When I look at Vanar Chain, I don’t start by asking how many TPS it claims or how fast the blocks are on paper. I try to picture a real team sitting in a planning meeting.
If I were running a game studio or building a consumer app, my questions would be way more basic and way more stressful. Can I predict my costs every month? Will the app still feel smooth if ten thousand people log in at once? Or am I going to wake up one day and find that fees spiked and half my features suddenly don’t make sense anymore?
That’s the lens I use with Vanar.
Gaming, metaverse stuff, AI tools, eco apps — they all behave the same way at the transaction level. It’s not big, occasional transfers. It’s constant tiny actions. Clicks, upgrades, rewards, crafting, micro trades. Thousands of little updates that need to feel instant and cheap. If each of those costs even a bit too much or takes a bit too long, the whole experience starts to feel broken.
So when Vanar talks about fixed or predictable fees, I actually pay attention.
Because from a builder’s point of view, predictable beats cheap.
Cheap today doesn’t help me if tomorrow it’s 10x more expensive. I can’t price items in a game or design an in-app economy around chaos. I need numbers I can trust. If a transaction costs roughly the same next month as it does today, I can design properly. I can plan.
But I also know that promising stable fees is not easy. If you don’t let fees spike during congestion, then something else has to absorb the pressure. Validators still need to get paid. Security still has to hold. So I see this as a real stress test for Vanar, not a marketing line. The question is whether they can keep fees stable without weakening the incentives that keep the network safe.
Speed matters too, but again, I don’t think about it in technical terms.
Users don’t care about throughput charts. They care about how something feels.
If I click a button and nothing happens for a few seconds, I assume the app is broken. I don’t think, “ah yes, temporary blockchain latency.” I just leave. So for me, fast and consistent confirmations are about psychology, not specs. If Vanar can keep interactions inside that “instant enough” window, the chain disappears into the background. That’s exactly what you want.
At the same time, I worry about congestion.
On most chains, high demand naturally pushes fees up, which prices out spam. If Vanar intentionally keeps fees low and stable, spam doesn’t automatically get filtered the same way. That means they have to be really good at other defenses — mempool rules, prioritization, anti-spam systems. Otherwise, the network could feel clogged on the worst days.
And for a consumer chain, the worst days are the only ones that matter. Anyone can look good when traffic is quiet.
Technically, I like that Vanar sticks with the Ethereum Foundation ecosystem and stays EVM compatible. It’s practical. Developers already know the tools. There’s less friction to start building. But I also know that EVM compatibility alone doesn’t mean anything anymore. There are dozens of chains that can say the same thing.
So to me, Vanar doesn’t win by being compatible. It only wins if it feels noticeably smoother and more predictable when real users show up.
I also notice they’re trying to build more than just a base chain, talking about layers and tools for AI-native apps and consumer experiences. As a builder, I get the appeal. Fewer external services, fewer moving parts, more stuff handled in one stack. That can save a lot of headaches.
But I’m cautious too. More layers also mean more complexity. If those layers aren’t solid, they can become new points of failure. So personally, I’d judge them step by step. First prove the base chain is reliable. Then expand.
Even the token side feels practical to me. VANRY isn’t just some speculative thing floating around. It ties directly into paying for transactions and supporting validators. And since it also exists as an ERC20 elsewhere, liquidity and price swings matter. If the token gets too volatile, that pushes against the whole idea of predictable costs. So everything connects — fees, token price, validator rewards. You can’t really separate them.
Governance is similar. I don’t think about it in ideological terms. I just ask: can the network react quickly when something breaks? If spam shows up or parameters need adjusting, can they fix it without drama? But also without changing the rules overnight and scaring builders? That balance is hard, but it’s critical.
In the end, I don’t see Vanar as “another fast L1.” I see it as a bet on stability.
If they can keep costs predictable, confirmations quick, and the experience smooth even under stress, then it makes sense for real consumer apps. If they can’t, then all the narratives won’t matter.
For me, it’s simple. I don’t need the chain to be the fastest in the world.
I just need it to be reliable enough that my users never have to think about it.