Every blockchain ends up facing the same plain question: what should it cost to use this network right now? “Gas” sounds like plumbing, but it’s really just pricing for limited space, and pricing always depends on what information you’re willing to treat as trustworthy. Some signals are on-chain, meaning the chain can measure them directly and everyone can agree on them through the protocol—how full blocks are, how quickly transactions are stacking up, and how much space different actions tend to take. Other signals are off-chain, meaning they come from outside the chain—market prices, service feeds, and all the messy reality that blockchains, by design, can’t observe on their own. If you’ve spent any time watching people complain about fees, you can feel why this matters: the chain is trying to price something real (scarcity), but users experience it as something personal (surprise, friction, sometimes a deal-breaker), and those two perspectives don’t always line up neatly. Ethereum is a clean example of leaning into on-chain data. With EIP-1559, Ethereum split what you pay into a base fee set by the protocol and a priority fee (a tip) that users can add when they want to be more competitive for inclusion. The important part isn’t the exact math; it’s the posture. Ethereum doesn’t need to know what ETH is worth in dollars to do this. It watches its own demand and adjusts using information it can verify for itself, so the network’s pricing follows the network’s internal pressure. That feels philosophically consistent with the whole “don’t trust, verify” instinct, because the input is the chain’s own state. It’s also why this style of fee adjustment can be surprisingly resilient: even when the outside world is chaotic, the chain can keep making the same kind of decision, block after block, based on what it sees happening inside its own walls. Vanar, and the VANRY token used for fees on that chain, makes a different bet. Vanar’s documentation describes a fixed-fee approach where transaction charges are determined based on a USD target and then converted into VANRY using a market price that’s fed into the protocol. The aim is predictability—fees that stay roughly steady for ordinary users even when the token price moves—so a developer can budget and a user can form expectations without constantly doing mental conversions. I get the appeal. There’s a quiet psychological relief in not having every action feel like a tiny trade, and you can see why chains that want mainstream usage keep reaching for that kind of stability. But that predictability depends on off-chain data being handled carefully, because the chain is now listening to an outside signal. Vanar’s docs describe a managed price pipeline: prices are fetched from multiple sources; only recent readings are considered; the system won’t update unless enough sources are available; and it filters outliers that stray too far from the rest. The computed price and the resulting fee values are then shared with validator nodes through an API, and the protocol refreshes those fees on a fixed cadence—every 100 blocks—treating them as valid for the next 100 blocks. There’s also a fallback: if the protocol can’t reach the fee source, a new block can reuse the fees from the parent block so things don’t grind to a halt. This is a very practical engineering stance, and it also makes the trust boundary obvious. You’re no longer trusting only code and consensus; you’re trusting a process that curates reality and then passes it into the chain. This whole topic is getting more attention now than it was five years ago because the user experience bar has moved. More products want blockchain to behave like a background utility, not a constant series of small puzzles about which token to hold and what fee to guess. Account abstraction and paymasters are part of that shift, because they let an app sponsor fees or let users pay fees in tokens they already hold, including stablecoins. There are now mainstream efforts aimed at letting people pay gas fees directly in USDC, specifically to avoid making “go buy the native token first” a mandatory step. That’s not just a technical improvement; it’s a cultural one. It treats confusion and friction as real costs, not as something users should simply learn to tolerate. At the same time, fee markets themselves have become more nuanced. Ethereum’s rollup-centric scaling direction and the introduction of EIP-4844 brought in a separate resource with its own pricing logic, which is another way of saying that “the fee” is increasingly multi-part. Different resources can bottleneck at different times, and pricing them separately can be a more honest reflection of what’s scarce in a given moment. When I look at this trend, I don’t see a single winning model so much as a clearer realization: fee design is really information design. On-chain systems listen to the chain’s own heartbeat. Off-chain anchored systems listen to the outside economy and translate it into chain terms. VANRY’s approach is a thoughtful attempt to make costs feel steady to humans while still using the chain for what it does best—enforcing the rules consistently once the inputs are chosen.
@Vanarchain #vanar #Vanar $VANRY
