I notice “mass adoption” stories can make trust feel invisible, not smaller. When something goes wrong, who actually has the “final say” in this system?

With Vanar, trust seems to sit in a few quiet places: whoever controls upgrades, whoever influences validators, and the platforms users enter through. An ordinary user won’t inspect consensus; they’ll ask why an asset vanished, why a login failed, or who can fix a mistake. Under pressure—a bridge incident, a major exploit, or regulatory demands—someone must decide quickly: pause, patch, comply, or refuse. If those powers live with a small set of operators or partners, trust hasn’t disappeared; it has moved. What evidence would show that final authority is accountable and not hiding behind convenience?@Vanar #vanar $VANRY #Vanar

VANRY

0.006117

-1.79%