When people talk about a network security budget, they’re talking about how a chain pays for honesty. It’s the cost of making attacks not worth it. On Vanar, that discussion lands on VANRY quickly, because VANRY is both the gas token used to pay transaction fees and the token used to reward validators and the people who stake behind them. That dual role matters, because it ties the chain’s safety to the token’s issuance rules and, indirectly, to how the token behaves in the market. It can sound abstract until you remember that validators still have real-world costs and real-world incentives.
Vanar’s consensus design gives that budget a particular shape. The project describes a hybrid approach that starts with Proof of Authority and is complemented by Proof of Reputation, with the Vanar Foundation initially running validator nodes and onboarding additional validators based on reputation. Alongside that, Vanar has introduced delegated staking, where the community stakes VANRY to support validators and share in rewards. I read that as a compromise: start with a curated set for reliability, then let token holders reinforce security and vote with their stake. It doesn’t remove trust questions, but it does make the incentives more legible, which is a quiet kind of progress.
The budget itself comes from two streams. One is fees. The other is block rewards: newly minted tokens paid out for producing blocks and validating transactions. Vanar describes a predefined issuance curve that runs for about 20 years, with issuance smoothed across blocks under an assumed three-second block time. The same documentation frames inflation as averaging around 3.5% over that period and notes higher issuance in the first years to support ecosystem needs like developer work, airdrops, and early staking rewards. This is where “issuance” stops being a tokenomics footnote and becomes the backbone of the security budget: it’s the predictable part, the part you can plan validator economics around, especially before the network is so busy that fees can carry more weight.
Fees are where Vanar’s choices get especially interesting. The documentation describes a fixed-fee model meant to keep most transactions around a tiny, predictable dollar amount, designed to stay near $0.0005 for the majority of transaction types. To make that work when the token price moves, the docs explain that the protocol updates fee parameters using market pricing for VANRY pulled from multiple sources. Predictable fees make apps easier to price, but they also push more of the security budget onto block rewards until usage becomes large enough that small fees add up in aggregate. That’s not necessarily a problem. It’s just a choice, and like most choices in this space, it comes with trade-offs that only become obvious over time.
This is one reason the topic gets attention now rather than five years ago. The last few market cycles trained people to look past slogans and focus on supply mechanics. Emissions schedules and unlocks have a quiet power over incentives, and there are now dedicated services that track tokenomics and unlock calendars because the details shape trust. Exchanges have even introduced risk warnings for tokens tied to significant tokenomics-related events. That doesn’t predict outcomes, but it does mean more people are reading the fine print and asking sharper questions about who pays for security, how long, and under what assumptions.
Public dashboards add another layer of scrutiny. They currently show VANRY with a circulating supply a bit over 2.2 billion and a listed maximum supply of 2.4 billion. Dashboards aren’t perfect, but the point is sturdy: when rewards are paid in the native token, the real-world security budget depends on both the number of tokens issued and what those tokens are worth. If the token price falls, the same token reward buys less real security, which can pressure validators to consolidate or look for efficiency. If price rises, the network can “buy” more security per token, but holders may still question whether the issuance pace is worth the dilution.
So the role of VANRY issuance on Vanar is fairly direct. It’s the network’s ongoing paycheque to the people and systems that make finality routine and fraud expensive. The harder question, and the one worth watching, is whether that paycheque can stay in a range that feels balanced: enough to attract reliable validators and reward long-term staking, without leaning so hard on dilution that holders feel like they’re funding security alone forever. When I try to make sense of it, I treat issuance as the chain’s security payroll, and I watch whether real usage grows enough to share the load. That tension never really goes away.
@Vanarchain #vanar #Vanar $VANRY
