Jia Xinn

I’ve had two very different sets of conversations with game developers about blockchain. There’s the public version that happens at conferences or in media interviews where developers talk optimistically about ownership and innovation and the future of gaming. Then there’s the private version that happens late at night at bars or in video calls where nobody else is listening and developers say what they actually think.
The gap between these conversations is enormous and explains why so many blockchain games get announced with huge fanfare then quietly fade into irrelevance. Let me share what developers actually say when they’re being honest instead of promotional.
“We’re only building this because our investors demanded it.”

This comes up constantly from development teams at blockchain gaming studios. The developers themselves have mixed feelings or outright skepticism about blockchain but they raised money from crypto investors who wanted blockchain games. The funding came with expectations. Build blockchain games or lose the funding. So they’re building blockchain games whether it makes sense for their specific projects or not.
This creates a fundamental problem. Teams building something they don’t believe in rarely build it well. The passion and conviction that drives great game development is missing. They’re going through motions to satisfy investor requirements rather than pursuing visions they’re excited about. This shows in the final products which feel obligatory rather than inspired.
The developers know this but they can’t say it publicly without alienating their investors and jeopardizing their funding. So they talk positively about blockchain in public while privately admitting they’d rather be building traditional games.
Fogo can’t fix this motivation problem but it can at least remove technical excuses. If developers have to build blockchain games anyway, infrastructure that doesn’t compromise gameplay quality makes the obligation less painful. The game can still be good even if the blockchain aspects feel forced.
“Blockchain makes literally everything about game development harder.”
This is the universal complaint from developers actually implementing blockchain features. Everything that’s straightforward in traditional games becomes complicated with blockchain. Simple features require complex implementation. Testing becomes harder because you need blockchain infrastructure in test environments. Iteration slows because changes need smart contract updates. Debugging is painful because blockchain errors are cryptic.
Developers compare building blockchain games to building games with both hands tied behind their backs. They can eventually accomplish things but everything takes longer and requires more effort for results that aren’t noticeably better than traditional approaches.
The specific pain points are consistent across teams. Inventory systems that should be simple database operations become complex blockchain interactions. Item drops that should happen instantly require waiting for transaction confirmations. Marketplace features that should be straightforward require wallet integration and transaction signing. Every system is harder because blockchain is involved.
Fogo addresses some of this by providing abstractions that hide blockchain complexity from game code. Developers can implement features using familiar patterns while the infrastructure handles blockchain underneath. This doesn’t make blockchain easier than traditional development but it makes it less painful than alternatives that expose all blockchain complexity to developers.
“Players hate the blockchain parts and we can’t fix it without removing blockchain entirely.”
This one is brutal. Developers implement blockchain features according to platform requirements and best practices. Then players encounter these features and hate them universally. The wallet management is confusing. The transaction signing is annoying. The fees are frustrating. The delays are unacceptable.
Developers want to fix these issues but they discover the problems are fundamental to how blockchain works. You can’t remove wallet complexity without compromising ownership. You can’t eliminate transaction signing without removing security. You can’t avoid fees without subsidizing them yourself. You can’t eliminate delays without centralizing the system.
The only real solution is removing blockchain entirely which defeats the whole purpose of the project and violates investor expectations. So developers are stuck shipping features they know players will hate because blockchain requires those features to function.
Teams try various compromises. Custodial wallets that hide complexity. Gasless transactions where the company pays fees. Optimistic updates that hide delays. Every compromise reduces the blockchain benefits while still keeping enough complexity to frustrate players. There’s no good answer and developers know it.

Fogo enables better compromises by making the technical tradeoffs less severe. Fast enough finality that delays disappear. Cheap enough fees that subsidizing them is viable. Good enough abstractions that wallet complexity can be hidden from most players. The compromises still exist but they’re more acceptable when infrastructure doesn’t force terrible choices.
“The economics of blockchain games are fundamentally broken and nobody wants to admit it.”
Developers who’ve actually shipped blockchain games and watched the economics play out have deep cynicism about sustainability. They’ve seen how play-to-earn creates unsustainable Ponzi dynamics. They’ve watched marketplaces dominated by bots and speculators while regular players leave. They’ve discovered that genuine ownership limits their ability to generate revenue.
The fundamental problem is misaligned incentives. Developers need sustainable revenue to keep games alive. Players want to extract maximum value. Speculators want to profit from trading. These goals conflict directly. Designs that make players happy don’t generate revenue. Designs that generate revenue feel exploitative. Designs that satisfy speculators turn games into financial instruments rather than entertainment.
Traditional games solve this by giving developers complete control. They can adjust economics to maintain sustainability even if players don’t like it. Blockchain promises remove this control in ways that developers discover are actually necessary for games to survive long-term.
Developers see this play out and conclude that blockchain economics don’t work for games that need to operate for years. But admitting this publicly means admitting their current projects are doomed. So they keep quiet and hope they figure something out before the economic problems kill their games.
Fogo doesn’t solve the economic problem because infrastructure can’t fix business model issues. But by making costs negligible, it at least removes one source of economic pressure. Developers can experiment with different economic models without transaction costs destroying viability of everything they try.
“We’re spending more time dealing with scammers and exploiters than building game features.”
This comes from teams running live blockchain games. The security problems are constant and exhausting. Scammers trying to steal player assets. Bots manipulating markets. Exploiters finding contract vulnerabilities. Phishing attacks targeting players. The attack surface is enormous and the consequences are severe because assets have real value.
Traditional games have security concerns but they’re manageable because the company controls everything. Ban accounts that cheat. Reverse fraudulent transactions. Fix exploits and roll back damage. Blockchain removes these tools while increasing the incentive to attack because items have real monetary value.
Developers spend enormous time and resources on security that could go toward making games better. They’re fighting constant battles against sophisticated adversaries while trying to build and maintain game features. It’s exhausting and it never ends.
Teams realize that blockchain created these security problems. The “features” of decentralization and ownership also create vulnerabilities that didn’t exist in traditional games. But again, admitting this publicly means admitting blockchain was a mistake which they can’t do.
Fogo provides better security infrastructure and tools but this doesn’t change the fundamental reality that blockchain games are higher-value targets requiring constant vigilance that traditional games don’t need.
“The successful blockchain games are successful despite blockchain not because of it.”
Developers analyzing which blockchain games actually attracted and retained players notice a pattern. The games that worked were good games that happened to use blockchain. The blockchain aspects were minimized or hidden. The core gameplay was strong enough to succeed without blockchain novelty.
The games that failed were blockchain showcases with game elements attached. The blockchain features were prominent and central. The gameplay was mediocre because resources went into blockchain integration instead of game quality.
This suggests blockchain is at best neutral and more often negative for game success. Good games succeed. Blockchain doesn’t make good games better and it often makes game development harder. The winning strategy seems to be building good games and using blockchain minimally where it genuinely adds value.
But developers can’t say this publicly because they’re supposed to be blockchain gaming advocates. Their investors and partners expect them to champion blockchain as transformative for gaming. Admitting it’s mostly a distraction from building good games would be career-limiting honesty.
Fogo enables the minimal blockchain approach by making it easy to use blockchain selectively. Developers can build mostly traditional games with blockchain only where it helps. This pragmatic approach matches what successful teams already discovered works.
“We have no idea if there’s actually a market for this.”
The honest developers admit they don’t know if meaningful audiences exist for blockchain games. The players who showed up for early blockchain games were mostly speculators and crypto enthusiasts not traditional gamers. When economic opportunities disappeared, so did the players.
Nobody has proven that mainstream gamers want blockchain features enough to tolerate the added complexity. The assumption is that ownership and open economies will attract players once implementations are good enough. But this assumption is untested and developers are betting their careers on it being true.
Some developers are increasingly skeptical that the market exists at all. Maybe mainstream gamers are perfectly happy with traditional games. Maybe the problems blockchain solves aren’t actually problems gamers care about. Maybe the vision of player-owned game economies appeals to crypto people but not to the millions of players who make games successful.
But questioning whether the market exists means questioning the entire premise of blockchain gaming which is impossible to do publicly while working on blockchain games. So developers proceed with private doubts and public confidence hoping they’re wrong about the market not existing.
“The best thing that could happen is if blockchain just worked invisibly like any other technology.”
This is what thoughtful developers conclude after fighting with blockchain for years. Stop treating blockchain as a feature. Stop explaining ownership to players. Stop making blockchain visible in any way. Just use it where it helps and hide it completely from players who don’t care.
Let blockchain be boring infrastructure that enables things players do care about. Great items that have real value. Fair economies with transparent rules. Persistence that survives company decisions. But deliver these benefits through interfaces that feel exactly like traditional games.
This vision requires infrastructure that can be truly invisible. That works fast enough players never wait. That costs little enough developers can absorb fees. That’s reliable enough to be taken for granted. Most blockchain platforms can’t deliver this. They require blockchain to be visible because their architecture demands it.
Fogo was built specifically to enable invisible blockchain. Fast enough to feel instant. Cheap enough to be free to players. Abstracted enough to hide from those who don’t care. This matches where developers think blockchain gaming needs to go if it’s going to succeed beyond crypto niche.
Whether invisible blockchain is sufficient for mainstream success remains unknown. But developers who’ve actually shipped blockchain games are pretty confident that visible blockchain definitely isn’t sufficient. So invisible blockchain is at least the right direction even if it’s not guaranteed to work.
All these private conversations reveal that developers building blockchain games are far more skeptical and frustrated than their public statements suggest. They’re dealing with enormous technical challenges, unclear markets, broken economics, constant security battles, and investor expectations that don’t match reality. Most would probably rather build traditional games if they could.

But they’re committed to blockchain games for various reasons so they need infrastructure that makes the experience less painful. Fogo helps by solving technical problems and reducing friction. It doesn’t solve motivation problems or market uncertainty or economic sustainability. Those are bigger issues that infrastructure alone can’t address. But at least it makes the day-to-day work of building blockchain games less frustrating than alternatives. Which is something even if it’s not everything developers need.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
#Fogo $FOGO @fogo

There’s a brutal economic reality in blockchain gaming that everybody knows about but nobody wants to discuss publicly. Games cost enormous amounts of money to develop. Good games especially. And blockchain games have all the normal game development costs plus massive additional expenses that traditional games never face. This creates a financial sustainability problem that’s killed more blockchain gaming projects than any technical limitation.
Let me walk through the actual economics because the numbers tell a story that marketing materials carefully avoid.
Traditional game development for a moderately ambitious multiplayer game might cost anywhere from $5 million to $50 million depending on scope and quality expectations. That’s already a massive investment requiring careful planning about how to recoup costs and generate profit.
Now add blockchain to this equation and several new cost categories appear that traditional games don’t have.
Smart contract development and auditing costs run hundreds of thousands of dollars. You need specialized blockchain developers who are expensive and scarce. You need multiple security audits from reputable firms because one missed vulnerability could destroy the entire game economy. You need ongoing security monitoring and rapid response capabilities. Traditional games don’t have any of these costs because they don’t have economic assets with real-world value that attackers will try to steal.

Blockchain transaction costs create ongoing operational expenses that scale with player activity. On traditional blockchains, a successful game with millions of daily transactions might face hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars monthly in transaction fees. These costs scale directly with success which creates perverse incentives where popularity becomes expensive rather than profitable.
Legal and compliance costs explode when games involve blockchain assets with real economic value. Securities law analysis costs six figures. Regulatory compliance across multiple jurisdictions costs more. Ongoing legal monitoring as regulations evolve costs more still. Traditional games face minimal legal costs because they don’t deal with assets regulators care about.
Liquidity provision for game economies requires massive capital lockup. If your game has a marketplace where players trade items, somebody needs to provide initial liquidity. If your game has a token economy, somebody needs to maintain trading liquidity on exchanges. This capital lockup represents millions that could otherwise fund development but instead sits idle making markets function.
Marketing costs for blockchain games exceed traditional game marketing because you’re educating players about unfamiliar concepts on top of normal game promotion. Players need to understand wallets and transactions and ownership beyond just learning how the game works. This educational burden increases customer acquisition costs substantially.
Add all these blockchain-specific costs to already enormous traditional development costs and the total investment required becomes almost absurd. You might need $20 million to $100 million to properly launch a blockchain game with AAA quality expectations.
Now here’s where the economic sustainability problem gets brutal. How do you recover these investments and generate profit?
Traditional games have established business models. Premium purchase price. Free-to-play with in-app purchases. Subscriptions. Season passes. These models work because the company controls the economy completely. They set prices. They control supply. They capture all transaction value. They can adjust economics anytime to optimize revenue.
Blockchain games promise player ownership and open economies. This fundamentally limits the company’s ability to extract value. Players own items and can trade them peer-to-peer. Secondary markets capture value that would otherwise flow to the company. Price discovery happens through market forces rather than company pricing power. The company earns at most royalties on secondary transactions rather than controlling all sales.
This creates a massive problem. Blockchain games cost much more to develop than traditional games but generate less revenue because genuine player ownership limits value extraction. The economics don’t work unless something changes dramatically.
Most blockchain gaming projects have dealt with this through one of several approaches, all of which have serious problems.
First approach: Raise massive venture capital and figure out sustainability later. This works temporarily but venture investors eventually want returns. If the game can’t generate revenue covering costs plus providing returns on investment, the project dies when funding runs out. This has killed dozens of blockchain games that were technically successful but economically unsustainable.

Second approach: Implement extractive tokenomics that technically give players ownership while practically functioning as value extraction. This typically involves requiring players to stake tokens, pay fees in native tokens, or participate in inflationary token systems that benefit early investors and developers at expense of later players. These schemes usually collapse when new player growth slows and the Ponzi dynamics become obvious.
Third approach: Abandon genuine player ownership and implement blockchain features selectively while keeping economic control centralized. This makes the game economically sustainable but defeats the entire purpose of using blockchain. Players get pseudo-ownership that the company can revoke or devalue arbitrarily. This is honest but makes the blockchain aspects mostly marketing rather than fundamental architecture.
Fourth approach: Accept lower production values and smaller scope to reduce development costs to levels that realistic revenue can support. This makes economics work but means blockchain games compete with AAA traditional games using indie game budgets. The quality difference drives players toward traditional games regardless of ownership benefits.
All four approaches have been tried extensively and all have serious limitations. This is why blockchain gaming hasn’t achieved mainstream success despite years of effort and billions in investment. The economics are genuinely difficult in ways that technological improvements alone cannot solve.
Fogo doesn’t magically solve the economic sustainability problem because infrastructure alone can’t solve business model problems. But the infrastructure does enable new economic possibilities that weren’t viable on expensive blockchains.
By reducing transaction costs to fractional cents, Fogo makes certain business models economically viable that were impossible when each transaction cost dollars. Developers can implement frequent small transactions without fees consuming all value. They can distribute modest rewards without transaction costs making distribution more expensive than the rewards themselves. They can enable active trading without fees preventing marketplace activity.
This doesn’t guarantee sustainable economics but it expands the possibility space for developers to experiment with business models that might work. Some possibilities that high transaction costs prevented:
Subscription models where players pay monthly fees for premium access or enhanced features. The subscription revenue funds development and operations while genuine ownership applies to items players earn. This separates access monetization from ownership monetization in ways that might balance developer needs and player benefits.
Cosmetic sales where players buy items directly from developers initially but then genuinely own them and can trade freely. Developers capture initial sale value. Players capture secondary market value. If developers keep creating desirable new cosmetics, they maintain revenue stream without needing to control secondary markets.
Tournament and competition fees where players pay entry fees for competitive events with prize pools. Developers organize competitions and take rake from entry fees. Players compete for prizes while genuinely owning items and rewards. This creates revenue from organizing competitive infrastructure rather than controlling item economies.
Creator tools and asset marketplaces where players create content and items that other players can purchase. Developers earn platform fees on creator transactions. Creators earn from their work. Players get diverse content and genuine ownership. This leverages community creativity to generate content and revenue that developers couldn’t produce alone.
Partnership and sponsorship models where brands pay to have presence in games. Developers earn from brand partnerships. Players get free or subsidized access funded by brand spending. Genuine ownership applies to items players earn. This separates player monetization from brand monetization.
None of these models are guaranteed to work at the scale needed to sustain AAA development costs. But they’re possible to attempt on infrastructure with negligible transaction costs where they were economically impossible on expensive blockchains.
The deeper problem Fogo enables discussion about is whether AAA development costs are even necessary or desirable for blockchain gaming.
Traditional AAA games need massive production values because they’re competing purely on experience quality. Better graphics. More content. Polished gameplay. Bigger worlds. These things cost enormous amounts to produce and players expect them from games charging $60 or requiring significant in-app purchases.
Blockchain games compete partly on different dimensions. Genuine ownership. Open economies. Persistence beyond any single company. Community-driven content. These benefits don’t require AAA production values to be meaningful. A game with modest graphics but genuine ownership and sustainable player-driven economy might attract players precisely because it offers things AAA games cannot.
This suggests blockchain gaming might succeed by competing in different categories rather than trying to match AAA traditional games directly. Find niches where ownership and open economies matter more than production values. Serve audiences who value these properties enough to accept graphics and content that can’t match hundred-million-dollar budgets.
Fogo enables this approach by making development costs more aligned with realistic revenue from these niche audiences. You don’t need tens of millions in funding to build games on infrastructure with negligible operating costs. Smaller teams can build sustainable games serving dedicated communities without needing to achieve mainstream blockbuster success to justify investment.
The economic sustainability question ultimately determines whether blockchain gaming achieves lasting success or remains perpetually promising but never profitable. Technology improvements help but business model innovation matters more. Fogo provides infrastructure that makes certain business models viable while developers still need to discover which models actually work sustainably at scale.
The projects that succeed will probably look different from what most people imagine blockchain gaming should become. They’ll make economic compromises that purists dislike. They’ll find niches rather than competing with everything. They’ll balance player ownership with developer sustainability in ways that satisfy neither group completely but work well enough to continue operating profitably.

The alternative is more projects that are technically impressive and ideologically pure but economically unsustainable and therefore dead within years regardless of how good the games are or how much players enjoy them. Sustainability matters more than purity for actual long-term success. Infrastructure that enables sustainable economics even if they’re not ideologically perfect serves the ecosystem better than infrastructure that enables perfect ideology but impossible economics.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

#Fogo $FOGO @fogo

Every few months I have nearly identical conversations with people at major consumer brands. They work in innovation labs or digital strategy groups or emerging technology teams. We’re talking about blockchain and Web3. And at some point they lower their voice slightly and say something like “We actually tried this two years ago and it didn’t work but we’re not allowed to talk about why.”
These failed blockchain projects are everywhere across major brands but they’re hidden carefully because admitting failure in detail would create internal political problems and external perception issues. So projects disappear quietly and the same mistakes get repeated because knowledge doesn’t transfer between attempts.
Vanar exists partly because someone systematically collected these failure stories that brands won’t tell publicly. Understanding why projects actually failed versus the sanitized versions in case studies reveals what infrastructure really needs to do differently.
Let me share the real failure stories I’ve heard repeatedly with details changed to protect the people who told me.

Major retail brand decided to create blockchain-based loyalty points. The idea was solid. Give customers ownership of points. Let them trade points with each other. Create transparent rules about earning and spending. The innovation team got executive approval and budget and partnered with a well-known blockchain platform.
Implementation took eight months longer than planned because integrating blockchain with existing loyalty systems proved far more complex than anticipated. The blockchain platform couldn’t easily query data needed for loyalty rules. The existing systems couldn’t easily write to blockchain. Custom middleware got built at great expense.
Finally launched to pilot group of 50,000 customers. Within days, customer service received thousands of complaints. Customers didn’t understand why claiming points required multiple steps instead of being automatic. They didn’t understand transaction confirmations. They got confused about wallet addresses. Many simply couldn’t figure out how to access their points on blockchain.
Customer service couldn’t help because they didn’t understand blockchain themselves and had no tools to troubleshoot customer issues. The pilot got extended while trying to improve experience but problems persisted. After six months, executives quietly killed the project and reverted pilot customers back to traditional loyalty system.
The official story was “valuable learning experience” and “timing not quite right.” The real story was customer experience disaster combined with unsustainable operational costs. Transaction fees were eating significant portion of points value. Customer support costs per user were ten times normal levels. The economics didn’t work and the experience was worse than traditional system.
Global fashion brand wanted to create authenticated digital certificates for luxury items to combat counterfeiting. Customers buying expensive items would receive NFT certificates proving authenticity they could show when reselling items.
Technically straightforward concept. Partner blockchain platform provided infrastructure. Development team built certificate generation and verification system. Legal team spent months analyzing securities implications and intellectual property rights. Compliance team ensured privacy regulations were met across all countries brand operated.
System launched in three test markets. Customers who wanted certificates could request them at purchase. Adoption was about 2% of eligible customers. Almost nobody requested certificates because most customers didn’t understand what they were or why they’d want them. The customers who did request them mostly never used them again after initial novelty.
The small number who tried to use certificates when reselling items found that secondary market buyers didn’t trust or understand blockchain verification anyway. They wanted traditional authentication from brand or established authentication services. The blockchain certificate provided no practical benefit because the market didn’t accept it as verification.

After a year, less than 10,000 certificates had been issued despite hundreds of thousands of eligible purchases. Cost per certificate was over $50 when including development, operations, and support costs. The benefit to brand or customers was essentially zero.
Project was quietly discontinued. Official reason was “focusing resources on other priorities.” Real reason was complete failure to achieve any meaningful adoption or demonstrate any value despite working exactly as designed technically.
Major entertainment company created digital collectibles for popular media franchise. Fans could collect character NFTs and exclusive digital content. This seemed like perfect use case. Engaged fanbase. Digital goods people already valued. Clear use for blockchain ownership.
Launched with big marketing campaign. Initial sales were strong driven by hardcore fans and NFT speculators. First month generated $2 million in sales. Team celebrated success and planned expansions.
Second month sales dropped 60%. Third month another 50% drop. By month six, weekly sales barely covered operational costs. Analysis showed initial sales were almost entirely speculators hoping for quick profit. When secondary market prices crashed immediately, speculators left. Actual fans represented tiny fraction of customers and most of them bought once then stopped.
Worse, the secondary marketplace became dominated by professional traders using bots to manipulate prices. Regular fans couldn’t compete. The marketplace devolved into pure speculation that had nothing to do with fandom. This damaged brand perception among core fans who felt the company was enabling exploitation.
Company quietly stopped releasing new collectibles and let existing marketplace wind down. Official story was “successful experiment in new formats.” Reality was one-time revenue spike followed by collapse and brand damage among core fans they were trying to serve.
Major food and beverage brand tried blockchain-based supply chain transparency. Customers could scan product QR codes and see complete journey from farm to store on blockchain. Perfect story about transparency and trust and modern technology.
Took eighteen months to build because integrating with suppliers was nightmare. Most suppliers didn’t have digital systems to integrate with blockchain. Manual data entry was required at each step. Verification that data was accurate was impossible. The blockchain stored whatever data was entered but couldn’t verify if that data reflected reality.
Launched on one product line. Marketing heavily promoted the transparency. Customer adoption was under 1%. Almost nobody scanned the QR codes. The tiny fraction who did mostly looked once out of curiosity and never again. Consumer research showed customers claimed to value supply chain transparency but didn’t actually care enough to engage with it.
Meanwhile operational costs were significant. Suppliers needed support and training. Data quality issues required constant monitoring. The blockchain costs were modest but the human costs of maintaining the system were substantial.
After a year, quietly discontinued because costs vastly exceeded any measurable benefit. Official story was “successful pilot program informed future strategy.” Reality was expensive failure that generated no customer value and created supplier headaches.
The pattern across all these failures is consistent. Technically the implementations worked. The blockchain did exactly what it was supposed to do. But the projects failed because:
Customer behavior didn’t match assumptions. Teams assumed customers would value blockchain benefits enough to tolerate friction. Actually customers ignored blockchain features or were confused by them and didn’t see enough value to bother learning.
Integration costs exceeded estimates by large multiples. Connecting blockchain to existing systems was far harder than anticipated. What looked straightforward in architecture diagrams required months of custom development.
Operational costs were unsustainable. Transaction fees, customer support costs, system maintenance costs, and all the ongoing expenses were much higher than traditional alternatives while providing minimal incremental value.
Market acceptance didn’t exist for blockchain verification. Even when blockchain proved authenticity or ownership technically, the broader market didn’t accept these proofs because they didn’t understand or trust them.
Internal organizational capabilities were insufficient. Brands didn’t have blockchain expertise internally and acquiring it was harder than expected. Customer service couldn’t support it. Operations couldn’t maintain it. The organizational capability gap was larger than the technology gap.
Business model didn’t work. Revenue from blockchain features didn’t cover costs. The value capture mechanisms that worked in theory didn’t work in practice. Economics were worse than traditional approaches.
None of these failures were about the blockchain technology being immature or broken. The technology worked fine. The failures were about organizational readiness, customer behavior, market acceptance, business models, and operational capabilities.
Vanar was designed by people who heard enough of these stories to understand what actually needed to be different. Not better blockchain technology but blockchain technology that addresses the real failure modes rather than the theoretical ones.
Simplified integration with existing systems so projects don’t die during implementation. Customer experience that hides blockchain complexity so customers aren’t confused. Operational costs that make sense relative to value created. Training and support for customer service teams so they can actually help customers. Business model flexibility so companies can experiment with approaches that might actually generate sustainable revenue.
These aren’t exciting technical innovations. They’re boring operational considerations that determine whether blockchain projects survive contact with real organizations and real customers. The technically impressive blockchain platforms that ignored these considerations enabled lots of pilot projects that all failed operationally in similar ways.
Whether Vanar’s approach succeeds at scale remains to be proven. But at minimum they’re addressing the actual failure modes that killed previous attempts rather than building more technically impressive versions of infrastructure that creates the same organizational and operational failures. That’s at least attacking the right problems even if the solutions aren’t guaranteed to work.
The brands that won’t talk publicly about their blockchain failures know exactly what went wrong. They just can’t say it openly because it would require admitting they spent millions on initiatives that failed for predictable reasons. So the knowledge stays hidden and new teams repeat the same mistakes. Unless infrastructure providers listen to these hidden stories and build differently. That’s what Vanar at least attempted to do. Whether it works well enough remains to be determined by projects actually succeeding at meaningful scale rather than failing quietly and disappearing into the growing pile of blockchain initiatives nobody wants to discuss.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

#Vanar $VANRY @Vanar