Recently, I realized that immersion is not supported by visuals or narrative, but by uninterrupted interactions again and again. In #Virtua and #VGN , what truly works behind this is actually the consumption method of $VANRY .
In the actual experience of Virtua, $VANRY is not concentrated on a single "big operation", but is broken down into numerous high-frequency, low-value calls: asset minting, in-scene interaction, state updates, module switching. The single consumption is basically in the micro-value range, but after a complete experience, the related interactions often start from a dozen times. You can feel the consumption happening, but it won't be interrupted by costs.
The scenario of VGN is even more extreme. Content interaction, incentive triggers, local state synchronization, are inherently high-frequency behaviors. If each step has a significant cost, the user density simply cannot sustain it. The current result is: the behavior frequency remains, indicating that VANRY has at least not become an obstacle to the experience. This in itself is a form of validation.
One point I care about is: whether the consumption is real. If VANRY is just nominal fuel, user behavior will definitely tend to be sparse. But from the interaction density of Virtua and VGN, VANRY is continuously called, rather than appearing only at settlement.
So I prefer to see VANRY as "experience fuel", rather than Gas.
It is not responsible for creating a sense of presence; it only ensures that immersion is not interrupted.
If this type of consumption model holds, tokens will truly enter the ecological cycle, rather than remaining in parameters.
@Vanarchain $VANRY #Vanar
