I used to think “gaming and mainstream adoption” meant the hard problems were mostly UX: smoother wallets, cheaper fees, faster confirmations. Then I watched how systems behave when money and attention arrive together. The uncomfortable truth is that the most decisive layer is often invisible: transaction ordering, fee rules, and the incentives that decide who gets the front of the line by default.
If Vanar wants to live close to games, entertainment, and brands, it steps into an environment where “fairness” is not a philosophical word. A tournament reward, a limited item drop, a mint window, a ticket sale, a brand airdrop—these are time-sensitive events. When timing matters, ordering becomes power. MEV is just the technical name for a very human situation: someone benefits from being earlier, and someone else pays for being later.
People usually meet MEV through trading, but consumer networks meet it through crowds. Imagine a popular in-game asset sale that opens at 7:00 PM. Thousands click at once. Some transactions land, others fail, and some are mysteriously “beaten” even though the user clicked first. In that moment, the question isn’t “Is the chain fast?” The question is “Who can see the flow and choose the winners?”
Every chain has to order transactions. That ordering can be neutral, or it can be an auction disguised as “fees.” If the system lets users pay more to be included sooner, priority is for sale. That might be acceptable in some settings, but it changes the meaning of access. In a consumer world, selling priority can quietly punish ordinary users who don’t know how to tune fees.
This is where mempools, private submission, and relays enter the story. A public mempool makes pending actions visible. Visibility helps observers predict demand, and it helps attackers copy and race. Private submission is often presented as protection: hide the transaction so it can’t be front-run. But private paths create a second problem: access. If the “safe path” is private, who gets it? Big integrators, sophisticated bots, partners with special routing, or everyone equally?
Relays are not evil by default. They can reduce spam, improve reliability, and protect users from exploit patterns. The issue is concentration. If most meaningful order flow goes through a small set of relays or gateways, the chain’s fairness becomes dependent on a few private policies. Users may still feel they are using a decentralized network, but their practical experience is shaped by a handful of operators deciding what gets forwarded first.
Fee design interacts with this in subtle ways. A network can advertise low fees while extracting value elsewhere, like priority markets, bundled inclusion, or “fast lanes” offered through partners. In gaming, the line between “service fee” and “advantage fee” can get blurry. The question to keep asking is: does the fee model steer behavior toward stability, or toward rent-seeking from timing?
There’s also a difference between finality and inclusion. Even if Vanar finalizes quickly once a transaction is included, the fight often happens before that: who gets included in the first place. In crowd moments, the main pain is not a slow confirmation after inclusion, but a transaction that never makes it into the next block because the ordering engine favored other flows.
Now add the reality of consumer support. If a user feels cheated—“I clicked first”—who do they blame? The game studio, the wallet, the chain, the relay, the RPC provider? Systems with unclear responsibility create a second leakage: trust leaks into silence. The user doesn’t become a critic; they become a ghost who never returns. In mainstream adoption, that churn often matters more than online debates.
A healthy system doesn’t pretend MEV is gone. It treats MEV as a design constraint and asks what to do with it. Are there public ordering rules that can be audited? Are there protections for time-sensitive events that reduce the advantage of private routing? Are there ways to spread order flow across many relays, so no single gate becomes “the default”? Are partner integrations transparent about how transactions are submitted, or is it hidden behind “best experience”?
Think of a concert ticket site. If the company secretly sold early access to certain buyers, it would still call the process “first come, first served.” But people would feel the unfairness immediately. Blockchains can do a similar thing quietly, because the unfairness hides inside mempool policy and routing. The chain may be technically correct, but socially broken.
So when I look at Vanar through this lens, I don’t ask whether it can be cheap and fast. I ask whether it can be boring and fair when attention spikes. Who wins by default: the ordinary user with a wallet, or the actor closest to the ordering pipeline? If we can’t answer that clearly, then the incentives are still writing the outcome for us.
@Vanarchain #Vanar $VANRY #vanar
