caomeiya
173 Following
19.7K+ Followers
8.3K+ Liked
841 Shared
Posts
All
Quotes
Videos
Live
If Ethereum is a DOS system, then Vanar's current completion level is just a blue screen of Windows 95.
Nowadays, it seems like any project must ride the wave of AI hype to hold its head up in front of VCs. But if you carefully peel back the so-called AI public chain's outer layer, what you find inside is still the same inefficient EVM logic. Most projects' so-called innovations are nothing more than forcefully hashing off-chain AI model results onto the chain; this kind of plug-in AI is no different from putting a navigation device on a horse-drawn carriage decades ago. This is also why I pay extra attention when testing Vanar Chain. The core impact it had on me is its invisibility. For true Web3 mass adoption, users should not even be aware that they are using blockchain. Vanar's almost imperceptible gas fee strategy and account abstraction system finally provide hope for overcoming mnemonic phrase phobia. I tried deploying a simple generative NFT script, and the entire process was as smooth as calling OpenAI's API, rather than battling with Ethereum's congested memory pool. In comparison to Solana, while Solana is fast, that is a physical layer's brute force piling, and for AI, which requires complex logical interactions, its developer tools are still too rigid. Vanar clearly aims to be the translator between Web2 and Web3, allowing traditional Java or Python developers to directly write smart contracts, and in terms of technical stack affinity, it indeed has an edge. However, while it's nice to talk, the problems are also glaringly obvious. Vanar's current browser and data dashboard are shockingly rudimentary; trying to track an internal transaction of a cross-contract call can make one collapse from searching for data. Moreover, although the underlying layer claims to support AI natively, the official AI oracle interface documentation is vague, and many functions are still in the drawing board phase. If we compare the current public chain to operating systems, Ethereum is DOS, which can only play Minesweeper due to its slowness, while Vanar wants to be Windows, enabling ordinary people to use it, but its current completion level is just at the level of Windows 95, with blue screens and bugs being inevitable. But at least the direction is right; in this era filled with air coins, projects that can focus on middleware experience are worth adding to the watchlist for a while.
@Vanarchain $VANRY
#vanar
Nowadays, it seems like any project must ride the wave of AI hype to hold its head up in front of VCs. But if you carefully peel back the so-called AI public chain's outer layer, what you find inside is still the same inefficient EVM logic. Most projects' so-called innovations are nothing more than forcefully hashing off-chain AI model results onto the chain; this kind of plug-in AI is no different from putting a navigation device on a horse-drawn carriage decades ago. This is also why I pay extra attention when testing Vanar Chain. The core impact it had on me is its invisibility. For true Web3 mass adoption, users should not even be aware that they are using blockchain. Vanar's almost imperceptible gas fee strategy and account abstraction system finally provide hope for overcoming mnemonic phrase phobia. I tried deploying a simple generative NFT script, and the entire process was as smooth as calling OpenAI's API, rather than battling with Ethereum's congested memory pool. In comparison to Solana, while Solana is fast, that is a physical layer's brute force piling, and for AI, which requires complex logical interactions, its developer tools are still too rigid. Vanar clearly aims to be the translator between Web2 and Web3, allowing traditional Java or Python developers to directly write smart contracts, and in terms of technical stack affinity, it indeed has an edge. However, while it's nice to talk, the problems are also glaringly obvious. Vanar's current browser and data dashboard are shockingly rudimentary; trying to track an internal transaction of a cross-contract call can make one collapse from searching for data. Moreover, although the underlying layer claims to support AI natively, the official AI oracle interface documentation is vague, and many functions are still in the drawing board phase. If we compare the current public chain to operating systems, Ethereum is DOS, which can only play Minesweeper due to its slowness, while Vanar wants to be Windows, enabling ordinary people to use it, but its current completion level is just at the level of Windows 95, with blue screens and bugs being inevitable. But at least the direction is right; in this era filled with air coins, projects that can focus on middleware experience are worth adding to the watchlist for a while.
@Vanarchain $VANRY
#vanar
Don't be fooled by the hype of 'AI public chains'; Vanar's true value lies in those inconspicuous gas fee bills
This week I did something extremely tedious, migrating the settlement layer of several quantitative trading bots from Polygon to the Vanar testnet. The reason for this hassle was that last week's congestion on Polygon directly caused my strategy to retract by five points. That feeling of watching gas fees soar while being powerless is truly infuriating. There are countless so-called 'high-performance chains' on the market that claim to solve this problem, but most are paper tigers that sacrifice security for TPS. Vanar wasn't even on my shortlist at first, given its background of being rebranded from Virtua, which always made me feel like it was just the same old thing in a new bottle. However, after gritting my teeth and testing it for three days, I found myself staring at the almost linear expense statistics in the backend, deep in thought.
Jumping out of the walls of the Move language, Fogo leaves a backdoor for Rust developers.
A couple of days ago, I was tinkering with the contract migration of Sui and Aptos, and the forced ownership model of the Move language gave me a headache. Although Move indeed has unique aspects in terms of security, for developers accustomed to Rust and Solidity, the learning curve is as steep as Mount Everest. Just when I was about to give up, I took a glance at Fogo's development documentation and instantly felt a sense of clarity. It completely retains the development paradigm of Solana, and this kind of 'pick-and-choose' approach, while not sounding great in the tech circle, is absolutely a bomb in terms of commercial implementation efficiency.
I tried to deploy a DEX contract that runs pretty well on Solana to the Fogo testnet, and the whole process didn’t even require modification of the core logic code. This compatibility means that Solana's existing vast ecosystem can directly 'siphon' over. In contrast, Sui and Aptos are like two isolated islands; although the scenery on the islands is unique, one still has to build a boat from scratch. Fogo is more like a highway built next to Solana, with better road conditions and lower tolls. I conducted a series of stress tests on Fogo, especially in scenarios simulating large-scale concurrent transfers, and its state conflict handling mechanism is indeed much smoother than the original Solana, without the inexplicable congestion and packet loss.
However, Fogo's shortcoming is also very obvious, which is the extreme lack of toolchain. When debugging contracts, I often couldn't find suitable debugging tools, half of the links in the official documentation are 404, or they directly redirect to Solana's documentation page, which is quite awkward. It feels like the team has allocated all their skill points to underlying performance, while the developer experience at the application layer is a complete mess. And the interaction experience of the cross-chain bridge, while fast, often freezes the interface, making one wonder if the frontend was written by an intern. If you are a developer pursuing technical purity, you might find Fogo lacks originality, but if you are a project party looking to quickly land and monetize a product, the temptation of Fogo's seamless migration is hard to resist. In this speed-focused industry, whoever can lay down the infrastructure the fastest may seize this wave of high-performance L1 dividends ahead of Monad.
@Fogo Official $FOGO
#Fogo
A couple of days ago, I was tinkering with the contract migration of Sui and Aptos, and the forced ownership model of the Move language gave me a headache. Although Move indeed has unique aspects in terms of security, for developers accustomed to Rust and Solidity, the learning curve is as steep as Mount Everest. Just when I was about to give up, I took a glance at Fogo's development documentation and instantly felt a sense of clarity. It completely retains the development paradigm of Solana, and this kind of 'pick-and-choose' approach, while not sounding great in the tech circle, is absolutely a bomb in terms of commercial implementation efficiency.
I tried to deploy a DEX contract that runs pretty well on Solana to the Fogo testnet, and the whole process didn’t even require modification of the core logic code. This compatibility means that Solana's existing vast ecosystem can directly 'siphon' over. In contrast, Sui and Aptos are like two isolated islands; although the scenery on the islands is unique, one still has to build a boat from scratch. Fogo is more like a highway built next to Solana, with better road conditions and lower tolls. I conducted a series of stress tests on Fogo, especially in scenarios simulating large-scale concurrent transfers, and its state conflict handling mechanism is indeed much smoother than the original Solana, without the inexplicable congestion and packet loss.
However, Fogo's shortcoming is also very obvious, which is the extreme lack of toolchain. When debugging contracts, I often couldn't find suitable debugging tools, half of the links in the official documentation are 404, or they directly redirect to Solana's documentation page, which is quite awkward. It feels like the team has allocated all their skill points to underlying performance, while the developer experience at the application layer is a complete mess. And the interaction experience of the cross-chain bridge, while fast, often freezes the interface, making one wonder if the frontend was written by an intern. If you are a developer pursuing technical purity, you might find Fogo lacks originality, but if you are a project party looking to quickly land and monetize a product, the temptation of Fogo's seamless migration is hard to resist. In this speed-focused industry, whoever can lay down the infrastructure the fastest may seize this wave of high-performance L1 dividends ahead of Monad.
@Fogo Official $FOGO
#Fogo
Even if Fogo's Session Key is as smooth as silk, I will not give my main account's private key to it.
Do you ever feel like the current Web3 interactions are reminiscent of the last century? Every time you do something on-chain, that damn wallet pop-up has to appear to make you confirm it again, which really tests a person's patience. So when Fogo launched that Session Key feature that doesn't require a signature, I admit I was indeed tempted for a moment. Being able to trade directly without a signature sounds like a perfect tool tailored for high-frequency trading and blockchain games. But I have a flaw; the more useful something is, the more I suspect there might be some trick behind it. So I spent two days going through the underlying code logic of this feature thoroughly.
Don't be fooled by those AI public chains riding the hype; the approach of Vanar, which separates computation and consensus, is truly innovative.
Recently, a bunch of AI public chains have emerged on the market, and they are simply laughable. When you open their white papers, the vast majority are nothing more than rehashed EVM code that forcefully adds a few so-called AI oracle interfaces. This kind of superficial change does not solve the computational bottleneck of running models on-chain. Yesterday, I spent the whole night running the testnet of Vanar Chain, and this difference truly became apparent. It does not blindly pursue so-called full-chain AI but intelligently separates the computation layer from the consensus layer. Compared to the subnet solutions of Fantom or Avalanche, although they are also doing isolation, setting them up is incredibly cumbersome. Without two to three years of full-stack experience, it’s nearly impossible to manage. My experience with Vanar was more akin to AWS's Lambda service; developers only need to focus on business logic, while the underlying resource allocation is dynamic. I deployed a simple semantic analysis script on it, and the response speed made me doubt whether I was connected to a centralized server. This seamlessness is what Web3 infrastructure should look like, rather than forcing developers to constantly calculate whether the Gas Limit will overflow. However, the current drawbacks of this thing are also quite apparent; the ecosystem is frighteningly desolate. Although the underlying technical logic is sound, there is almost no decent native DeFi Lego available on-chain to accommodate funds. This leads to an awkward situation: you have the best runway, but what’s running on it is still an old-fashioned carriage. Moreover, the UI design of the official bridge is truly inhumane; transferring assets is not only slow, but sometimes there is also a delay of several minutes in state updates, which is nerve-wracking. If the project team cannot refine these basic user experiences, no matter how impressive the underlying architecture is, it will ultimately just become a ghost chain that only runs fast.
@Vanarchain $VANRY
#vanar
Recently, a bunch of AI public chains have emerged on the market, and they are simply laughable. When you open their white papers, the vast majority are nothing more than rehashed EVM code that forcefully adds a few so-called AI oracle interfaces. This kind of superficial change does not solve the computational bottleneck of running models on-chain. Yesterday, I spent the whole night running the testnet of Vanar Chain, and this difference truly became apparent. It does not blindly pursue so-called full-chain AI but intelligently separates the computation layer from the consensus layer. Compared to the subnet solutions of Fantom or Avalanche, although they are also doing isolation, setting them up is incredibly cumbersome. Without two to three years of full-stack experience, it’s nearly impossible to manage. My experience with Vanar was more akin to AWS's Lambda service; developers only need to focus on business logic, while the underlying resource allocation is dynamic. I deployed a simple semantic analysis script on it, and the response speed made me doubt whether I was connected to a centralized server. This seamlessness is what Web3 infrastructure should look like, rather than forcing developers to constantly calculate whether the Gas Limit will overflow. However, the current drawbacks of this thing are also quite apparent; the ecosystem is frighteningly desolate. Although the underlying technical logic is sound, there is almost no decent native DeFi Lego available on-chain to accommodate funds. This leads to an awkward situation: you have the best runway, but what’s running on it is still an old-fashioned carriage. Moreover, the UI design of the official bridge is truly inhumane; transferring assets is not only slow, but sometimes there is also a delay of several minutes in state updates, which is nerve-wracking. If the project team cannot refine these basic user experiences, no matter how impressive the underlying architecture is, it will ultimately just become a ghost chain that only runs fast.
@Vanarchain $VANRY
#vanar
Those who shout for decentralization fundamentalists probably haven't run a Fogo node.
Recently, I took a look at the requirements for Fogo's validator nodes, and that configuration list is simply a deterrent guide, basically blocking all retail users who want to run nodes on their idle home computers. This actually exposes a very stark reality: to maintain an insane block speed of 40 milliseconds, Fogo has to sacrifice a large part of the node admission threshold. The current public chain track is increasingly resembling an arms race, where Solana still has to consider so-called community operation, while Fogo feels like a cold efficiency machine that doesn't even hide its dependence on professional data centers. This architecture indeed brings extreme TPS; when I conducted stress tests on the chain, the transaction confirmation feedback speed was so fast that I thought I was connected to a local network. But this speed comes at a cost. If the future Web3 infrastructure becomes a game that only giants like Amazon or Google Cloud can play, then what is the point of all this blockchain fuss?
However, thinking about it, for the vast majority of users who only care about whether transactions can be confirmed in seconds, does it really matter who runs the nodes? I have been lurking in several communities and found that what people care about has never been the degree of decentralization, but whether they will be stuck when rushing for the next hot coin. Fogo clearly sees through this; it directly abandons the hypocritical narrative of wanting both decentralization and high efficiency. Since it cannot achieve both, it maximizes efficiency. The current Fogo resembles the Binance Smart Chain of yesteryear. Although criticized for centralization, it certainly absorbed the huge overflow of Ethereum's traffic. Only now, the opponent has become Solana, and the cards in Fogo's hand are the purer Firedancer technology stack. This approach is indeed aggressive, but in this market where speed is king, it may truly be a bloody path. Just looking at those old projects still telling decentralization stories makes one sigh; the direction of this circle has changed so quickly that even idealism couldn't catch up to realize itself.
@Fogo Official $FOGO
#Fogo
Recently, I took a look at the requirements for Fogo's validator nodes, and that configuration list is simply a deterrent guide, basically blocking all retail users who want to run nodes on their idle home computers. This actually exposes a very stark reality: to maintain an insane block speed of 40 milliseconds, Fogo has to sacrifice a large part of the node admission threshold. The current public chain track is increasingly resembling an arms race, where Solana still has to consider so-called community operation, while Fogo feels like a cold efficiency machine that doesn't even hide its dependence on professional data centers. This architecture indeed brings extreme TPS; when I conducted stress tests on the chain, the transaction confirmation feedback speed was so fast that I thought I was connected to a local network. But this speed comes at a cost. If the future Web3 infrastructure becomes a game that only giants like Amazon or Google Cloud can play, then what is the point of all this blockchain fuss?
However, thinking about it, for the vast majority of users who only care about whether transactions can be confirmed in seconds, does it really matter who runs the nodes? I have been lurking in several communities and found that what people care about has never been the degree of decentralization, but whether they will be stuck when rushing for the next hot coin. Fogo clearly sees through this; it directly abandons the hypocritical narrative of wanting both decentralization and high efficiency. Since it cannot achieve both, it maximizes efficiency. The current Fogo resembles the Binance Smart Chain of yesteryear. Although criticized for centralization, it certainly absorbed the huge overflow of Ethereum's traffic. Only now, the opponent has become Solana, and the cards in Fogo's hand are the purer Firedancer technology stack. This approach is indeed aggressive, but in this market where speed is king, it may truly be a bloody path. Just looking at those old projects still telling decentralization stories makes one sigh; the direction of this circle has changed so quickly that even idealism couldn't catch up to realize itself.
@Fogo Official $FOGO
#Fogo
After running the Vanar testnet node for a week, I finally understood why Google Cloud was willing to endorse it
At half past three in the morning, the terminal window on the screen is still bouncing wildly, and this cup of instant coffee in my hand has gone cold. This feeling is all too familiar; the last time I stayed up this late was to grab the Arbitrum airdrop. I haven't been chasing those meme coins these days, but instead, I have been obsessively staring at the node data of Vanar Chain for a whole week. The reason is simple: recently, the news about the collaboration with Google Cloud has been making a lot of noise. My first reaction as an old investor is usually: here comes another PPT project trying to profit from the hype of a big Web2 company. But when I actually ran the node and delved into its underlying verification logic, I found that things seem to be more complicated than that. I can even say that my bias almost made me miss a player that truly has the potential to compete on a commercial level.
What remains of Fogo's chain after stripping away the false prosperity of market makers
Data does not lie, but in the world of blockchain, data can be manufactured. This week, I played the role of a detective, trying to find cracks in the seemingly perfect on-chain data from Fogo, only to discover that this so-called SVM rising star is actually filled with bubbles and illusions. After filtering out those fake transactions generated by scripts, the scene presented before me was so desolate that it was chilling.
I wrote a simple cleansing algorithm specifically for behavior analysis of those daily active addresses. The results were astonishing; over seventy percent of active addresses displayed a highly mechanized operational pattern. They typically perform a trivial swap operation immediately after withdrawing coins from exchanges, then quickly consolidate the funds into another hot wallet. This typical witch attack behavior on Fogo has not only gone unchecked but seems to be tacitly approved to some extent. The project team needs beautiful daily active data to report to investors, while the profit seekers need interaction records to vie for airdrops, creating an unspoken understanding between the two.
I wrote a simple cleansing algorithm specifically for behavior analysis of those daily active addresses. The results were astonishing; over seventy percent of active addresses displayed a highly mechanized operational pattern. They typically perform a trivial swap operation immediately after withdrawing coins from exchanges, then quickly consolidate the funds into another hot wallet. This typical witch attack behavior on Fogo has not only gone unchecked but seems to be tacitly approved to some extent. The project team needs beautiful daily active data to report to investors, while the profit seekers need interaction records to vie for airdrops, creating an unspoken understanding between the two.
Fogo's 40 milliseconds ultra-fast experience is the final shortcoming that Solana cannot make up for.
In the past few days, I have moved most of my positions from Solana to Fogo. This migration is not just due to the early incentives; it is more of a silent protest against Solana's recent frequent congestion. Everyone is saying Fogo is the killer of Solana, but I think it is more like the ideal complete form of Solana. By directly using Firedancer, developed by Jump Crypto, as a native client, this move is extremely risky but also very precise. It’s important to know that Solana has been calling for two years to upgrade Firedancer to solve concurrency issues, while Fogo's team has directly taken this high-performance engine to create a new vehicle. In actual experience, that kind of 40 milliseconds block generation speed is simply mind-blowing. When I was running high-frequency trading scripts on-chain, the smoothness of order confirmation even made me doubt whether I was interacting with the servers of a centralized exchange. In contrast, Monad is still at the PPT stage making empty promises, and although Sui and Aptos have high-performance narratives, the threshold of the Move language has directly blocked a large portion of developers at the door. Fogo's dual strategy of directly being compatible with both EVM and SVM is simply designed to seize existing developers. However, this does not mean that Fogo is guaranteed to win; the current ecosystem is as desolate as a newly developed ghost town. Besides a few DEXs supported by the official, most applications not only have a simple UI but also lack depth. I tried to place a few large trades on it, and the slippage made me wince; this kind of liquidity exhaustion cannot be solved by simply piling up technology. Additionally, the speed of cross-chain bridge transactions is as slow as a snail, forming an extremely ironic contrast with the on-chain second-level confirmations. The current state of Fogo is very much like a tractor equipped with a top-notch F1 engine; the chassis is extremely solid, but the body parts are still a pile of scrap metal. If the team cannot quickly fill in the shortcomings of the infrastructure, this advantage built purely on speed can easily be drowned by new narratives in this fickle cryptocurrency space.
@Fogo Official $FOGO
#Fogo
In the past few days, I have moved most of my positions from Solana to Fogo. This migration is not just due to the early incentives; it is more of a silent protest against Solana's recent frequent congestion. Everyone is saying Fogo is the killer of Solana, but I think it is more like the ideal complete form of Solana. By directly using Firedancer, developed by Jump Crypto, as a native client, this move is extremely risky but also very precise. It’s important to know that Solana has been calling for two years to upgrade Firedancer to solve concurrency issues, while Fogo's team has directly taken this high-performance engine to create a new vehicle. In actual experience, that kind of 40 milliseconds block generation speed is simply mind-blowing. When I was running high-frequency trading scripts on-chain, the smoothness of order confirmation even made me doubt whether I was interacting with the servers of a centralized exchange. In contrast, Monad is still at the PPT stage making empty promises, and although Sui and Aptos have high-performance narratives, the threshold of the Move language has directly blocked a large portion of developers at the door. Fogo's dual strategy of directly being compatible with both EVM and SVM is simply designed to seize existing developers. However, this does not mean that Fogo is guaranteed to win; the current ecosystem is as desolate as a newly developed ghost town. Besides a few DEXs supported by the official, most applications not only have a simple UI but also lack depth. I tried to place a few large trades on it, and the slippage made me wince; this kind of liquidity exhaustion cannot be solved by simply piling up technology. Additionally, the speed of cross-chain bridge transactions is as slow as a snail, forming an extremely ironic contrast with the on-chain second-level confirmations. The current state of Fogo is very much like a tractor equipped with a top-notch F1 engine; the chassis is extremely solid, but the body parts are still a pile of scrap metal. If the team cannot quickly fill in the shortcomings of the infrastructure, this advantage built purely on speed can easily be drowned by new narratives in this fickle cryptocurrency space.
@Fogo Official $FOGO
#Fogo
The Silence of the Oracle, The Eve of the Financial Storm on the Fogo Chain
In the past few days, the market has been extremely volatile, which is a perfect opportunity for me to observe the performance of DeFi on the Fogo chain. When liquidation machines on Ethereum and Solana are running wild, I was surprised to find that the lending protocols on Fogo are eerily quiet. This is not because the user risk control here is good, but because the oracle system here suddenly went completely silent at a critical moment. This is like a sword of Damocles hanging over all DeFi participants.
I tracked several major oracle nodes and found that their price update frequency significantly decreased during periods of drastic price fluctuations. On Solana, the Pyth Network can achieve millisecond-level price updates, ensuring that on-chain prices closely follow CEX. However, on Fogo, due to network congestion and skyrocketing gas fees, the oracle nodes clearly do not have enough incentive to submit prices frequently. This has led to a huge price discrepancy between on-chain prices and actual market prices. I took a glance and found that the price of ETH on Fogo was actually three percent higher than on Binance. This is paradise for arbitrageurs, but hell for users engaged in collateralized lending.
I tracked several major oracle nodes and found that their price update frequency significantly decreased during periods of drastic price fluctuations. On Solana, the Pyth Network can achieve millisecond-level price updates, ensuring that on-chain prices closely follow CEX. However, on Fogo, due to network congestion and skyrocketing gas fees, the oracle nodes clearly do not have enough incentive to submit prices frequently. This has led to a huge price discrepancy between on-chain prices and actual market prices. I took a glance and found that the price of ETH on Fogo was actually three percent higher than on Binance. This is paradise for arbitrageurs, but hell for users engaged in collateralized lending.
Even if Creator Pad still throws errors a thousand times, I bet Vanar is the only safe haven for AI assets in the next bull market.
Last night, in order to test that damn cross-chain bridge, I stayed up until three in the morning. Looking at the rows of green Success prompts in the terminal, I suddenly felt a sense of absurdity, like building a skyscraper in a wasteland. Vanar gives me this feeling; it’s like cramming a modern skyscraper into an undeveloped wilderness. In the past few days, I've gone through the high-performance public chains on the market again, from the congestion of Polygon to the complex subnet of Avalanche, each with its own maddening shortcomings. And Vanar, which has been rebranded from Virtua, seems to me like old wine in a new bottle. But when I actually started running data, that terrifyingly stable confirmation speed forced me to reevaluate its value.
The so-called full-chain games are all false propositions; only an invisible backend like Vanar is the only way to achieve mass adoption.
The current GameFi and metaverse track is simply a comprehensive guide for user discouragement. Asking a Web2 user who just wants to play games to first download a wallet, remember a bunch of mnemonic phrases, and then calculate whether the gas fees will eat up their meager gold mining profits is inherently against human nature. After seeing so many chains claiming to bring a billion users into Web3, most have stumbled at the first hurdle of logging in. Re-evaluating Vanar Chain from this dimension reveals a different ambition. Its long list of ecological partners indicates that it is not following the route of letting the crypto world’s low-quality projects cut each other’s profits but aims to forcibly pull traditional brands with a large user base into this circle. The solution Vanar offers is quite clever; it attempts to make blockchain an invisible technology. For end users, you might not even realize you are interacting with the chain; the ownership of items is confirmed silently in the background. This forms a stark contrast to those projects that boast of full-chain games and nearly want to put every step of walking on-chain. Although Ethereum’s L2s are fast, they still appear cumbersome when handling high-frequency, low-value consumer scenarios that require an extremely smooth experience. Vanar’s underlying logic, optimized for entertainment and media, clearly aims to become the backend of an App Store in Web3, rather than recreating a congested NASDAQ. However, this double-edged sword is also evident; taking the B2B2C route means it is highly dependent on the speed at which partners can land. Looking at the current activity on the chain, the data has not yet come out. Those flashy logos, if they ultimately only issue a press release without real traffic inflow, represent a typical VC scheme. Right now, Vanar is like a well-equipped air force base; the runway is built to a thunderous sound, but the flights in the sky are still not dense enough. For retail investors, this chain, lacking the wealth effect of low-quality projects, may be slightly short on the adrenaline of speculation in the short term.
@Vanarchain $VANRY
#vanar
The current GameFi and metaverse track is simply a comprehensive guide for user discouragement. Asking a Web2 user who just wants to play games to first download a wallet, remember a bunch of mnemonic phrases, and then calculate whether the gas fees will eat up their meager gold mining profits is inherently against human nature. After seeing so many chains claiming to bring a billion users into Web3, most have stumbled at the first hurdle of logging in. Re-evaluating Vanar Chain from this dimension reveals a different ambition. Its long list of ecological partners indicates that it is not following the route of letting the crypto world’s low-quality projects cut each other’s profits but aims to forcibly pull traditional brands with a large user base into this circle. The solution Vanar offers is quite clever; it attempts to make blockchain an invisible technology. For end users, you might not even realize you are interacting with the chain; the ownership of items is confirmed silently in the background. This forms a stark contrast to those projects that boast of full-chain games and nearly want to put every step of walking on-chain. Although Ethereum’s L2s are fast, they still appear cumbersome when handling high-frequency, low-value consumer scenarios that require an extremely smooth experience. Vanar’s underlying logic, optimized for entertainment and media, clearly aims to become the backend of an App Store in Web3, rather than recreating a congested NASDAQ. However, this double-edged sword is also evident; taking the B2B2C route means it is highly dependent on the speed at which partners can land. Looking at the current activity on the chain, the data has not yet come out. Those flashy logos, if they ultimately only issue a press release without real traffic inflow, represent a typical VC scheme. Right now, Vanar is like a well-equipped air force base; the runway is built to a thunderous sound, but the flights in the sky are still not dense enough. For retail investors, this chain, lacking the wealth effect of low-quality projects, may be slightly short on the adrenaline of speculation in the short term.
@Vanarchain $VANRY
#vanar
Don't be blinded by those hundred-fold meme coins; I saw the real logic of Web2 giants entering the game in the code of Vanar.
At the moment I deployed the last smart contract to the Vanar mainnet, I breathed a sigh of relief and casually closed the Discord group full of shout-out messages. Over the past two days, in order to find a stable landing for the AIGC rights project in my hands, I have been wandering between various public chains like a vagrant. From the complex sharding of Near to the Move language of Aptos, each chain boasted technologies to the skies, but as soon as it came to the actual deployment stage, all sorts of incompatible bugs popped up. Ultimately choosing Vanar was actually a reluctant decision, as I really didn't want to learn a new programming language. The compatibility of Vanar with EVM touched me a bit; my code that ran smoothly on Ethereum Goerli was transferred over without changing a single punctuation mark. This smoothness is a rare resource in the Web3 world, which is filled with various technical barriers.
Stop using those pseudo-AI public chains to patch Ethereum; a native architecture like Vanar is where agents should reside.
The current secondary market is simply a large patching site; just touching on AI concepts can inflate valuations to the sky. I have reviewed no less than dozens of white papers, and the vast majority of so-called AI enhancements are merely patches applied to that bloated EVM, and this AI-added approach contributes no real value to computational power other than making Gas fees more expensive. What we need is AI-first infrastructure designed for agents from the ground up, not this half-baked facade. A few days ago, I thoroughly examined the Vanar Chain testnet, and the difference is quite noticeable. It did not choose the simplest fully compatible EVM route but instead created a unique five-layer architecture. Especially the Neutron semantic memory layer, which really hits the nail on the head. The biggest fear of today's AI agents is being forgetful; after a couple of chats, they forget everything. The traditional approach is to hang the memory database on Arweave, which is painfully slow to invoke. Vanar directly supports semantic memory natively on-chain, which truly paves the way for AI. Comparing it horizontally with Near or ICP is even more interesting; Near's data availability is indeed good, but the native interaction for agents is still lacking a bit. When trying out Vanar's Creator Pad, I found that the threshold for issuing tokens and deployment was set too low, which is both an advantage and a risk. The advantage is that developers do not have to rewrite code to transfer Web2 logic, while the risk is that without proper screening, junk projects may proliferate. The current experience is not without its pain points; although the officially announced TPS is high, there are still occasional lags under high concurrency, and node synchronization clearly has room for optimization. Moreover, the current ecosystem is built too large, with few killer applications emerging; it’s better to execute practically than to paint a grand picture. This is akin to having a luxurious mall decorated without fully settled merchants; it always feels a bit empty to walk around.
@Vanarchain $VANRY
#vanar
The current secondary market is simply a large patching site; just touching on AI concepts can inflate valuations to the sky. I have reviewed no less than dozens of white papers, and the vast majority of so-called AI enhancements are merely patches applied to that bloated EVM, and this AI-added approach contributes no real value to computational power other than making Gas fees more expensive. What we need is AI-first infrastructure designed for agents from the ground up, not this half-baked facade. A few days ago, I thoroughly examined the Vanar Chain testnet, and the difference is quite noticeable. It did not choose the simplest fully compatible EVM route but instead created a unique five-layer architecture. Especially the Neutron semantic memory layer, which really hits the nail on the head. The biggest fear of today's AI agents is being forgetful; after a couple of chats, they forget everything. The traditional approach is to hang the memory database on Arweave, which is painfully slow to invoke. Vanar directly supports semantic memory natively on-chain, which truly paves the way for AI. Comparing it horizontally with Near or ICP is even more interesting; Near's data availability is indeed good, but the native interaction for agents is still lacking a bit. When trying out Vanar's Creator Pad, I found that the threshold for issuing tokens and deployment was set too low, which is both an advantage and a risk. The advantage is that developers do not have to rewrite code to transfer Web2 logic, while the risk is that without proper screening, junk projects may proliferate. The current experience is not without its pain points; although the officially announced TPS is high, there are still occasional lags under high concurrency, and node synchronization clearly has room for optimization. Moreover, the current ecosystem is built too large, with few killer applications emerging; it’s better to execute practically than to paint a grand picture. This is akin to having a luxurious mall decorated without fully settled merchants; it always feels a bit empty to walk around.
@Vanarchain $VANRY
#vanar
The Early Application Barrenness of the Fogo Ecosystem and the Cold Reflection from the Developer's Perspective
In a land that claims to be high performance, I expected to see skyscrapers, but what greeted me were just a few exquisite tents. This is my intuitive feeling after deeply experiencing the Fogo ecosystem for a week. The technical foundation is indeed as solid as iron, but the buildings on top are sparse enough to make one anxious.
Open the ecological navigation page, and the number of applications is pitifully small. Apart from the Valiant DEX, which has been repeatedly mentioned by the officials, almost all that remains are infrastructure and tools. I downloaded a game called 'Fogo Fishing,' thinking it would be similar to StepN and capable of triggering social fission, but I found it as simple as a college student's final project. The interaction is indeed fast—casting, reeling, and going on-chain—with no lag, but the monotony of the gameplay is truly testing my patience. If this is the killer application of a high-performance public chain, then we are at least ten light-years away from Mass Adoption.
Open the ecological navigation page, and the number of applications is pitifully small. Apart from the Valiant DEX, which has been repeatedly mentioned by the officials, almost all that remains are infrastructure and tools. I downloaded a game called 'Fogo Fishing,' thinking it would be similar to StepN and capable of triggering social fission, but I found it as simple as a college student's final project. The interaction is indeed fast—casting, reeling, and going on-chain—with no lag, but the monotony of the gameplay is truly testing my patience. If this is the killer application of a high-performance public chain, then we are at least ten light-years away from Mass Adoption.
Recently researching Fogo's white paper and actual architecture, especially its touted parallel execution model. It's not the only player in parallel execution; Sui and Aptos are also involved, and Monad is lurking in the background. As someone who has been harvested by various 'high-performance public chains', I specifically ran some data on its test nodes.
In practice, Fogo's handling of state conflicts is indeed more aggressive than the current Solana. When processing transactions with non-overlapping states, its throughput data looks impressive, basically able to utilize the full bandwidth. However, once it encounters hot accounts, the advantages of parallelism instantly turn into serial queuing. It's like a supermarket having 100 checkout counters, but everyone just wants to buy that one special-priced egg, ultimately still needing to queue at the same window.
Compared to Sui, Fogo’s path dependency advantage based on SVM lies in the low migration cost for developers. Things written in Rust can be modified and moved over from Solana easily. But the disadvantages are also clear; Sui's Object model is actually more intuitive in handling asset ownership, and although the learning cost is high, the safety ceiling might be higher. Fogo's current strategy resembles 'brutal aesthetics', relying on hardware resources and code optimizations to push performance, rather than doing a thorough reconstruction of the underlying logic.
Another hidden issue is the centralization risk of nodes. To pursue extreme millisecond block times, the hardware requirements for validators are too high. I looked at the recommended configuration, and this is simply not a game that ordinary retail investors can participate in. If in the future the nodes are controlled by a few large institutions, then I have doubts about its censorship resistance. Don't forget, blockchain is not just a database; the degree of decentralization is the real protection.
In the past few days, there have occasionally been individual RPC nodes reporting errors, which, although not affecting the overall situation, indicate that the robustness of the infrastructure still needs improvement. Stop staring at TPS to refresh data all day; improving the foundational support is the real deal. After all, no one wants to store large amounts of money on a chain that, while fast, could crash at any moment.
@Fogo Official $FOGO
#Fogo
In practice, Fogo's handling of state conflicts is indeed more aggressive than the current Solana. When processing transactions with non-overlapping states, its throughput data looks impressive, basically able to utilize the full bandwidth. However, once it encounters hot accounts, the advantages of parallelism instantly turn into serial queuing. It's like a supermarket having 100 checkout counters, but everyone just wants to buy that one special-priced egg, ultimately still needing to queue at the same window.
Compared to Sui, Fogo’s path dependency advantage based on SVM lies in the low migration cost for developers. Things written in Rust can be modified and moved over from Solana easily. But the disadvantages are also clear; Sui's Object model is actually more intuitive in handling asset ownership, and although the learning cost is high, the safety ceiling might be higher. Fogo's current strategy resembles 'brutal aesthetics', relying on hardware resources and code optimizations to push performance, rather than doing a thorough reconstruction of the underlying logic.
Another hidden issue is the centralization risk of nodes. To pursue extreme millisecond block times, the hardware requirements for validators are too high. I looked at the recommended configuration, and this is simply not a game that ordinary retail investors can participate in. If in the future the nodes are controlled by a few large institutions, then I have doubts about its censorship resistance. Don't forget, blockchain is not just a database; the degree of decentralization is the real protection.
In the past few days, there have occasionally been individual RPC nodes reporting errors, which, although not affecting the overall situation, indicate that the robustness of the infrastructure still needs improvement. Stop staring at TPS to refresh data all day; improving the foundational support is the real deal. After all, no one wants to store large amounts of money on a chain that, while fast, could crash at any moment.
@Fogo Official $FOGO
#Fogo
Don't blindly trust Solana anymore; Fogo's recent implementation of Firedancer may be the only escape pod. The congestion on the Solana chain these days feels as frustrating as constipation, and each failed swap reminds me that this so-called top public chain has actually reached its performance bottleneck. However, when you turn your attention to Fogo, you will find that it is not just an alternative, but more like a violent reconstruction of the SVM architecture. The Firedancer client has been shouting on the Solana side for two years without fully landing, while Fogo has directly run it as a native component. This technical dimensionality reduction is very blatant in actual experience. I conducted fifty high-frequency transfers on Fogo continuously, and the smoothness made me even doubt whether I was playing a centralized server game.
Many are still struggling with whether a new L1 public chain is necessary. But if you have truly experienced the thrill of a 40-millisecond block time, you will understand that the large-scale adoption of Web3 has never lacked users but rather the infrastructure capable of supporting consumer-level applications. At this stage, although the ecological applications on Fogo have not yet reached a blooming stage, the experience of several leading DEXs is already enough to outperform those old-timers on Ethereum. The slip control is extremely precise, and one can hardly feel the presence of MEV robots. The benefits brought by this underlying architecture cannot be achieved by piling up Layer2.
Of course, this does not mean that Fogo is flawless. The wear and tear of cross-chain funds is still a headache. Every time I transfer USDC, I feel the pain of the fees, and the current browser interface is indeed a bit rudimentary; checking a transaction hash takes a while to respond. However, this precisely indicates that it is still in the early stages. For players like us who are on-chain bloodsuckers, the early roughness often means higher odds. By the time everyone realizes this is a more usable Solana, the car door will probably have been welded shut long ago.
@Fogo Official $FOGO
#Fogo
Many are still struggling with whether a new L1 public chain is necessary. But if you have truly experienced the thrill of a 40-millisecond block time, you will understand that the large-scale adoption of Web3 has never lacked users but rather the infrastructure capable of supporting consumer-level applications. At this stage, although the ecological applications on Fogo have not yet reached a blooming stage, the experience of several leading DEXs is already enough to outperform those old-timers on Ethereum. The slip control is extremely precise, and one can hardly feel the presence of MEV robots. The benefits brought by this underlying architecture cannot be achieved by piling up Layer2.
Of course, this does not mean that Fogo is flawless. The wear and tear of cross-chain funds is still a headache. Every time I transfer USDC, I feel the pain of the fees, and the current browser interface is indeed a bit rudimentary; checking a transaction hash takes a while to respond. However, this precisely indicates that it is still in the early stages. For players like us who are on-chain bloodsuckers, the early roughness often means higher odds. By the time everyone realizes this is a more usable Solana, the car door will probably have been welded shut long ago.
@Fogo Official $FOGO
#Fogo
The Game Behind Abandoning $20 Million Financing for an Airdrop: Fogo's Cold Start Dilemma and Whale Game
The capital market's sense is always the most sensitive. When Fogo announced the cancellation of the $20 million public offering and opted for an airdrop instead, I knew there had to be a deeper game behind it. This is not some pretty talk about 'giving back to the community,' but rather a strategic adjustment for survival. In the current market environment, highly valued VC tokens have become like a rat crossing the street; project parties are very aware that if they insist on issuing tokens at high valuations, they will face the tragedy of peak opening.
I carefully studied the distribution model of this airdrop. Although it superficially appears to be for fair distribution, in reality, it resembles a carefully designed 'whale game.' Look at those trading competitions on Binance and OKX; the trading volumes of the top few are astronomical. What does this indicate? It shows that most of the chips have not truly been dispersed to retail investors, but rather concentrated in the hands of market makers and whales through this aggressive incentive mechanism. This structure of chips is very favorable for controlling the market later on, but poses a hidden danger to the long-term healthy development of the ecosystem.
I carefully studied the distribution model of this airdrop. Although it superficially appears to be for fair distribution, in reality, it resembles a carefully designed 'whale game.' Look at those trading competitions on Binance and OKX; the trading volumes of the top few are astronomical. What does this indicate? It shows that most of the chips have not truly been dispersed to retail investors, but rather concentrated in the hands of market makers and whales through this aggressive incentive mechanism. This structure of chips is very favorable for controlling the market later on, but poses a hidden danger to the long-term healthy development of the ecosystem.
Don't be fooled by those so-called AI public chains; real computing infrastructure actually has the most boring face.
Staring blankly at the Gas tracker on the screen, the coffee in my hand has gone cold. These days, in order to verify the on-chain logic of several new generative AI models, I have almost run through all the so-called high-performance public chains on the market. The conclusion I've reached is quite despairing: the vast majority of so-called AI public chains are essentially lying; they can't even handle the most basic high-frequency RPC requests, let alone support a future trillion-level intelligent economy. It was after becoming frustrated with the congestion of several mainstream L2s that I unintentionally switched to the Vanar testnet. At first, I went in with a mindset ready to find faults, thinking this was probably just another project using a PPT to scam for funding. However, after trying it out, I gained a new understanding of the term 'infrastructure.'
After reviewing no less than fifty white papers, the vast majority of projects claiming to have AI support are merely applying a patch on the already bloated EVM. This AI-added approach only increases gas fees and offers no substantial contribution to computing power. What we need is an AI-first infrastructure designed from the ground up for intelligent agents, rather than a forced and awkward integration just to ride the hype. A few days ago, I had an in-depth experience with the Vanar Chain testnet, and the differences were quite noticeable. It didn't take the easy road of simple EVM compatibility but instead implemented a five-layer architecture. Especially the Neutron semantic memory layer, which precisely addresses the pain points.
Today's AI agents fear being brainless, forgetting after a few sentences or breaking down when the context length exceeds a limit. The traditional approach of hanging memory repositories on Arweave or IPFS is painfully slow to call upon; not only is the latency high, but the consistency of the data cannot be guaranteed. Vanar directly supports semantic memory natively on-chain, which is the proper way to pave the road for AI. Comparing it horizontally with Near or ICP is even more interesting. Near's data availability is indeed good, and its sharding technology is impressive, but it still lacks a bit in native interactions for intelligent agents. Trying out Vanar's Creator Pad revealed that the threshold for issuing tokens and deploying smart contracts has been lowered too much. The advantage is that developers do not need to rewrite code to transfer Web2 logic; they can dive right in. The hidden danger is that if screening is not done, junk projects may flood the space, leading to a screen full of low-quality projects that bury the truly good ones.
The core of AI-first is not about how big of a model you can run on-chain but whether the chain can understand the model's requirements. Kayon's decentralized intelligent engine attempts to solve the verifiability of inference, which is crucial. Running AI models on-chain without verification is just a black box; how can we ensure the results haven't been tampered with by nodes? Vanar attempts to solve this problem through underlying verification mechanisms, which are leagues ahead of competitors that only focus on the application layer. However, the current experience does have some drawbacks. Although it officially claims high TPS, there are occasional lags under high concurrency, and there is clearly room for optimization in node synchronization. Additionally, the ecosystem framework is built too large, and there are not many killer applications that have emerged; drawing a big picture is less effective than practical competition. It's like having a luxurious mall decorated but not having all the merchants fully settled in, making it feel a bit empty.
@Vanarchain $VANRY
#vanar
Today's AI agents fear being brainless, forgetting after a few sentences or breaking down when the context length exceeds a limit. The traditional approach of hanging memory repositories on Arweave or IPFS is painfully slow to call upon; not only is the latency high, but the consistency of the data cannot be guaranteed. Vanar directly supports semantic memory natively on-chain, which is the proper way to pave the road for AI. Comparing it horizontally with Near or ICP is even more interesting. Near's data availability is indeed good, and its sharding technology is impressive, but it still lacks a bit in native interactions for intelligent agents. Trying out Vanar's Creator Pad revealed that the threshold for issuing tokens and deploying smart contracts has been lowered too much. The advantage is that developers do not need to rewrite code to transfer Web2 logic; they can dive right in. The hidden danger is that if screening is not done, junk projects may flood the space, leading to a screen full of low-quality projects that bury the truly good ones.
The core of AI-first is not about how big of a model you can run on-chain but whether the chain can understand the model's requirements. Kayon's decentralized intelligent engine attempts to solve the verifiability of inference, which is crucial. Running AI models on-chain without verification is just a black box; how can we ensure the results haven't been tampered with by nodes? Vanar attempts to solve this problem through underlying verification mechanisms, which are leagues ahead of competitors that only focus on the application layer. However, the current experience does have some drawbacks. Although it officially claims high TPS, there are occasional lags under high concurrency, and there is clearly room for optimization in node synchronization. Additionally, the ecosystem framework is built too large, and there are not many killer applications that have emerged; drawing a big picture is less effective than practical competition. It's like having a luxurious mall decorated but not having all the merchants fully settled in, making it feel a bit empty.
@Vanarchain $VANRY
#vanar
Login to explore more contents