azu_crypto1

Web3 is not lacking new public chains; what it lacks are products that can prove they are 'AI ready': Vanar has provided three report cards.

Azu is teaching a course: today, making a 'new L1 application layer', the biggest competitor is not other chains, but the fact that 'people actually already have paths to take'. The underlying highways of Web3 are plentiful; what is truly scarce are systems that can run autonomous driving—specifically, allowing agents to have long-term memory on-chain, interpretable reasoning, secure automatic execution, and also ensuring that each step is accounted for.

Why is Vanar able to articulate this well? Because it proves it not through PPT, but through product delivery. myNeutron brings 'semantic memory' and 'persistent context' down to the infrastructure layer: a knowledge base follows you across different AI platforms, offering semantic search and on-chain backup, so agents do not lose memory every time they restart. Kayon turns reasoning into an on-chain capability: querying on-chain data with natural language and enterprise backend data, outputting context with auditable logic, and also performing compliance checks before payments happen—this is the prerequisite for institutions to dare to use AI agents for real money. Lastly, there is Flows: turning 'understanding' into 'doing', adding guardrails for agents, and turning intelligence into controllable automated operations, instead of handing private keys to a black box.

For crypto investors, the positioning of $VANRY is clearer: it is not an 'AI narrative ticket', but rather the fuel and pricing unit for this intelligent stack—memory writes, reasoning calls, workflow executions, and cross-chain interactions all require payment settlement on-chain. More importantly, Vanar uses a fixed-fee tiered mechanism to compress common transactions to the lowest level (around $0.0005 equivalent), making the 'unit action cost' of agents predictable and scalable. What you are betting on is not the next wave of slogans, but whether the real call volume brought by these products can turn settlement frequency into a long-term curve.

@Vanarchain $VANRY #Vanar

Using stablecoins 'like air': Plasma's product thinking is a bit harsh

Azu is here, let me start with a bold statement: most 'payment chains' simply turn transfers into demonstrations, rather than turning payments into products—users still have to learn Gas first, buy coins first, wait for confirmations, and worry about failures and being stuck.

Plasma's approach is more like creating an operating system: focusing solely on one thing—global stablecoin payments. In the public testnet, it has clearly separated the core: the consensus side uses PlasmaBFT to pursue faster determinism, while the execution side remains EVM compatible, allowing developers to directly migrate using familiar Solidity and toolchains, reducing the friction of 'having to relearn to go on-chain'.

What truly amazed me is that fee friction is 'systemically handled'. The official documentation is quite firm: the paymaster maintained by the protocol will sponsor Gas for eligible USD₮ (USDT0) transfers, with a very narrow scope, only covering transfer/transferFrom, while controlling costs and preventing abuse through identity verification and rate limiting. External integration is also not just empty talk—they provided engineering documentation for the Relayer API: the backend obtains an API Key, makes EIP-712 signatures, and then uses EIP-3009 authorized signatures to complete the gasless transfer process.

More importantly, Plasma hasn't sold the 'all-in-one illusion': the mainnet beta will start with PlasmaBFT + (modified) Reth EVM, and capabilities such as confidential transactions and Bitcoin bridges will be gradually rolled out as the network matures. They also emphasized on Twitter that USDT0 has connected over 141B of the USDT ecosystem—this means Plasma is not creating a 'new coin narrative', but compressing the liquidity, settlement, and experience of stablecoins into a scalable underlying capability.

I will continue to monitor three things: whether real transfer volumes can be sustained, whether sponsorship costs can be controlled, and how $XPL forms a closed loop in security budget and ecological incentives.

@Plasma $XPL #plasma

Hedger turns EVM transactions into 'compliant confidential documents', this is the hard narrative of $DUSK

I am Azu, let me be straightforward: on-chain privacy, if it is just 'hidden', will never enter regulated finance; what is truly valuable is 'keeping secrets from the market while being auditable by regulators'. Dusk's core logic in the white paper is very clear - privacy and compliance are not either/or, but should be engineered into the same set of default capabilities: what should be public is public, what should be confidential is confidential, but at the same time, it must be able to provide verifiable explanations and evidence when needed.

This is also why I am more focused on Hedger: it is not a tool for you to 'avoid regulation', but rather a compliance privacy engine for DuskEVM, using homomorphic encryption + zero-knowledge proof to pull sensitive information like transaction amounts, balances, and intentions back from 'broadcasting across the entire network' to a state of 'confidential but auditable'. For institutions, this means a closer experience to dark pools/market making: order intentions are no longer exposed, reducing the risk of being targeted and front-run; but when rules require it, evidence can be provided, and accountability can be established, meeting the hard requirements of compliance auditing.

More importantly, it has already started to run: Hedger Alpha has launched and is open for testing (official information), during the testnet phase, key actions like Shield/Unshield and confidential transfers have been integrated first, and testing has been advanced under controlled conditions through an allowlist - this is closer to real implementation than simply shouting 'privacy sector'. Moving forward, I will continue to monitor the iteration pace of @Dusk 's DuskEVM and Hedger: only chains that can successfully implement 'compliant confidentiality' deserve to take on the increment of RWA and compliant DeFi.

$DUSK #Dusk

Walrus uses ACDS to 'redefine the problem'

Azu is here, and I am increasingly tired of the narrative that 'storage = throwing files to a bunch of nodes.' The real challenge has never been 'can store,' but rather: in an open network, nodes will drop, change, and act maliciously, and the network may also experience long delays—how do you ensure that data can ultimately be shared completely in such a world? One smart point of Walrus is that it does not rush to sell solutions, but instead rewrites 'what decentralized storage needs to solve' into a more serious goal: ACDS (Asynchronous Complete Data-Sharing). Simply put: it does not assume network synchronization, does not assume everyone is honest, and even allows Byzantine faults, but the system still needs to deliver complete data 'to the right place.' This step seems to tell the industry: don't fool yourself with 'usable under normal circumstances'; the real battle is about availability and consistency under the worst conditions.

The paper clearly states its contributions—Walrus introduces Red Stuff and positions it as the first protocol to efficiently solve ACDS under Byzantine faults. The weight of this statement lies in the fact that many systems' 'erasure codes' only save space, but once faced with node churn (frequent going offline and online), they must perform full recovery, ultimately eating back the cost saved by recovery bandwidth; Red Stuff takes the path of 'normalizing recovery capabilities,' making repairs closer to a pay-per-gap model, and can also tackle storage challenges in an asynchronous network, preventing opponents from exploiting network delays to 'pass validation without storing data.'

This 'problem definition first' engineering temperament can also be seen echoed on the ecological side. Walrus's official Twitter provided hard data in the Haulout mainnet hackathon result post: 887 people registered, 282 projects submitted, covering 12+ countries. You will find that only when the underlying most core 'asynchronous + adversarial' challenges are clarified can developers truly dare to bring data, applications, and even AI workflows up to submit their assignments.

It does not shout 'we are faster and cheaper' first, but rather writes out the most avoided sentence in the industry—under what assumptions do you guarantee what properties. ACDS establishes the standard, while Red Stuff implements it.

@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #Walrus

The TPS era has ended: AI readiness = "Memory × Reasoning × Automation × Settlement" four-piece set, $VANRY is focused on this demand curve

Many people are still judging whether a chain is valuable based on "how high TPS is", but the world of AI agents does not score this way: what it needs is native memory (state can persist), explainable reasoning (conclusions can be audited), controllable automation (can execute safely), and deterministic settlement (costs predictable, results traceable) - without one, you cannot run an "intelligent economy". Vanar's idea is very much like turning the chain into an operating system for AI: first, correctly position the "data and semantics" at the bottom layer, and then let reasoning and action close the loop within the chain.

First, let’s talk about memory. Vanar’s Neutron does not treat data as "dead files", but reconstructs it into programmable, verifiable Seeds that can be directly called by agents - data is not just stored; it can "work". For ordinary users, myNeutron is more like the most intuitive entry point: it turns your context, documents, and web pages into a retrievable long-term memory layer, avoiding AI memory loss when switching platforms.

Next, let’s discuss reasoning. Kayon’s positioning is not "companionship", but rather natural language querying and reasoning built on Seeds, emphasizing explainable paths and compliance defaults: the official documentation directly covers rules monitoring and automated reporting/execution across 47+ judicial jurisdictions. You can think of it as: the agent not only provides answers but must also offer verifiable reasons for "why this is done". Finally, let’s link automation and settlement: when memory is reusable, reasoning is auditable, and actions are orchestrated, every call on the chain transforms from a "demonstration" into a "business operation". At this point, the significance of $VANRY becomes clear - it is not just a narrative label but your exposure to the "real occurrence of AI workflows": Seeds are repeatedly called, reasoning is frequently triggered, and automation is continuously executed, causing the demand curve to rise.

@Vanarchain $VANRY #Vanar

It's not as simple as 'no fees': @plasma has turned stablecoin subsidies into controllable protocol capabilities

Azu Class: Plasma is not doing 'free transfers for the sake of profit'; it's engineering 'subsidies'. The official documentation explains the zero-fee USD₮ (USDT0) quite straightforwardly: Users do not need to buy $XPL as Gas in advance; during the transfer, the foundation directly sponsors the gas at the moment; and the sponsorship scope is strictly limited—only serving 'direct USD₮ transfers' and not allowing arbitrary calldata to execute. For payment applications, this sense of boundary is more important than 'free': you need to know where the system will spend money and where it won't lose control.

More critically, it incorporates anti-abuse mechanisms: The Relayer API requires server integration, necessitates EIP-712 signing capability, and uses EIP-3009 authorization structure to execute gasless transfers; at the same time, it limits by address and IP, layering identity-aware controls to block bots—saving steps for regular users but not leaving backdoors for profit seekers. The documentation also emphasizes that this implementation is still undergoing continuous iteration, and in the future, subsidies may be supported by validator income rather than relying on the foundation to 'burn money' indefinitely.

The technical foundation is equally restrained: the execution layer is a general EVM, running on Reth (Rust), with opcode/precompiled behavior aligned with the Ethereum mainnet, and tools like Hardhat, Foundry, MetaMask can be used directly. Applications can be launched first and then gradually add capabilities like 'native stablecoin contracts', 'custom Gas', and 'confidential payments'. Recently, they also announced on X that the testnet is live and mentioned core components like PlasmaBFT, clearly pushing 'usability and stability' forward.

Thus, I now see $XPL : it's not a ticket that forces holding to transfer; it's more like the fuel and safety budget for this stablecoin track. The real highlight is: when subsidies are controllable, the experience is like an app, and the migration cost is low enough, will the everyday use of stablecoins really happen?

@Plasma $XPL #plasma

Privacy does not need to escape regulation: Dusk brings "auditable confidential transactions" to EVM

It is now difficult to find a project like Dusk that does not just shout the RWA slogan but actually combines "licenses + technology" to create a practical blockchain link. The official website states it clearly: Dusk collaborates with the regulated Dutch exchange NPEX to build a compliant trading and investment platform for tokenized securities, planning to bring over 300 million euros worth of tokenized securities on-chain; moreover, the waiting list opened in January, and the pace is driven by product development, not empty promises. More importantly, NPEX holds licenses such as MTF, broker, ECSP, etc., which means DuskTrade is not "launching on-chain and then adding compliance" but has designed compliance as the underlying market structure from the very beginning.

Technically, Dusk's multi-layer architecture positions DuskEVM as the EVM-compatible application layer: developers can deploy contracts directly using standard Solidity and mainstream toolchains, lowering the integration threshold to the EVM level, while also relying on Dusk's Layer1 settlement layer to accommodate more "financial-grade" demands. For me, the real trump card is still Hedger: the official documentation clearly states that it uses homomorphic encryption (ElGamal over ECC) + zero-knowledge proofs + Hybrid UTXO/Account to achieve "market confidentiality and regulatory auditability" for compliant privacy; the official Twitter has also announced the launch of Hedger Alpha, indicating that this route is not just a PPT.

DuskTrade's waiting list and asset on-chain rhythm, the adoption of DuskEVM by developers, and the depth of Hedger's transition from Alpha to real business. As long as these three lines get underway, RWA will no longer be a story, but a business.

@Dusk $DUSK #Dusk

12 nines without stacking 25 copies: Walrus writes security into coding

Azu's view: The most common "false sense of security" in decentralized storage is numbing oneself with the number of copies: backing up several copies makes it seem like everything is fine. Walrus's paper directly dismantles this logic—if you want to bring your security intuition down to the level of 10^-12 (many people like to call it "12 nines"), a pure replication scheme requires a cost of 25x for replication; while Walrus bets on Red Stuff (2D erasure coding) at the bottom layer, providing a replication factor of only 4.5x in the same comparison table, while keeping the read-write cost at O(|blob|), and single shard recovery can achieve O(|blob|/n). This is not about "saving a bit of money," but rather pulling the system out of the vicious cycle of "the more secure, the more expensive."

What's even more ruthless is that Walrus acknowledges the reality of open networks: nodes will churn, links will shake, and adversaries will exploit delays. Therefore, the 2D coding of Red Stuff is not for show, but for "division of labor": the low-threshold dimension allows honest nodes that haven't received data to catch up and recover; the high-threshold dimension supports the read path and challenge period, preventing adversaries from slowing down the network to gather materials to "pass the audit." The paper also clearly states: it supports storage challenges under asynchronous networks, preventing attackers from using network delays to pass verification without actually storing data.

What I care more about is whether these principles have been implemented in the product. On the Walrus official blog, Quilt is a typical example: it uses a native API to package up to about 660 small files into one Quilt, specifically addressing the longstanding issue of "small file storage overhead explosion"; the Year in Review also provided hard results: Quilt helped partners save over 3 million WAL. The ecosystem side is not just spinning wheels either, as the official Twitter announced the Haulout mainnet hackathon "By the numbers": 887 registrations, 282 submissions, participation from 12+ countries—you can see real developers submitting their work, rather than just forwarding narrative posters.

The value of Walrus does not lie in "how well it talks about storage," but in the fact that it has chosen a harder but more sustainable path from the bottom up—not relying on stacking copies for security, but allowing the coding itself to become the engine of security and efficiency.

@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #Walrus