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?