I don't want to be fooled by the 'AI public chain narrative' again: Is Vanar Chain really coming back to life, or is it just a new shell to continue telling the story?
Let me put my attitude upfront: I write about @vanar not to 'hype it up', nor to regurgitate the white paper. I am more like someone doing something very realistic—putting it in the framework of 'life-saving priority', using the recent verifiable hotspots and data to see whether Vanar Chain is really getting things done or just rewrapping the narrative in a smoother package.
I have a bit of a reflexive response to these 'AI + public chain' projects recently. I have seen too many over the past year: the roadmap reads like a sci-fi movie, but in the end, the chain looks like an empty city. My previous impression of Vanar was also a bit 'too forceful', but some information I came across in the past couple of days really made me stop and take a closer look—not because I suddenly believe in the 'future', but because it started to lean towards 'feasible interfaces' and 'payment pathways'.
⸻
1) First, look at today's market: VANRY is currently in a low 'energy-saving mode', but the data is not asleep.
I don't like to talk about 'strength' in vague terms, let's first put the most basic things on the table:
I just checked CoinGecko, and the price is around $0.0058, with a 24h trading volume of about $5M, circulating supply showing about 2.2 billion, and market cap hovering around over ten million dollars.
In plain terms, this is not a state of 'hot money exploding', but more like 'everyone is saving energy': not excited, not thrilled, and not really willing to be the first to rush in.
But it is precisely because of this that judging whether Vanar has something is more suitable to be broken down by 'events + landing + structure', rather than relying on emotions.
By the way, I also checked the Binance spot page, and VANRY/USDT can also directly see the real-time price around 0.0059 (the specific value will fluctuate, but the approximate range is similar).
Why do I need to add this perspective? Because many projects are most afraid of not falling, but of 'you can't find a stable trading scenario to observe it'. At least VANRY doesn't lack this point.
⸻
2) I pick two 'today's hotspots': one is the payment entry, and the other is the change in the 'embedded integration' route.
2.1 The keywords I am most sensitive to: Agentic Payments + Worldpay + fiat entry for 146 countries.
I saw a piece of content spreading quite quickly in Binance Square, the core point is: Vanar is deeply collaborating with Worldpay during Abu Dhabi Financial Week to promote so-called Agentic Payments, and it mentioned 'opening fiat entry channels for 146 countries at once'.
I won't care if this term is heavily marketed (to be honest, I easily get allergic to the prefix 'Agentic'), but I will focus on a very real issue:
If the fiat entry is real and can be continuously used, then Vanar's positioning will shift from 'a chain that tells AI narratives' to 'a pipeline that can undertake payment behaviors'.
Note that I'm talking about 'actions', not 'stories'. These two differences are very significant.
The value of the chain is often not about how terrifying the 'TPS' is, but whether you can leave a real action of the user: recharge, payment, settlement, subscription, in-game purchases… Once these things get going, the discussion will shift from 'technical arguments' to 'business data'.
Of course, prioritizing survival, I must say: this type of cooperation is most afraid of two situations:
• Just staying at the event site and in media releases, actual users have no reusable product entry;
• Or the entry is there, but costs/compliance/risk control ruin the experience, ultimately becoming 'usable but no one uses it'.
2.2 Another signal that I feel is more 'like a shift': no longer forcing migration, but choosing 'embedding'.
Another piece of hot content I came across mentioned @vanar announcing the integration of OpenClaw and emphasized that its strategy has changed: not forcing developers to migrate, but opting for an 'embed/embedded integration' approach.
I actually quite agree with this—not because I suddenly think it is advanced, but because having done content for so long, I've seen too many projects die due to 'migration costs'.
Developers are not unwilling to try new things; they are unwilling to rewrite their existing systems for an uncertain chain. 'Embedding' means: you can integrate the chain's capabilities into existing products at a lower cost, which is much more realistic than 'come to my ecosystem to rebuild home'.
If Vanar really follows this line of thinking, its competitive approach will be more like 'tools/middleware', rather than 'I will become the king of the new world'. This will actually be easier to survive in 2026.
3) Don't just look at the narrative: I care more about who Vanar really wants to serve right now.
Vanar's official website still positions itself as 'developer-oriented, AI-native, easy to integrate', and it has also listed a series of offline events (e.g., conferences in Dubai in February 2026, Hong Kong in February, Dubai in March).
I never mystify the act of 'running meetings'—running meetings does not equal getting things done, but it at least indicates: the project is continuously exposing itself and pulling resources, not completely lying flat.
But the real problem is:
If Vanar's 'user profile' is still a vague 'Web3 user', it will be hard to win; if it targets scenarios like 'payments/content/games/virtual spaces' that can generate frequent behaviors, it will have a chance to detach the value of the chain from the coin price.
I saw that KuCoin's news is also emphasizing that Vanar is moving towards a 'simpler, more human-friendly' Web3 experience, mentioning directions like gaming/virtual spaces.
This type of content certainly has promotional attributes, but at least in terms of direction, it is correct: to make users feel that they are not 'using blockchain', but using a product.
⸻
4) The risk points I care about the most: supply rhythm, concentration, and whether 'ecological growth can keep up'.
Having said that, I have to say it less pleasantly. Projects like Vanar most commonly derail not because 'the technology is bad', but because—supply and ecological growth do not synchronize.
I saw someone mentioning in Binance Square that the total issue of VANRY is 2.4 billion, and most of it is released through long-term block rewards, with an average inflation rate of about 3.5%, higher in the first two years.
This type of structure means one thing to me:
If real demand on-chain does not rise, inflation is a constant gravity.
Additionally, there are concerns about early financing/holding being concentrated, and high verification node reward ratios (the issue of concentration is fundamentally about 'who can more easily control supply and narrative').
I'm not here to do 'conspiracy theories', but as someone who prioritizes 'survival', I will treat it as a variable that must be monitored:
• Is the major address continuously shipping (even if slowly);
• Is the ecological incentive dead as soon as it stops;
• Is there only 'data brushing' on-chain, with no 'retention behavior'.
⸻
5) My three 'survival observation indicators': no predictions, just focus on verifiable changes.
I don't like to declare conclusions too emphatically, especially in such a low-positioned plate. Right now, I prefer to use three indicators to decide whether to continue paying attention to Vanar:
First point: Is there a real productization of the payment/funding entry?
It's not about what is written in the press release, but whether users can 'smoothly complete a payment/settlement' in a certain scenario. If it can really get going, it will leave traces in data and community feedback.
Second point: whether embedded integration can continuously bring developer cases.
Integrating directions like OpenClaw, if more cases of 'more similar integrations + lower migration costs' can emerge in the future, then Vanar is not just making slogans, but focusing on 'usability'.
Third point: Is the relationship between trading volume and price healthy?
I'm not afraid of sideways movement, I'm afraid of 'no volume but still trying to push up/having volume but only left with dumping'. Currently, the volume displayed on CoinGecko is around $5M, at least there is still observability.
If a situation arises where 'volume suddenly expands but there are no corresponding events on-chain', I would be more cautious—that usually indicates that emotions lead and reality lags.
⸻
6) Cooling down and wrapping up: I place Vanar in the 'continue to monitor' position, but I'm not in a hurry to mythologize it.
In the end, my attitude toward Vanar Chain is:
It is now most like the stage of 'shifting from narrative to execution'—someone in Binance Square also wrote that it is moving from theoretical positioning to a clearer product landing.
This is good for the project, but it may not necessarily be a 'get rich quick' good thing for participants. Because the execution period is usually slower, more arduous, and more prone to exposing problems.
I won't get excited just because it talks about AI, nor will I act impulsively because its price is low.
I will only focus on three things: entry, cases, and data. Only if these three improve simultaneously can Vanar qualify to change from a 'theme' to an 'asset'; if only one improves, or even just 'better storytelling', I would prefer to remain a bystander.
That's it, I'll stop here and leave a tail for myself:
Next time I mention @vanar, I must bring back updated data; otherwise, it’s equivalent to creating noise.