Maybe you noticed a pattern. Every new Web3 cycle promises an integrated stack, but the reality keeps fracturing. One chain for execution, another for data, a third for messaging, half a dozen middleware layers, and a growing tax on coordination. When I first looked at Vanry, what struck me was not a flashy performance claim. It was how quietly the project is positioning itself as glue in a stack that is actively pulling itself apart.
Fragmentation is not a narrative problem. It is structural. In 2024 and 2025, total Layer 2 value locked across Ethereum rollups moved from roughly 10 billion to over 30 billion dollars. That growth looks healthy, but underneath it created dozens of semi isolated ecosystems with different bridges, tooling, security assumptions, and developer experiences. The more scaling worked, the more the stack splintered. Vanry’s infrastructure play seems to assume this fragmentation is not temporary. It is the baseline.
On the surface, Vanry talks about modular infrastructure. That phrase is everywhere. Underneath, the bet is more specific. The team is building primitives that assume execution, data availability, identity, and messaging will not converge into one dominant chain. Instead, they are designing for persistent heterogeneity. That sounds academic, but it has concrete implications for developers and capital.
Take messaging. Cross chain bridges processed more than 100 billion dollars in volume in 2024, but they were also responsible for billions in hacks over the last few years. The surface story is security. Underneath, the real problem is trust minimization across heterogeneous environments. Vanry’s approach appears to lean toward native interoperability primitives rather than bolt on bridges. If this holds, it changes how developers reason about state across domains. Instead of moving assets and hoping the bridge is honest, you move messages and verify execution. That subtle shift is infrastructure, not product, but it affects everything built on top.
Data availability is another layer where fragmentation has accelerated. Celestia, EigenDA, and similar services have driven DA costs down by orders of magnitude. A typical rollup posting data to Ethereum might pay several dollars per megabyte, while modular DA can drop that to cents. That price difference is why we now have dozens of app chains. But cheaper data also means weaker shared security assumptions. Vanry’s infrastructure narrative suggests they want to sit in the coordination layer, where chains choose different DA backends but still interoperate through a common fabric. The surface is cost optimization. Underneath is a governance and trust question. Who arbitrates disputes across domains when no single chain is canonical.
When you layer execution on top, the fragmentation becomes more visible. Solana style high throughput chains push tens of thousands of transactions per second in bursts. Ethereum rollups batch thousands of transactions into a single proof. App chains run custom VMs. Each environment optimizes for a different constraint. Vanry’s bet seems to be that developers will not choose one. They will compose across them. That requires tooling that abstracts execution environments without erasing their differences. The risk is that abstraction layers can hide critical security assumptions. The upside is that developers stop caring where code runs and start caring what it connects to.
The numbers around developer activity tell a similar story. In late 2025, GitHub reported over 18,000 monthly active blockchain developers across ecosystems. That number is growing, but it is spread thin across chains. No single ecosystem dominates mindshare the way Ethereum once did. Vanry’s infrastructure positioning is trying to capture value from that dispersion. If every developer touches multiple chains, the coordination layer becomes more valuable than any single execution layer.
Meanwhile, capital is behaving in parallel. Stablecoin supply passed 140 billion dollars recently, with over 60 percent deployed on non Ethereum chains. Liquidity is already multi chain by necessity. Traders move where fees are low and latency is acceptable. Institutions increasingly care about predictable execution and compliance, not ideological purity. Infrastructure that makes cross chain liquidity less risky becomes strategically important. Vanry’s messaging and identity layers appear designed with that in mind, even if the narrative is still developer focused.
Identity is a quieter but critical layer. Fragmentation has made identity brittle. A user is a different entity on each chain, each app, each wallet. Vanry’s work around decentralized identity primitives suggests an attempt to create continuity across domains. On the surface, that looks like UX. Underneath, it affects compliance, credit, governance, and reputation systems. If identity is portable, then governance tokens, access control, and onchain credit can span chains. If not, fragmentation continues to limit composability.
Of course, infrastructure plays are slow. Tokens and apps can pump narratives quickly. Middleware rarely does. That is the counterargument. Why invest in plumbing when speculative cycles reward shiny applications. The answer depends on time horizon. In the last cycle, infrastructure projects like Arbitrum and Optimism captured billions in valuation before most users understood what rollups were. But many middleware protocols struggled to monetize despite heavy usage. Vanry risks falling into that category if the value capture mechanism is unclear.
Another counterargument is coordination risk. The more layers you add, the more complex the failure modes. A bug in messaging can cascade across chains. A compromised identity layer can invalidate governance across domains. Fragmentation makes isolation easier, but shared infrastructure reintroduces systemic risk. Vanry will need credible security guarantees, formal verification, and gradual rollout. Early signs suggest they are aware of this, but the market will test it.
What makes this interesting right now is the broader macro pattern. Modular blockchain architecture is no longer theoretical. It is operational. Execution, DA, settlement, and interoperability are already decoupled in practice. The market is pricing chains like companies, but developers are using them like microservices. That mismatch creates opportunity for infrastructure that feels boring but becomes essential. Vanry is positioning in that gap.
The current market context matters. Layer 1 fees are compressing, Layer 2 competition is intense, and app chains are proliferating. At the same time, AI and real world assets are pushing onchain usage beyond DeFi. These workloads need predictable infrastructure more than speculative throughput. If tokenized securities, gaming economies, or AI agents operate across chains, the coordination layer becomes core. Vanry’s bet aligns with that trajectory.
When I step back, the texture of this feels less like a moonshot and more like an operating system layer. Quiet, foundational, steady. The success metric will not be TPS or TVL in isolation. It will be how many chains, apps, and users route through its primitives without noticing. That invisibility is both the goal and the challenge.
If this holds, Vanry is not competing with chains. It is competing with fragmentation itself. And the sharp observation is that in Web3, the most valuable layer might be the one nobody notices until it breaks.
