AZ-Crypto

Một điều tôi đã học được từ việc thực sự sử dụng các blockchain khác nhau theo thời gian là những vấn đề lớn nhất hiếm khi là những điều được thảo luận trong các thông báo ra mắt. Hầu hết các mạng lưới nói về thông lượng, mô hình phân quyền, tokenomics, hoặc sự phát triển của hệ sinh thái. Nhưng những vấn đề hình thành trải nghiệm hàng ngày của tôi thì đơn giản hơn nhiều. Giao dịch mất bao lâu khi thị trường đang di chuyển nhanh? Phí có bất ngờ tăng vọt khi hoạt động gia tăng không? Ứng dụng có phản hồi ngay lập tức không, hay tôi thấy mình đang chờ đợi và làm mới?

Tôi thực sự không hiểu điều gì còn thiếu trong hạ tầng blockchain chỉ bằng cách đọc tài liệu hoặc xem quảng cáo ra mắt. Tôi đã nhận ra điều đó bằng cách thực sự sử dụng các mạng khác nhau khi mọi thứ trở nên bận rộn. Khi lưu lượng nhẹ, mọi thứ đều tuyệt vời, giao dịch diễn ra nhanh chóng, phí không dao động, toàn bộ hệ thống chỉ hoạt động. Nhưng ngay khi khối lượng tăng lên, những vết nứt bắt đầu xuất hiện. Đột nhiên, việc xác nhận kéo dài, phí trở nên kỳ lạ, và đôi khi giao dịch của bạn chỉ treo ở đó, mắc kẹt trong limbo. Điều đó đã xảy ra với tôi đủ nhiều lần để tôi bắt đầu tự hỏi, nếu công nghệ blockchain tiếp tục phát triển, tại sao nó vẫn bị nghẹt khi mọi người thực sự sử dụng nó?

Hầu hết các blockchain thích khoe khoang về tốc độ, nhưng đó không phải là nơi mà người dùng thực sự cảm thấy khó khăn. Trở ngại thực sự len lỏi vào những trục trặc nhỏ mà bạn bắt đầu mong đợi: một giao dịch bị treo không lý do, một giao dịch chạy nhanh trong một phút và kéo dài ở phút tiếp theo, một ứng dụng cảm thấy mượt mà khi mọi thứ yên tĩnh nhưng bắt đầu hoạt động không ổn khi mạng bận rộn. Điều đó không chỉ là về việc nhanh trên giấy tờ. Nó liên quan đến việc hệ thống có thể duy trì nhịp độ đó khi thực sự cần thiết hay không.
Điều đó đặt ra một câu hỏi khó: nếu một mạng chỉ chạy nhanh khi mọi thứ hoàn hảo, thì liệu nó có thực sự nhanh không? Và các nhà phát triển có thể dựa vào nó để mở rộng nếu nó cứ ném ra những thách thức bất ngờ? Đây là nơi @Fogo Official bắt đầu tách biệt bản thân. Thay vì theo đuổi một con số tiêu đề đơn lẻ, dự án này hoàn toàn về ba thứ hoạt động cùng nhau: tốc độ, sự ổn định và quy mô. $FOGO cung cấp sức mạnh cho mạng, nhưng ý tưởng thực sự là hiệu suất không chỉ là việc tạo ra những con số lớn, mà là việc giữ vững khi hệ thống phát triển. Bạn sẽ thấy sự khác biệt khi nhìn vào cách mà các ứng dụng thực sự chạy.

Vanar Chain was created to solve the biggest problems that have held blockchain back from mass adoption. High fees, slow confirmations, complex onboarding, and poor user experience have limited blockchain to niche users. @Vanarchain takes a different approach by designing a Layer 1 blockchain that feels practical, predictable, and ready for billions of users.
At the core of Vanar Chain is performance. With a block time capped at 3 seconds, transactions feel nearly instant. This speed is critical for applications like gaming, entertainment, payments, and AI-powered platforms where users expect immediate feedback. Vanar does not sacrifice security to achieve this speed. Instead, it combines a hybrid Proof of Authority and Proof of Reputation consensus model to ensure reliability and trust.
One of Vanar’s strongest innovations is its fixed fee system. On most blockchains, gas fees change constantly based on demand. This creates uncertainty and discourages builders. Vanar solves this by anchoring transaction fees to a stable dollar value. Whether the price of $VANRY rises or falls, normal transactions remain extremely cheap, around $0.0005. This single feature unlocks entirely new business models that were not possible before.
Throughput is another major strength. With a 30 million gas limit per block, Vanar can handle high transaction volumes without congestion. This makes it ideal for large-scale applications such as multiplayer games, NFT platforms, and AI services that require frequent interactions.
Vanar is fully EVM compatible, meaning developers can deploy Ethereum-based smart contracts with minimal changes. Existing tools, wallets, and SDKs work seamlessly. This lowers the barrier for developers and accelerates ecosystem growth.
Security and fairness are deeply embedded. Transactions are processed in a first-come, first-served order, preventing manipulation. Validators are carefully selected, and the community participates through staking and voting using $VANRY .
Vanar Chain is not built for speculation. It is built for usage. It focuses on speed, cost certainty, scalability, and developer experience. These fundamentals make it one of the most practical Layer 1 blockchains in the market today.
With @Vanarchain leading development and $VANRY powering the ecosystem, Vanar Chain represents a serious step toward blockchain becoming part of everyday digital life.
#vanar

Sự đảo chiều mạnh mẽ của Bitcoin vào đầu năm 2026 đã làm rối loạn động lực tăng giá, với đồng tiền điện tử hiện đang giao dịch rõ ràng dưới mức 70.000 USD.
Sau khi đạt mức cao nhất từ đầu năm là 97.939 USD vào ngày 14 tháng 1, tài sản kỹ thuật số đã giảm 31,5% từ đỉnh đó và giảm 23,3% kể từ đầu năm. Sự giảm giá đã làm dấy lên cuộc tranh luận về "khi nào" hoặc "nếu" bitcoin có thể lấy lại cột mốc tâm lý quan trọng 100.000 USD.
Lần cuối cùng bitcoin giao dịch trên mức sáu con số là vào ngày 13 tháng 11 năm 2025, nhấn mạnh cách nhanh chóng tâm lý đã thay đổi.

There is a pattern in crypto that repeats every cycle. Networks rise when activity surges, and they fade when the surge disappears. The metrics that dominate the conversation—volume, total value locked, transaction spikes—are all built around moments of intensity. But intensity is not the same as permanence. The more interesting question, and the harder one to answer, is this: what does a blockchain look like when it is built to be present every day, not just active during market peaks? That question sits quietly underneath the design philosophy of Vanry and its token $VANRY .
Most infrastructure in crypto has evolved around financial behavior. Trading, lending, staking, liquidity rotation—these activities shape how networks measure success and how they design their systems. High throughput, deep liquidity, composability for financial primitives. The assumption is clear: capital movement is the engine of growth.
Vanry appears to start from a different assumption. Instead of optimizing for capital intensity, the network is positioned around interaction frequency. Gaming, digital media, AI-generated content, and user-owned assets all share a common trait: they generate many small actions rather than a few large ones. A player claims a reward. A creator publishes content. A user modifies a digital item. None of these actions is large on its own, but together they create a steady flow.
That difference changes how the network should be understood. Financial ecosystems produce sharp curves—rapid growth followed by contraction when incentives change. Consumer ecosystems produce flatter curves. Growth is slower, but activity tends to stabilize because it is tied to identity, progress, or ownership rather than yield.
At the surface level, Vanry presents itself as a Layer 1 focused on entertainment and consumer-facing applications. That includes gaming environments, creator tools, AI-powered experiences, and infrastructure for digital ownership. On paper, this places it alongside other chains exploring similar territory. But the real distinction is not the category. It is the underlying economic texture the network is trying to support.
Frequent, low-value interactions require a different foundation. Fees must remain predictable. Confirmation needs to feel immediate. Wallet interactions must feel lightweight rather than financial. Most importantly, the blockchain layer has to stay quiet enough that users focus on the experience instead of the infrastructure.
This is where Vanry’s architectural choices matter. By integrating asset management, identity elements, and interaction tools closer to the protocol layer, the network is attempting to reduce the fragmentation that often slows consumer adoption. Instead of users moving between multiple systems for assets, identity, and transactions, the goal is a more unified environment.
The potential advantage of this approach is not raw performance. It is continuity. When experiences feel connected, users are more likely to return. And in consumer ecosystems, return behavior matters more than initial adoption.
The token, $VANRY , sits inside this structure as the economic layer for transactions, rewards, and participation. The long-term question is not its supply dynamics or short-term price movement. The more important question is whether the token circulates because users need it to interact. Circulation driven by behavior tends to be slower to build, but it also tends to be less fragile than demand driven purely by narrative.
This distinction reflects a broader shift happening across crypto infrastructure. Networks are beginning to specialize not only by technology, but by user psychology. Some chains optimize for traders and capital efficiency. Others optimize for developers and flexibility. A smaller group, including Vanry, is optimizing for routine behavior.
Routine behavior is difficult to measure early. Transaction spikes are visible. Habit formation is not. A user who interacts daily creates more long-term value than one who appears briefly during an incentive program, but that value accumulates quietly.
This creates both an opportunity and a risk. The opportunity is resilience. If activity is tied to entertainment, creation, or digital identity, it may continue even during market downturns. The risk is perception. Consumer-focused ecosystems often look underwhelming in early stages because their growth lacks dramatic peaks.
Another layer of uncertainty comes from the content side. Infrastructure alone cannot generate engagement. The success of any consumer network ultimately depends on the quality and retention of the applications built on top of it. Games need to be engaging. Creator tools need to attract real audiences. AI experiences need to offer something users cannot find elsewhere.
This is where timing becomes critical. Consumer adoption in crypto tends to lag behind infrastructure cycles. Networks are often built years before the applications that define them emerge. During that period, growth may appear slow compared to ecosystems driven by financial incentives.
Yet this slower trajectory mirrors how successful digital platforms develop outside of crypto. Social networks, gaming platforms, and content ecosystems rarely expand through sudden bursts alone. They grow through accumulation—small interactions repeated until they form a habit.
If Vanry’s strategy holds, its strongest signals will not be headline metrics. They will appear in quieter patterns: steady wallet growth, assets moving between applications, users returning without external incentives. These signals are easy to overlook in a market that rewards visible momentum, but they tend to define long-term durability.
None of this guarantees success. Consumer behavior is unpredictable, and entertainment markets depend heavily on cultural timing. Many technically sound platforms have struggled because the experiences built on top of them failed to capture sustained interest.
But the direction itself reflects a shift in how blockchain infrastructure is evolving. The next phase of growth may depend less on faster financial systems and more on whether networks can support everyday digital life—playing, creating, collecting, and interacting without friction.
If that transition happens, the networks that matter most may not be the ones that grew fastest, but the ones that became part of daily routine.
And if @Vanarchain succeeds, its progress may not look dramatic. It will look steady. Quiet. Almost easy to miss. Until one day the activity doesn’t disappear when the market does—and that, in crypto, is usually the strongest signal a network can produce.
#vanar

Có một mẫu tĩnh lặng mà bạn bắt đầu nhận thấy nếu bạn dành đủ thời gian xung quanh các cộng đồng lập trình viên. Những dự án ồn ào nhất không phải lúc nào cũng thu hút được nhiều sự chú ý nhất. Thay vào đó, điều thu hút các kỹ sư là điều gì đó tinh tế hơn: các kho được khám phá mà không có thông báo, các chủ đề kiến trúc được đánh dấu thay vì được chia sẻ, và các cuộc trò chuyện nghe có vẻ ít hào hứng hơn và nhiều sự đánh giá cẩn thận hơn. Khi các lập trình viên bắt đầu đặt câu hỏi chi tiết thay vì đăng lời khen ngợi, điều đó thường có nghĩa là họ đang cố gắng trả lời một câu hỏi sâu hơn cho chính mình: cơ sở hạ tầng này có đáng để xây dựng không?

There is a small but telling moment that happens when people try a new blockchain application. The first question is not about decentralization, security, or even speed. It is simpler than that: Will I come back tomorrow? Most networks are built to attract attention for a moment. Very few are built around the idea of being used repeatedly without incentives. That quiet difference is where Vanry, and its token $VANRY , is positioning itself.
The comparison that helps frame @Vanarchain is not between faster and slower chains, or cheaper and more expensive ones. The more useful comparison is between networks designed for transactions and networks designed for behavior. One focuses on moving value efficiently. The other focuses on creating reasons for users to return.
At the surface level, Vanry presents itself as a Layer 1 built for entertainment, gaming, AI-powered content, and digital ownership. On paper, this places it in a category that already includes several competitors. Many blockchains have explored gaming or creator ecosystems as a growth path. But the real distinction is not the category. It is the assumption about what drives long-term activity.
Most general-purpose chains grow through financial gravity. Liquidity arrives for trading, staking, or yield opportunities. Activity increases quickly, but it is often sensitive to market conditions. When incentives fade or capital rotates elsewhere, transaction volume drops just as quickly. This pattern has repeated across multiple cycles.
Vanry appears to be built around a different form of gravity: behavioral gravity. Instead of asking how much capital can be attracted, the underlying question is how many small actions a user might perform every day. Playing a game. Minting an item. Updating a digital asset. Publishing content. Interacting with a community. Each action is minor, but together they form a steady flow.
This difference changes the network’s economic texture. Financial ecosystems are built around fewer, higher-value transactions. Consumer ecosystems generate many low-value interactions tied to identity, progress, or ownership. For that environment to work, performance requirements shift. Fees must be predictable. Confirmation must feel immediate. Most importantly, the blockchain layer must stay invisible enough that users focus on the experience rather than the infrastructure.
Compared to general-purpose networks like Ethereum, which prioritize security and composability for complex financial systems, or high-throughput chains like Solana that aim to support a wide range of use cases, Vanry’s design appears more specialized. It is optimized for frequent interaction rather than broad flexibility. Specialization reduces scope, but it can improve product-market fit if the targeted behavior actually grows.
This leads to the first major tradeoff. Specialized networks depend heavily on the success of their ecosystem content. Infrastructure alone cannot create engagement. A fast chain without compelling applications will remain quiet. A slower network with a popular game or platform can generate far more activity. For Vanry, the long-term comparison may be less about competing chains and more about the quality and retention of the experiences built on top of it.
Another layer of comparison sits at the token level. In liquidity-driven ecosystems, token demand often comes from staking rewards, governance positioning, or speculative trading. In a consumer ecosystem, the ideal role for $VANRY is circulation. The token moves because users need it for transactions, asset creation, rewards, and participation within applications.
Circulation-based demand behaves differently from speculative demand. It grows more slowly, but it tends to be more stable because it reflects actual usage rather than narrative momentum. The challenge is timing. Markets often reward visible growth and large volume spikes. Usage-driven growth builds gradually, which can appear quiet in comparison.
This difference connects to a broader shift across crypto infrastructure. The industry is beginning to separate into two paths. One path focuses on capital efficiency, liquidity depth, and financial composability. The other focuses on user experience, identity, and digital culture. Vanry sits firmly in the second category.
From a behavioral perspective, this alignment makes sense. The next wave of adoption is unlikely to come from more efficient trading alone. It is more likely to come from activities people already do daily: playing games, creating content, collecting digital items, interacting with online communities. The challenge is making blockchain support these activities without adding complexity.
Vanry’s architecture reflects this need by integrating digital asset management, identity elements, and user interaction tools at the protocol level. Instead of forcing developers to assemble multiple external layers, the network aims to provide a unified foundation. The goal is not just technical efficiency, but experience consistency. Users should be able to move between applications without feeling like they are entering separate ecosystems each time.
Still, the risks are significant. Consumer behavior is unpredictable, and entertainment markets are shaped as much by cultural timing as by technical quality. Many blockchain gaming initiatives have struggled not because of infrastructure limitations, but because the experiences themselves failed to retain users.
There is also a market perception challenge. Consumer-focused ecosystems often grow quietly, without the dramatic transaction spikes associated with DeFi or trading activity. Early metrics may look modest even when retention is improving. The comparison, then, becomes one of patience. Is the market willing to recognize steady behavioral growth without immediate volume signals?
Another important comparison is between attention and retention. Many networks compete successfully for short-term attention through incentives, partnerships, or announcements. Far fewer succeed at retention, which depends on whether users return without being paid to do so. Long-term value in a consumer ecosystem comes from retention, but retention takes time to measure.
If Vanry’s strategy works, its strongest indicators may not be headline numbers. Instead, they will appear in quieter metrics: steady wallet growth, repeat interactions, assets moving between applications, and activity continuing during periods when market sentiment weakens. These signals build slowly, but they form the foundation for resilience.
This pattern mirrors how successful digital platforms grow outside of crypto. Social networks, games, and content platforms rarely expand through sudden spikes alone. They grow through habit formation, where small daily interactions accumulate into long-term engagement. The same principle may apply to blockchain networks that target consumer behavior.
That does not guarantee success. Habit formation depends on experience quality, developer commitment, and ecosystem coordination. Infrastructure can enable growth, but it cannot create cultural relevance on its own. The gap between technical readiness and user adoption remains one of the largest uncertainties in the space.
What makes Vanry’s approach notable is its acceptance of that timeline. Rather than competing directly in the race for liquidity or extreme performance metrics, the network is positioning itself around steady interaction and everyday digital activity. That choice may limit short-term visibility, but it aligns with how consumer ecosystems actually develop.
If early signals hold, the network’s growth will not arrive as a single breakthrough moment. It will appear gradually, through repeated actions that become routine. Users returning to the same applications. Digital assets gaining history. The token moving because it is needed, not because it is trending.
In a market shaped by cycles of noise and rapid attention shifts, that kind of growth can be easy to overlook. But infrastructure that becomes part of daily behavior rarely announces itself loudly. It becomes valuable the moment users stop thinking about it.
And if Vanry reaches that point, its real progress may not be measured by how fast activity spikes, but by something quieter and harder to replicate: how steady the network remains when the excitement fades.
#vanar $VANRY

There is a quiet moment most crypto users recognize but rarely talk about. You click confirm, the wallet closes, and then you wait. Maybe a few seconds. Maybe longer. The interface shows a spinning indicator, the market keeps moving, and the price you expected begins to drift. For an industry built on speed and autonomy, this pause has become strangely normalized. The question is simple but uncomfortable: if time still slips between intent and execution, can blockchain really claim to be real-time?
Most networks describe themselves as fast. Finality in seconds sounds impressive on paper, and benchmarks often highlight throughput or theoretical limits. But real-time is not just about how quickly a block is produced. It is about predictability. It is about whether the outcome you expect is the outcome you get, without delay, without uncertainty, without the subtle friction that builds underneath every transaction. In traditional systems, real-time means immediate response. In crypto, it often means “fast enough.”
This gap between speed and true immediacy is where the conversation around @Fogo Official begins to take shape.
Instead of treating latency as a software optimization problem, Fogo approaches it like a structural issue. The network is designed around a simple tension: blockchains have improved execution logic, scaling methods, and developer tools, but the physical limits of communication, coordination, and timing still shape performance. If nodes cannot agree quickly and consistently, the user experience will always carry delay, even if the interface looks smooth.
Think of most blockchains as efficient factories connected by inconsistent roads. The machinery inside is advanced, but the materials still arrive at unpredictable times. Fogo’s idea is to focus on the roads first. The project’s architecture emphasizes low-latency coordination between validators, optimized network pathways, and infrastructure choices that reduce the time it takes for information to move and settle. The goal is not just higher throughput, but tighter timing.
On the surface, this shows up as faster confirmations and steadier execution. Underneath, the mechanics are about reducing variance. When latency is inconsistent, systems must compensate with buffers, retries, or conservative timing assumptions. That creates the small delays users feel but rarely measure. By narrowing that variance, Fogo aims to make transaction outcomes feel immediate rather than merely quick.
This distinction matters more than it first appears.
Consider trading, gaming, or real-time financial interactions. In these environments, timing is not just a convenience; it is part of the value. A transaction that settles in two seconds instead of ten may sound incremental, but if those two seconds are predictable, strategies can be built around them. Liquidity behaves differently when execution timing is stable. User trust changes when actions feel instantaneous. Markets, after all, are systems of expectations.
In that sense, Fogo is less about raw speed and more about temporal reliability. And that raises a broader comparison worth asking: is the next phase of blockchain competition about scale, or about time?
Many networks have chosen the scaling path, increasing throughput through parallel execution, rollups, or modular layers. These approaches expand capacity, but they often introduce new coordination layers, bridging delays, or fragmented liquidity. Fogo’s direction suggests a different tradeoff. Instead of spreading activity across layers, it concentrates on making a single environment feel immediate and consistent.
The comparison is almost philosophical. One model says the future of blockchain is many fast systems working together. The other asks whether a smaller number of tightly synchronized systems might produce a smoother experience overall.
Of course, this approach comes with its own questions.
Low-latency networks often depend on carefully structured validator environments and optimized infrastructure placement. That raises familiar concerns around decentralization and accessibility. If performance depends on specialized setups or geographic proximity, does participation become more exclusive? And if infrastructure becomes more coordinated, where is the balance between efficiency and openness?
Early signs suggest Fogo is aware of this tension, positioning performance improvements within a broader infrastructure strategy rather than pure hardware advantage. Still, the tradeoff remains one of the core uncertainties. Real-time systems, by definition, rely on control over timing. The more tightly controlled the timing, the more carefully the network must manage participation without narrowing its base.
Another layer of comparison sits at the user behavior level.
Crypto users have quietly adapted to delay. They refresh explorers, adjust slippage, wait for confirmations, and accept occasional mismatches between intent and result. These habits form a kind of behavioral buffer around network limitations. If a system like Fogo reduces that friction enough, it could shift expectations entirely. The difference between “fast enough” and “instant” is subtle technically, but psychologically it is significant.
We have seen this pattern before outside crypto. Once people experience true real-time interaction—whether in payments, messaging, or streaming—they rarely tolerate delay again. If blockchain reaches that threshold, infrastructure performance stops being a feature and becomes a baseline.
This is where the broader trend becomes visible. Across the industry, there is a growing focus on physical infrastructure, validator networking, geographic optimization, and latency-aware design. The narrative is moving away from abstract scaling claims toward something more grounded: where the machines are, how they communicate, and how predictable their timing really is. In that context, Fogo fits into a wider shift toward infrastructure as a quiet competitive layer.
The token layer, including $FOGO , reflects this orientation toward long-term network function rather than short-term attention. If the network succeeds, value comes from sustained usage built on reliability rather than episodic demand spikes. That is a slower story, but it tends to align with systems that aim to become foundational rather than experimental.
Still, the central question remains open: can blockchain actually feel real-time at scale, across diverse conditions, without sacrificing the decentralization that gives it meaning?
The answer may depend less on peak performance and more on consistency over time. Real-time is not a benchmark moment; it is a pattern. Users need to trust that the network behaves the same way under load, across regions, and during volatility. That kind of steadiness is harder to demonstrate than a high throughput number, but it is ultimately more important.
If Fogo’s architecture holds, its impact may be subtle at first. Not dramatic speed headlines, but fewer failed trades. Tighter spreads. Interfaces that feel calm instead of reactive. Infrastructure that fades into the background because it behaves exactly as expected.
And perhaps that is the real test.
Blockchains have spent years competing to be faster, bigger, and more scalable. But real-time systems are not defined by how fast they can go at their peak. They are defined by how little you notice them when everything is working.
If the future of crypto is to support markets, games, payments, and applications that move at human speed, then time itself becomes the foundation. The networks that win may not be the ones that promise the most performance, but the ones that make waiting disappear.
Whether @Fogo Official can fully deliver on that promise remains to be seen. But the direction it represents points to a quieter shift in the industry’s priorities. Not just more capacity. Not just better tooling. Something steadier, underneath.
Because the moment blockchain truly feels real-time will not arrive with an announcement. It will arrive when no one thinks about timing at all.
#fogo
@Fogo Official
$FOGO

Mark Zuckerberg sẽ làm chứng trong tuần này trong một phiên xét xử quan trọng cáo buộc rằng các nền tảng mạng xã hội của Meta (META) cố ý gây nghiện và gây hại cho trẻ em.
Vụ kiện được đưa ra bởi một người phụ nữ hiện 20 tuổi, được xác định bằng chữ cái KGM, người tuyên bố việc sử dụng mạng xã hội sớm đã làm trầm trọng thêm chứng trầm cảm và ý tưởng tự sát của cô. Meta (META) và Google (GOOG) (GOOGL) YouTube là những bị cáo còn lại trong vụ kiện; TikTok (BDNCE) và Snap (SNAP) đã đạt được thỏa thuận.
Zuckerberg, người trước đây đã làm chứng trước Quốc hội, sẽ phải đối mặt với một bồi thẩm đoàn lần đầu tiên về các vấn đề an toàn cho thanh thiếu niên tương tự. Phiên xét xử là một trong ba vụ kiện mẫu có thể định hình hàng ngàn vụ kiện liên quan.

“Nhanh” thực sự có nghĩa là gì khi chúng ta nói về các blockchain? Có phải chỉ là con số giao dịch lớn trên giây mà mọi người đều thích khoe, hay là trải nghiệm thực tế của người dùng, như khi bạn thực hiện một giao dịch và nó chỉ diễn ra, không có trục trặc, không có lỗi kỳ quái, mọi thứ đều cảm thấy nhanh nhẹn như phần mềm hiện đại nên có? Và nếu tốc độ thực sự là điều quan trọng, tại sao lại có nhiều chuỗi “hiệu suất cao” vẫn cảm thấy chậm chạp hoặc không thể đoán trước khi bạn thực sự sử dụng chúng?
Đó là điều mà không ai thực sự nói ra trong tất cả sự phấn khích về cơ sở hạ tầng này. Chắc chắn, các blockchain đang trong cuộc đua để đạt được những con số cao nhất, nhưng người dùng vẫn gặp phải tình trạng tắc nghẽn, phí mà tăng vọt khắp nơi, và thời gian xác nhận dường như thay đổi mà không có lý do. Trên giấy tờ, các biểu đồ trông tuyệt vời. Trong thực tế, nó chỉ cảm thấy nhanh khi các điều kiện hoàn hảo, và điều đó không bao giờ kéo dài. Vậy có thể câu hỏi thực sự không phải về tốc độ thô. Có thể nó là về việc liệu các blockchain có thể giữ ổn định và đáng tin cậy khi mọi thứ trở nên rối rắm, như chúng luôn làm trong thế giới thực.