Crazy Hami

The phrase the next 3 billion users in crypto sounds really good. It is like a promise that someone is making with a lot of confidence. The next 3 billion users in crypto is a thing to say.. When you think about the next 3 billion users in crypto for a while it does not make as much sense. Who are the 3 billion users in crypto and why should they care about crypto? If crypto is supposed to be a part of life what does that look like when someone is standing in line or when someone is scrolling on their phone or when someone is playing a game to relax after work. The next 3 billion users, in crypto need to be able to use crypto in a way. Explaining crypto is like trying to teach someone how to drive a car by telling them all about the engine. It is accurate. It is not very useful. The crypto project Vanar is trying to change this. Vanar wants to focus on the engine and more, on what it is like to drive the car. Vanar is trying to make crypto easier to understand by showing people what it feels like to use it. Crypto is what Vanar is working with.
Vanar is basically a Layer 1 blockchain. To put it in terms Vanar is a network that is meant to be the foundation for lots of different applications. It is not about moving tokens from one wallet to another.A good way to think about Vanar is to compare it to the internet when it was first starting out. Then if you wanted to make something cool on the internet you had to be really good with technology. Most things on the internet felt of clunky and not very exciting.
Over time the technology got better and better and people started to notice all the cool things they could do on the internet instead of the technology itself. Vanar wants to make a similar change happen with Web3. Vanar is trying to make Web3 more about what people can do with it than just the technology, behind it. Vanar is a Layer 1 blockchain that wants to support lots of applications and make Web3 more useful. The main goal is to make applications that people can use easily without needing to know about keys or transaction fees or how a blockchain works.
To make this happen the network uses ways to process transactions and it also has built-in tools for handling data and artificial intelligence.This means that information does not have to be over the place in different systems.The blockchain applications should have storage and logic and interaction, in one place, which makes the blockchain applications feel smoother and easier to use the blockchain applications should be intuitive.
The idea of Vanar was not perfect from the start. Vanar came from a project named Virtua, which had its own system and token. Towards the end of 2023 the people working on it decided to think about what they were making and who it was actually for. This led to a change of how it looked and a swap, from the old TVK token to a new token called VANRY. The team did not just make a small changes to make it look better. The change shows that the people, behind the project want to do something. They do not just want to make something for a group of people they want to make something that everyone can use. In the world of crypto things are always changing. Some projects have to change because they have to and some projects change because they want to. Vanar is changing because they are willing to adapt. They do not want to keep doing something that does not work anymore. They want to make sure Vanar fits in with what's happening in the bigger world of crypto.
Vanar is made to be fast and not expensive. It does things quickly. The fees are low so people can do small things often. This is good for things like games, digital content and things you can do in apps because even small problems can make people leave. What makes Vanar different is how it handles data. Vanar does not send data storage or artificial intelligence work outside of the system it does these things right, in the Vanar system. Vanar brings data and artificial intelligence into the Vanar protocol. This is what Vanar does with data it keeps it in the Vanar protocol.
The Neutron system is a way to compress information that means something. The Kayon engine is a decentralized way to reason. These two things, Neutron and Kayon make it possible to store and use detailed information, like media right on the chain. This is good for developers because they do not have to rely on services to do all the hard work, behind the scenes. The Neutron system and the Kayon engine are important for this to happen.
When you take a step back these choices show that the Vanar project is trying to make blockchain easier to use. The goal of the Vanar project is not to impress users with technology but to make the Vanar project simple for users. The success of the Vanar project will depend on if people actually use the Vanar project if developers are interested in the Vanar project and if useful applications for the Vanar project are created. These are questions that we do not have answers to yet. That is okay. The idea, behind the Vanar project is simple to understand. If Web3 is ever going to reach billions of people, it won’t happen because they finally learned how blockchains work. It will happen because they did not need to.
@Vanarchain
#vanar
$VANRY

When you send money to someone in another country it feels really slow. You give them the money. You click send and then you have to wait for a long time. This is, like sending a letter and not knowing if it will get there tomorrow or in three weeks. You also have to pay money at every step. This is how sending money around the world works now. Sending money globally is frustrating because it feels like it should be easier. Sending money globally feels slow and frustrating.
Think of it like this you want to send a package to someone on the other side of town.. Before it even gets there you have to pay for the fuel and the cost of sorting it and the fees for checking it at the border and the drivers fees and the storage fees. This is all happening even though the package is still, in the city. That is basically how it works when you send money to another country using the systems. For a lot of people who send money to their family members in countries this is a big problem.
The cross-border payments are not a hassle they are also very expensive and they limit what you can do. The people who rely on these remittances to support their family members have to deal with this complexity every time they send money. The system feels like something that is helping me and more like something that is getting in my way. It is like the system is an obstacle course that I have to navigate through. The system is really frustrating because the system is making things harder, for me.
Now turn that picture around. Think about the package showing up right away in the person who is getting it hands. It does not go else it does not go through anyone else and there are no surprise fees on the way. The only thing the person who is getting it might have to pay for is if they want to turn stablecoin into money.
That is the idea behind using stablecoin to make payments. Of money going through a lot of banks and things the value of stablecoin moves on the computer kind of, like how messages go back and forth on the internet. Stablecoin makes it so that payments can happen easily and quickly.Stablecoins are basically money that is like the money we use every day and they are usually tied to the U.S. Dollar.
The price of Stablecoins does not change much so people usually use Stablecoins to buy things or send money to someone than trying to make money by trading Stablecoins.When you send Stablecoins over the internet using blockchain networks the Stablecoins can get to the person in just a few seconds, which is a lot faster, than sending money through a bank.
The cost of sending Stablecoins is also very small compared to what banks or other money sending services charge for sending money. The way people use stablecoins is becoming more popular. This is making us think about how money should be moved around. We live in a world where everything happens fast like the internet. So stablecoin usage is. It is making us rethink how money should move in this fast world where stablecoins are used.
The way people think about this is. That is where Plasma comes in. Plasma is a type of blockchain that is made for stablecoin payments it is not trying to do a lot of things all at once. A lot of blockchains think of stablecoins as one more thing among a lot of other tokens. Plasma does things differently. The whole design of Plasma is focused on making it easy to send stablecoins. It tries to make these transfers happen quickly and at a low cost. Plasma is, about stablecoin payments and it wants to make these payments simple and fast. This thing works on its own it does not need another network to support it. It is made to process transactions fast in just a few seconds. The fees for using it are low so low that people who use it to send stablecoins, like USD₮ every day will hardly even notice them.
Plasma is like big projects that take time to develop. The concept of using blockchains for payments has been around for a time.. What Plasma is all about became more obvious as the market for stablecoins got really big really fast. By the end of 2025 there were $300 billion worth of stablecoins in the world. And the value of money moving through these stablecoins every year was huge it was.in the trillions. Plasma and the idea of Plasma is closely tied to the growth of stablecoins.
People who build things and people who invest money are all wondering the thing: if we are using stablecoins more and more like regular money then why are they still working on systems that were not made mainly for paying things? Stablecoins are being used a lot like cash but stablecoins are still running on old networks that were not made for payments, which is why people are asking this question, about stablecoins.
Plasma’s early development focused on answering that question in practice rather than theory. During its testnet phase in mid-2025, the network processed roughly $1 billion in cross-chain stablecoin deposits. More importantly, its zero-gas transfer model was tested across different wallets and integrations, showing that it could work outside of controlled demos. These were not just abstract performance claims but real usage signals that a payments-first blockchain could function under real conditions.
So this is what I think. New financial technology always has downsides. The technology can be really cool. It is only useful if people actually use it. When merchants and wallets and businesses and regular people start using it that is when an idea becomes something. Also money is one of the things that the government regulates the most. Rules, for payments and stablecoins are getting clearer in some places but they are still changing in other places. This uncertainty can really slow down payments and stablecoins or completely change the way forward for digital payments and stablecoins.
When you think about payments it is helpful to consider them as something that is being rebuilt gradually rather than all at once. The global payments system we have in place today is slow. It costs a lot of money because it was created for a different time. The new global payments system that is coming into place promises to be faster and cost less.
The new global payments system still has to show that it can work well on a large scale. There are projects like Plasma that are trying to create ways, for global payments and money to move around in the future with global payments. Whether those rails become the default depends on a messy mix of technology, real-world usage and regulation finally moving in the same direction.
@Plasma
#Plasma
$XPL

La tecnologia stessa è davvero interessante. Senza un sistema che aiuti effettivamente nell'uso quotidiano è facile confondersi. È qui che entra in gioco Vanar. Vanar non è un token o una piattaforma, Vanar è un sistema costruito per aiutare le persone a utilizzare realmente la blockchain in modi significativi e pratici per rendere la loro vita più facile. Vanar riguarda il rendere la blockchain utile per le persone nella loro vita quotidiana.
Vanar è fondamentalmente un sistema che utilizza la blockchain per mettere in contatto le persone che creano cose, le aziende e le persone che utilizzano le cose. Fornisce loro ciò di cui hanno bisogno per far funzionare bene il denaro digitale e gli oggetti, modi per pagare, modi intelligenti per fare accordi e regole per mantenere tutto funzionante correttamente. Puoi pensare a Vanar come a una cassetta degli attrezzi e a un luogo per provare cose: le persone che creano cose possono costruire soluzioni, le aziende possono utilizzare queste soluzioni e le persone che utilizzano le cose possono usarle senza dover conoscere tutto sulla tecnologia dietro Vanar. Vanar è, come un luogo dove gli sviluppatori possono creare aziende che possono utilizzare ciò che gli sviluppatori creano. Gli utenti possono utilizzare ciò che le aziende offrono con Vanar.

You know that feeling when you are trying to talk to someone in a crowded room and suddenly realize everyone around you can hear every word? It is uncomfortable. You lower your voice, you hesitate, and you start choosing your words carefully because you do not know who is listening.
Now imagine that some of the people in that room are regulators. They are standing nearby with clipboards, paying close attention. They are not there to gossip, but they are there to make sure rules are followed. Every sentence suddenly feels heavier.
That is a pretty good way to picture what financial institutions deal with when they try to use public blockchains for real-world finance. Public blockchains are like that crowded room. Everything is visible. Every transaction, every movement of value out in the open. For regular users that transparency can be a feature. For banks, funds and other financial institutions it is a serious problem.
These institutions want to use modern technology because it is efficient, global and resilient. Blockchains work well. They settle transactions without relying on a single central party, and they do it around the clock. But finance also runs on confidentiality. Trading strategies, client positions, and internal operations are not meant to be broadcast to the world.
At the same time, regulators still need to be able to verify that rules are being followed. And on top of that, transactions need to settle quickly, not minutes or hours later, but in seconds like in traditional markets.That tension is exactly what something like Dusk is designed to address.
Dusk is a blockchain built to connect two worlds that do not naturally fit together: decentralized technology and traditional finance. You can think of it as a bridge. On one side, you have open, decentralized systems that are transparent and efficient. On the other, you have financial markets that depend on privacy, compliance, and certainty. Dusk is trying to meet both sides in the middle.
At a basic level, Dusk lets institutions put financial assets on a decentralized ledger without exposing sensitive information to everyone else. A ledger is simply a shared record of transactions that no single party controls. What makes Dusk different is how it handles visibility. Transactions can remain confidential to the public while still being verifiable. The right people can see what they need to see, and no more.
A useful way to think about it is like a safe. The contents are not on display, but the safe itself is real and provable. Regulators can open it when necessary, confirm that everything inside is legitimate, and close it again. Outsiders cannot peer in through the cracks. This approach allows privacy and oversight to exist at the same time, rather than forcing a choice between the two.
That balance is at the heart of what Dusk is trying to deliver. It is not about hiding activity. It is about giving financial institutions a way to use decentralized systems without breaking the basic rules they are required to follow. Privacy is preserved, accountability remains intact, and transactions can still settle quickly enough to meet the demands of modern financial markets.
That idea is really good. It can do a lot of things. If it works the way it is supposed to it will make transactions cheaper make it easier to get financial products and compliance will happen automatically without any problems. For institutions that do these things every day this will make a difference. They will be able to work efficiently.
This is not something that might happen someday. The financial products and transactions will be better because of this idea. Institutions will like this idea because it will make their work easier and more efficient. This is an improvement, for transactions and financial products. These products address problems that are already taking up a lot of time, money and effort.
The thing that makes them appealing is that products and compliance do not have to be at odds, with each otherProducts and compliance can exist together in the system without all the extra complexity that we see with products and compliance.This is what makes products and compliance so great, products and compliance are no longer fighting each other.
It is really important to stay calm and think clearly. Rules and laws are changing all the time sometimes they change a bit at a time and sometimes they change really fast. New technology needs to be tested in the world not just in a special test area. Big banks and other financial institutions are always careful they do not like to rush into things.
Even if a new tool seems like it will work well they will still move slowly try it out a little bit at a time and wait until they are sure it is safe before they use it fully. This is not because they are being slow it is how finance works they have to be careful with money and that is how they manage risk, with finance and the financial institutions.
When you look at things from all angles it is easier to see what is really going on. People often talk about plans for the future of finance and it sounds good but usually things move forward slowly and steadily.
It is an idea to take some time to think about what projects like Dusk are trying to do and what problems they are dealing with.This helps you understand things better and have a realistic view of finance and projects like Dusk. It makes it easier to separate lasting infrastructure from short-term excitement and to see how digital systems are gradually reshaping the financial world we depend on.
@Dusk
#dusk
$DUSK

Imagine you are standing in a crowded train station when everyone is going to work. Then something weird happens. All the trains just stop moving. There is no accident or anything complete silence. Everyone is confused. The screens that show the train times just freeze. Nobody has any idea when the trains will start running. People start to get really annoyed because their plans are getting messed up. It feels like the whole system is not working properly.

Turning on the faucet in the morning is a lot like this. You do not stop to think about the pipes when the clean water comes out like it is supposed to. You only really notice the pipes when no water comes out all. Payments work in the way. They move money from one place to another place quietly all day and every day. When payments work nobody says anything about payments. When payments do not work everything slows down. Payments are, like this because people only notice payments when something goes wrong with payments.

A good payment system does one thing. It does it well. It helps money get from one person to another person or from a person to a business. This means you can buy groceries get your salary pay a bill or send money to someone, in a country. You trust that the payment system will work properly. Most of the time it works fine. The payment system is reliable because people have worked on it for a time. They have made sure it is safe. They keep checking on it to make sure it keeps working.

The payment system is reliable because of all the work that has been put into it. When you tap your card or do a checkout or move money from one account to another it all works because lots of things are happening that you cannot see. The bank systems and computers and networks all have to work for it to happen. Every time you use your card or do something with your money all these things are working together behind the scenes.

Payment systems were not always this easy to use. A time ago sending money was a slow process that people had to do by hand. It would take days for a check to be processed. When people did a bank transfer it was, like the money just disappeared and then showed up later. As computers and other technology got better people started using payments and card networks more often. Then systems were developed that could handle a lot of payments quickly.

As time went on people started to think about things. Payment systems needed to be fast but they also needed to be reliable which means payment systems needed to work correctly so people could trust payment systems. Use them without worrying about problems and that is what matters most about payment systems. A system that works most of the time is not good enough when it still does not work for a hours every year.

The difference between a system that works.It is actually very big.It can mean a hours of problems or less than one hour of problems in a whole year.For businesses that need money to come in all the time this difference is very important.

By 2025 you could see the impact of payments in daily life in many places. In some areas every single transaction was made digitally. For example one big economy said that 99.8 percent of transactions were digital in the six months of the year. As of December 2025 digital payments were used for half of all transactions, around the world. These numbers are important. They show that people trust payments. Digital payments are what people are using. They are what people trust. People and businesses are happy to use these systems because they usually work. The reason they work is that there are teams of people who always check to see how they are doing.

They make the systems better. They have backup plans so that if one thing goes wrong everything does not stop working. These systems are reliable because people are always working on them and making sure they have backup systems in case something fails. Millions of people and businesses use these systems every day. They work well most of the time.

The story is not great. People are trying to make it cheaper and faster to send money across borders. They want to make it so that most payments between countries can be done in under an hour. It will not cost a lot of money less than one percent by the year 2027.By the end of 2025 a lot of places were still not doing very well with this.

The old systems that are already, in place and the trouble of getting all the countries to agree on the rules are making it hard. When the system is not working it shows everyone that cross-border paymentsre not very strong. Cross-border payments can be a problem when they do not work right. In August 2025 something big happened with payments.

When things like this happen it shows us something. Payments being reliable is not something that just happens on its own. People have to make sure payments are reliable, by designing systems that work testing them to find problems and keeping an eye on them to make sure they keep working. Reliability has to be designed, tested and maintained for payments to work smoothly.

When you look at the picture the global payments industry is getting bigger and more complicated. There are trillions of transactions that go through these systems every year which's a huge amount of money. People think the industry will keep growing until the end of the decade.. When something gets this big it can be a problem. Even if the systems are down for a while it can cause big issues.

For example from 2024 to early 2025 some financial systems were down for about nine more hours per year because they were working properly for 0.2 percent less of the time. The global payments industry is really sensitive, to downtime. The global payments industry needs to be able to handle all these transactions. Those hours can be bad news. They can mean that payments do not go through salaries are paid late. Customers stop buying things right in the middle of a transaction. This is all because of those hours of downtime. The hours can cause payments, delayed salaries or customers abandoning purchases mid-transaction.

For people who are new, to trading and investing this is really important to know. Being able to count on payments is a part of trusting the financial system. When payments go through without any problems money moves around easily people keep spending. Businesses can make plans without worrying.. When payments do not go through it gets harder for businesses to get the money they need and everyone gets nervous.

That is why companies look at payment providers to see how well they work how often they are available and how well they handle problems, not what they can do or how much they cost. If a company has an increase in failed transactions this can quietly eat into the companys revenue and damage the companys relationships with customers. This can happen a time before the companys failed transactions show up in the companys earnings reports. The failed transactions can cause a lot of problems, for the company before anyone even notices them.

We see ideas like tokenized assets or digital money that promise to be fast and efficient. These things sound great.. If they are not consistent they will not be worth much in the long run. Imagine a system that can do things quickly but it breaks down a lot. People will not trust this system.The best payment systems put a lot of money into making sure they have backups they watch what is going on. They have safety measures in place. This helps keep mistakes from happening and makes sure the system is always available. Innovation and reliability are very important, for these payment systems.

Reliability costs money. To have systems that almost never go down you need to have many systems working together capacity to back them up and you have to test them all the time. For companies and new markets they have to be careful about how they spend their money on these things. They have to balance how much they spend and how well their systems work.Not every system needs to be working all the time. It is important to know how important payments are to your business or what you are trying to do. If you are dealing with payments that're very important even small problems can cause big issues that last a long time.
@Plasma
#Plasma
$XPL

Immagina di essere in una stazione ferroviaria affollata quando tutti stanno andando al lavoro. Poi succede qualcosa di strano. Tutti i treni smettono di muoversi. Non c'è alcun incidente o niente, solo silenzio completo. Tutti sono confusi. I monitor che mostrano gli orari dei treni si bloccano. Nessuno ha idea di quando i treni ricominceranno a muoversi. La gente inizia a diventare davvero irritata perché i loro piani vengono rovinati. Sembra che l'intero sistema non funzioni correttamente.
Accendere il rubinetto al mattino è molto simile a questo. Non ti fermi a pensare ai tubi quando l'acqua pulita esce come dovrebbe. Noti davvero i tubi solo quando non esce affatto acqua. I pagamenti funzionano allo stesso modo. Spostano denaro da un luogo a un altro silenziosamente tutto il giorno e ogni giorno. Quando i pagamenti funzionano, nessuno parla dei pagamenti. Quando i pagamenti non funzionano, tutto rallenta. I pagamenti sono così perché le persone notano i pagamenti solo quando qualcosa va storto con i pagamenti.

Vanar is usually explained in terms: it is a blockchain that people can actually use, made by a team that knows about games, movies and products, with popular brands and it has a system that includes games, virtual worlds, artificial intelligence tools and brand support. When people talk about Vanar they usually focus on how big it's many different areas a lot of users and the goal of getting billions of people to use Web3. Vanar is a blockchain that wants to be used by everyone. Vanar has a lot of parts, including games and virtual worlds, which is what makes Vanar interesting.
I think that way of looking at it makes sense. It makes it hard to see what the actual problem is with the framing. The framing is what gets in the way. We need to look at the framing and figure out where the real issue is, with the framing itself.
When we actually use systems, in the world they tend to fail because they cannot handle the daily work not because they are missing some things. When you have a lot of people using the system you start to worry about whether it will keep working whether you can make changes to it without problems and whether you can keep it running over time.
The real question is not whether a system can handle things like games or websites for people but whether it can do all these things reliably over time even when a lot of people are using it at the same time or when people are using it in different ways or when things outside of the system are changing.
When we think about how systemsre engineered platforms that people use every day are really tough on blockchain technology. These platforms cannot handle responses, unpredictable costs and obvious failures. If a new financial system on blockchain is down for a while it is not the end of the world.. If a game or a website that people use for fun is down it is a big problem. The same thing is true for websites that companies use to connect with customers. People who use these platforms do not think about the bad things about blockchain. They just want the platform to work quickly and consistently and they want to trust it. Blockchain technology has to work in these situations like, in games and entertainment platforms because people will stop using them if they do not work well. Blockchain has to be responsive, consistent and trustworthy for people to use it.
When we are designing infrastructure we need to think about how it will handle the things people expect from it. This is a different issue than just trying to make it work as fast, as possible or making sure it does well on tests that do not really show how it will work in the real world. We have to make sure our infrastructure can absorb the expectations that people have of it.
Systems that last a long time teach us something. The decisions we make about how they work at the beginning become a part of how they are built over time. This includes things like how they run how they keep track of information how we update them and how people get paid. As the system gets bigger these decisions add up. When other programs, tools and outside companies start to use these systems it becomes very hard to make changes to them. It is expensive. It can be dangerous.
If we design a system from the start to work with a lot of people it will be different from one that we try to change to work with a lot of people. One way is not better than the other. They have different problems. Systems that are designed for a lot of people from the beginning have issues than systems that are changed later to work with a lot of people, like consumer-scale systems.
Vanar is an example of this. They really focus on gaming and entertainment. This means that they think people want a few things. They want to know what to expect when they use the system. They want to know how much it will cost. They also want it to work with the tools they already use. These things are just as important as making sure the system is totally decentralized.
When you start with these ideas it affects a lot of things. For example it affects how much people pay for transactions. It affects how people get information from the system. It even affects how the system is updated and how problems are fixed. Some of these choices might limit what people can do in some ways.
They also make other things easier, for Vanar and its users. The main thing to think about is not whether these choices are good or bad but that they decide how the system will work over a time. The system will be shaped by these tradeoffs. That is what matters. The system and its performance will depend on these choices.
Systems that cover areas like gaming, metaverse environments services that use Artificial Intelligence and tools for brands also have to deal with a lot of coordination problems. Each of these areas is changing at its speed and this puts stress on the system in different ways. What works well for a game may not work perfectly for making sure a brand is doing things right or, for work that is driven by Artificial Intelligence.
Over time the system has to either find a way to work with the rules or pay the price for supporting different needs.The systems have to do one of these things. Both ways are going to make it harder to maintain the system. This will cause tension in the way it is built.
This is the point where second-order effects start to take over. The things we do to help the ecosystem grow at first can later cause problems with how resourcesre used. The shortcuts we use to make it easy for developers to get started can become obstacles to performance. The connections we make to help people use the system can become rigid and hard to change. These are not mistakes, in the design.
Rather what happens when we pick a path and stick to it as we actually use the system. We have to think about the ecosystem and how it will grow over time and consider how our decisions will affect the ecosystem and the people who use it. The second-order effects of our decisions can be significant. They can impact the ecosystem in ways we do not expect so we need to be careful and think about the long term effects of what we do.
Markets and the stories people tell about them usually take a while to catch up with what's really happening. People tend to focus on goals like getting a lot of users creating a big ecosystem and making popular products such as metaverse platforms or game networks. The hard work that goes into keeping these systems running over time, like handling updates without causing problems making sure old systems still work dealing with unexpected demands and managing when things go wrong is often not considered when people first decide how much something is worth. By the time people start to notice these things the main structure of the system is already set in motion. It is hard to change.
When I look at Vanar through this lens I am less interested in the list of supported verticals or the promise of scale and interested in how the Vanar system is expected to age over time. How does the Vanar system handle failure when things do not go as planned? How costly is it to evolve core assumptions in Vanar once applications, like Virtua Metaverse or the VGN games network are deeply embedded in Vanar?How much operational complexity is pushed onto developers and partners who use Vanar and how much of this complexity is absorbed by the Vanar base layer itself?
These questions do not have answers and they are not the kind of things you can sum up in a few words. The Bitcoin system and other systems like it are very complex. They are the kinds of questions that only become clearer as the Bitcoin system accumulates history of being used.. They are also the questions that determine whether the Bitcoin infrastructure can remain coherent be maintained and be trustworthy, over time. The Bitcoin system has to be able to answer these questions if it wants to be adopted by a lot of people.
In the end the long-term viability of any such system comes down to a single foundational issue: when the environment changes and it always does—does the architecture allow the system to adapt without breaking the assumptions that made it useful in the first place?
@Vanarchain
#vanar
$VANRY

When we talk about tokenomics we usually start with ideas. People say that incentives help get everyone on the page keep the network safe and make it grow. We draw pictures that show how value and responsibility move around. If everything looks balanced and makes sense we think the plan is good. There is an idea that if something looks good on paper it will work well in life. Tokenomics is, about how these incentives and networks work together and tokenomics is what we are trying to understand. Tokenomics is a topic but we often think that if we can just get the basics right the rest of the tokenomics will fall into place.
I have found that when we make that assumption things start to get really complicated. That assumption is where the complexity starts to come in. It is, like that assumption is the beginning of all the things that happen with that assumption.
Systems that are used every day do not always work the way they were planned to. People who use these systems do not always react the way to things that are meant to motivate them. Some people try hard to get the best results others do not try at all and a few people can change the outcome in big ways that you do not expect. Things that are supposed to happen rarely start to happen a lot. Things that happen outside of the system like changes in the market or new rules interact with the system in ways that the people who designed it did not think about.
Tokenomics, which is a system that is controlled by feedback has to deal with delays, mistakes and unexpected problems. Systems, like this can be very hard to predict and control. Those effects do not show up away when we do simulations. The effects of the system come out slowly once the system has been running for a time and has built up a real history. The system effects take time to appear.
When we look at software and infrastructure systems that have been around for a time we learn something important. It is not about how Token-based systems work when everything is perfect. What is really important is how Token-based systems behave when things start to go. How do Token-based systems fail? How are Token-based systems maintained? How well do Token-based systems work when they are, under a lot of stress?
Some Token-based systems look great when everything is just right. They can become fragile when things do not go as planned. On the hand Token-based systems that are more simple often work better over time. This is not because they are super clever. Because it is easier to understand what is going on with Token-based systems when something goes wrong. The real test is not whether things that motivate people work when everything is going well. What happens when people start to focus on their own interests when people do things that help them right now or when something outside of the situation makes people do things they normally would not do.
The real test is about how these motivators work when people are trying to get an advantage over others or when there is a lot of pressure from outside to do something. The real test is about what happens to these incentives when things are not going smoothly like when people're only thinking about what is good for them or when something, from outside is forcing them to behave in a certain way that is not what we expected from these motivators.
Early design decisions in a system can have an impact later on. The choices people make about things like issuance and reward schedules and how the system is governed do not just affect one part of the system. These choices spread out. Affect the whole system. Some things might seem like details when the system is first set up but they become really important once they are part of the contracts and the tools people use and what people expect from the system. It is very hard to change these things on because it can cause a lot of problems.
When people try to make changes it can be very complicated. Can introduce new problems. Over time the system can get weighed down by problems that are not just technical, but also problems with the incentives that were set up early on. The system can get stuck with obligations that were created by promises and assumptions that were made a time ago. Early design decisions, like these can really add up. Cause a lot of trouble.
There is also a difference between systems that change over time and those that are made for a specific job. Neither way is always right. Systems that adapt to the world around them get to learn from what happens but they can also get complicated because of old decisions. Systems that are made for one thing can be more straightforward. They can also be too tied to ideas that may not work when things change. Adaptive systems, like these can be really good.
They can also be bad. Purpose-built systems are the kind and they can be good too but they have their own problems. Adaptive systems and purpose-built systems are both. They both have good and bad points. In tokenomics you see a difference in how incentives are handled. Sometimes people keep making changes to incentives as they see how people behave. Times incentives are a fundamental part of the system from the very beginning. This difference is important in tokenomics because it affects how the system works. Tokenomics is, about understanding how incentives work in a system and this difference shows up in the way incentives are used in tokenomics.
What really matters are the tradeoffs, not the features of something. If people get incentives to participate quickly it can actually make things in the long run. When you closely tie activity to rewards it can make things happen faster. It can also make things more unpredictable. Rules that seem unnecessary, at first might actually help keep things stable when things get tough. The thing is, you do not usually see these kinds of effects when you first launch something or when you are trying to market it.. Over time these effects are what really determine what happens to the tradeoffs and the features.
When we look at design paths we can see that they are based on different ideas from the start. If we want a system to grow fast we will make different choices about what motivates people to use it compared to a system that is designed to work in a predictable way. A system that is set up to have a lot of control will be able to handle more risks, than a system that is designed to have very little outside control and is slow and expensive to change. Each design path has its downsides. As things get more complicated it gets harder to make changes. The limitations of a system become a part of how it works. We cannot avoid these problems they are a natural result of choosing a particular way of doing things with our system.
What I have seen times is that markets and the stories people tell about them are slow to catch up with what engineers are actually doing. People tend to focus on things that are growing fast, new and easy to understand. The harder work of making sure things do not fall apart dealing with problems that can cause issues and keeping everything working together is often overlooked at first. Usually by the time people start talking about these problems the system has already decided where it is going.
When you think about tokenomics this way it is not really about creating incentives. It is more, about making sure the system works with the real world in the long term. The big question is, can the tokenomics system still make sense when things change? Can it handle problems without needing to be fixed all the time?
Can tokenomics. Grow without losing the things that make it work in the first place? Tokenomics needs to be able to adapt to things without falling apart.Ultimately, long-term viability turns on a single question: when the original assumptions inevitably break down, does the system still behave in a way that people can reason about, maintain and sustain over time?
@Plasma
#Plasma
$XPL

È iniziato con una domanda che disturbava ogni singolo ingegnere e ogni regolatore che ha visto la blockchain diventare popolare. La domanda era questa. Possiamo davvero avere privacy e seguire le regole del mondo reale su un libro mastro come la blockchain? Questo è un affare, per la blockchain.
In un mondo in cui i mercati finanziari muovono trilioni ogni giorno, dove le istituzioni devono bilanciare riservatezza e trasparenza, la risposta sembrava sfuggente
Quando non prestiamo attenzione ai numeri e a tutti i su e giù del mercato azionario, è lì che avviene il vero lavoro dei sistemi. La maggior parte delle volte le persone parlano di Dusk e del gruppo più grande dei sistemi finanziari su cui si concentrano le idee. Le persone parlano di Dusk.

People usually think that customization is a thing. When we talk about it we say it is like being free. We can move things around switch parts change how we do things and make it feel like it is ours. Some systems, like Plasma XPL take this idea further. They think that being able to change lots of things and make it our own way is what makes it good. The more ways we can customize Plasma XPL the better it is. This idea sounds okay when we think about it.
Things are not always as simple as they seem. Concepts can make things look flat you know like they are not really real.. When you have to make something work every single day and then every single year it gets really complicated. The picture of things is not so easy to understand when you have to deal with a system that has to run day after day year, after year.
When we set something up we often forget that it is not about the setup. It is, about the system. How we live with the system. We configure the system at one point in time.. Using a system that we customized is something that we have to do all the time. In the world things do not stay the same. The way we set up our systems will change when we get software or when we replace old hardware or when we have to do different tasks or when people slowly start doing things in a different way. The system and the way we live with the system will keep changing because of these things.
A design that works really well now can be annoying or break easily on. This is not because the design was bad. Because the design is based on ideas that are no longer true, about how people are using the system. You do not usually see these problems when you are showing off the system or looking at pictures of it.. These problems are what people deal with every day when they are really using the system.
When we think about systems engineering customization is not really about giving people options. It is more about dealing with complexity. Every time we add something that can be changed it adds another way the system can work. Over time the number of ways these things can interact with each other gets big really fast. It is hard to imagine how big it can get. When we talk about software systems that have been around for a time they rarely break because one part stops working. They break because of how the different parts interact with each other. Even if each part is working correctly on its own the way they work together can still cause problems. Systems engineering is, about understanding how these interactions can cause problems and customization is a big part of that. When we have layouts that can be changed in ways it makes the things that happen on the surface of the system harder to figure out.
The system is always. That makes it tough to understand what the behavior of the system will be. This is because the customizable layouts are a big part of the system and they make the behavior of the system harder to predict and reason, about as the system evolves over time. The behavior of the system and the customizable layouts are connected in a way that makes it hard to know what will happen next.
When a system is used every day it is very important that it is stable and easy to maintain. This is more important than how it can be customized. If a system uses a version of a widget or does something that is not documented or relies on things happening at a very specific time it might work perfectly for a while.. It will probably stop working at some point. When this happens it is usually very hard to fix. The user might not even remember why they set things up in a way or what caused a problem.
Over time it can be just as hard to understand how a system works, as it was to set it up in the place. Systems like this can be very frustrating to deal with because system stability and system maintainability are crucial for work, with the system.
When we first start building something the ideas we have about how it should look and work are really important. If we think that the way things are laid out is not a deal and can be easily changed or thrown away then we will probably make it easy to change things around.. If we think that the way things are laid out is going to be around for a long time then we will want to make sure it is done right and that we can still use it even if we make changes later on. The decisions we make at the beginning have an impact, on what happens later.
Once people start using the system and making it a part of their work it becomes really hard to make big changes to it because it might mess things up for them. Even good changes can be a problem if they change the way things work a bit or mess up the way things are set up. Changes like these can be disruptive, to the way people do things even if that is not what you meant to do. The behavior of the system and the existing layouts are important and good changes should not alter them in a way.
When you look at systems that people use you can see a difference between the ones that get customized later on and the ones that are made to be customized from the start. The systems that get customized later usually show the workings to the users, which can be really powerful but also really fragile. On the hand systems that are made to be customized from the beginning tend to have clearer rules, which means they are not as flexible but are more predictable. One way is not better, than the other. The main difference is where the complicated stuff ends up. Does the system take care of it or do the users have to deal with it. Customization is what matters here and how systems handle customization is the key.
When you think about the downsides of things of what they can do you start to see the bigger picture. A layout engine that can do a lot of things can actually make development slower because you have to make sure every change works with everything. If you have a straightforward model you can move faster but people who use it might have to find ways around things and that can be risky. Letting people customize things can help them get work done faster at first. It can also make things more confusing, over time especially when something breaks or when you have to switch to a new version. The customization of tradeoffs can really affect how you work with tradeoffs and how tradeoffs impact your work.
Failures that teach us something are often very ordinary. For example a panel might stop working after we update something because a part of the system is no longer supported. The way things look on the screen can change when we get a monitor. The way we do things can depend on how windows work and this can change a little when the system is busy. Each of these problems is not a deal on its own.. When they add up they can make a big difference, over time. They can make a system feel like it is reliable or like it is going to break. The failures are what make the system feel trustworthy or brittle. The system and its failures are what matter.
Design approaches are different because they start with ideas. Some systems think of layouts as a set of rules that can be changed checked and gone back, to a version if needed. Other systems think of layouts as things that people can interact with and change away rather than trying to control them over time. Each way of thinking shows an idea of how people use their environment. Whether they want to carefully plan it or constantly make changes to it. The design approaches are not always right or wrong it depends on the situation.
There are also costs that people tend to overlook. When you do a lot of customization you need to write down what you did test it times to make sure it works have tools to help move things over and always be available to help the people using it. These things cost money and time over and over again. If you do not have resources for these things the people using the customization have to deal with problems things not working the same way and not knowing what to expect. This is usually when people start to lose interest, in customization.
Markets and the stories people tell about them do not always keep up with what's really happening. It is simple to show people that something is flexible. It is simple to sell them on that idea.. It is harder to show people that something is durable and will work with other things and that we can see how it is working. Even though these things are really important in the run they are not as noticeable. So the work that engineers do to make sure Markets are stable for a time does not get as much attention as new features that people can customize even though the engineering work has a much bigger effect, on how people use Markets every day.
After spending years watching complex systems age, I noticed that conversations about customization eventually circle back to a single question: can a personalized system remain understandable and operable as it evolves? If it can, customization becomes a genuine strength. If it can not it slowly turns into a liability. Everything else the number of options, the elegance of the interface, the power of the layout model only matters insofar as it supports that long term relationship between the user and the system.
@Plasma
#Plasma
$XPL