confidential transfers have been integrated first, and testing has been advanced under controlled conditions through an allowlist - this is closer to real implementation than simply shouting 'privacy sector'. Moving forward, I will continue to monitor the iteration pace of @Dusk 's DuskEVM and Hedger: only chains that can successfully implement 'compliant confidentiality' deserve to take on the increment of RWA and compliant DeFi.

$DUSK #Dusk

Walrus uses ACDS to 'redefine the problem'

Azu is here, and I am increasingly tired of the narrative that 'storage = throwing files to a bunch of nodes.' The real challenge has never been 'can store,' but rather: in an open network, nodes will drop, change, and act maliciously, and the network may also experience long delays—how do you ensure that data can ultimately be shared completely in such a world? One smart point of Walrus is that it does not rush to sell solutions, but instead rewrites 'what decentralized storage needs to solve' into a more serious goal: ACDS (Asynchronous Complete Data-Sharing). Simply put: it does not assume network synchronization, does not assume everyone is honest, and even allows Byzantine faults, but the system still needs to deliver complete data 'to the right place.' This step seems to tell the industry: don't fool yourself with 'usable under normal circumstances'; the real battle is about availability and consistency under the worst conditions.

The paper clearly states its contributions—Walrus introduces Red Stuff and positions it as the first protocol to efficiently solve ACDS under Byzantine faults. The weight of this statement lies in the fact that many systems' 'erasure codes' only save space, but once faced with node churn (frequent going offline and online), they must perform full recovery, ultimately eating back the cost saved by recovery bandwidth; Red Stuff takes the path of 'normalizing recovery capabilities,' making repairs closer to a pay-per-gap model, and can also tackle storage challenges in an asynchronous network, preventing opponents from exploiting network delays to 'pass validation without storing data.'

This 'problem definition first' engineering temperament can also be seen echoed on the ecological side. Walrus's official Twitter provided hard data in the Haulout mainnet hackathon result post: 887 people registered, 282 projects submitted, covering 12+ countries. You will find that only when the underlying most core 'asynchronous + adversarial' challenges are clarified can developers truly dare to bring data, applications, and even AI workflows up to submit their assignments.

It does not shout 'we are faster and cheaper' first, but rather writes out the most avoided sentence in the industry—under what assumptions do you guarantee what properties. ACDS establishes the standard, while Red Stuff implements it.

@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #Walrus