Vanar is building trust the way mainstream systems actually do it: by deciding who gets to run the network before it decides how fast the network can run.
Their consensus stack is deliberately hybrid. Proof of Authority drives performance, while Proof of Reputation acts like the gatekeeper for who is even eligible to be a validator, tying participation to an established track record instead of anonymous stake alone.
That is the uncomfortable insight: Vanar is not trying to make validators perfectly interchangeable. It is trying to make them accountable and predictable, because downtime and bad actors are what kills real adoption, not ideology debates.
If your default assumption is that more anonymity always equals more security, you might be missing what Vanar is really optimizing for: who can be trusted to never become the headline.