Can Vanar realistically function as a backend for Web2 applications?
I tend to see Vanar Chain as a potential infrastructure layer for Web2 apps — especially at the experience level. In this setup, users wouldn’t even realize they’re interacting with blockchain. Wallets, logins, and gas fees could be abstracted away, making the system feel more like a traditional cloud service than a crypto network.
That model makes sense for apps that want to integrate digital ownership, payments, or rewards without disrupting their existing UX.
But once blockchain becomes an invisible backend, the real question shifts to trust.
Who controls the orchestration layer?
Who has the authority to upgrade contracts or intervene during issues?
If something goes wrong, can users directly access their assets and data on-chain?
Web2 apps are already accustomed to relying on centralized backend providers. However, once user assets are moved onto a blockchain, expectations change. Users begin to care about withdrawal rights, immutability, and protection against unilateral changes.
So if Vanar positions itself as backend infrastructure, is it truly a “decentralized cloud,” or is it still an infrastructure layer that requires trust in specific operators? And importantly — if problems arise, can applications continue operating independently of those entities?
That distinction ultimately defines whether it’s decentralization in practice or simply abstraction in interface.