After reviewing some information about Vanar Chain, a clear insight suddenly emerged: "Neutron is what you use. Vanar is what remembers, reasons, and makes it trustworthy." This sentence actually captures the core pain point of the entire AI + blockchain track.
As Web3 and AI integration has progressed, most projects are still stuck on superficial surface articles. Deploying a smart contract on-chain, connecting an AI model, claiming support for Agent interaction—it's like completing an AI-ready upgrade. But in practice? Once an AI agent loses context, it has no memory; users can't see through the reasoning process; automated operations lack trustworthy backing—these are not issues that can be solved simply by increasing TPS. Frankly, this stems from poor architectural design from the start.
Vanar Chain's approach is different. It is fundamentally redesigned from the ground up for AI agents. Users can seamlessly invoke on-chain resources through Neutron (the direct interaction layer), making AI agents operate on the blockchain as if they were humans. The real innovation lies in the chain's memory, reasoning, and verifiability—these are the keys to enabling AI agents to operate autonomously over the long term in a trustworthy manner.
Compared to projects that "build a high-speed chain first," this approach takes a different path. One stacks infrastructure; the other redefines the core requirements. For AI agents that need long-term decision-making, fund management, and interaction history, the latter is clearly more meaningful.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
15 Likes
Reward
15
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
BlockchainTherapist
· 8h ago
The design approach at the operating system level is indeed different; no wonder most projects are just messing around.
View OriginalReply0
SurvivorshipBias
· 8h ago
Hey, wait a minute. Can memory and reasoning really solve the unreliability of agents? I'm still a bit skeptical.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeAssassin
· 8h ago
It's another set of memory + reasoning. It sounds good, but can it really be implemented in practice? Most agents are struggling just to maintain a conversation now.
View OriginalReply0
DisillusiionOracle
· 8h ago
Another chain claimed to be redesigned from the ground up... boasting extravagantly. It's not too late to praise it once it actually goes live.
After reviewing some information about Vanar Chain, a clear insight suddenly emerged: "Neutron is what you use. Vanar is what remembers, reasons, and makes it trustworthy." This sentence actually captures the core pain point of the entire AI + blockchain track.
As Web3 and AI integration has progressed, most projects are still stuck on superficial surface articles. Deploying a smart contract on-chain, connecting an AI model, claiming support for Agent interaction—it's like completing an AI-ready upgrade. But in practice? Once an AI agent loses context, it has no memory; users can't see through the reasoning process; automated operations lack trustworthy backing—these are not issues that can be solved simply by increasing TPS. Frankly, this stems from poor architectural design from the start.
Vanar Chain's approach is different. It is fundamentally redesigned from the ground up for AI agents. Users can seamlessly invoke on-chain resources through Neutron (the direct interaction layer), making AI agents operate on the blockchain as if they were humans. The real innovation lies in the chain's memory, reasoning, and verifiability—these are the keys to enabling AI agents to operate autonomously over the long term in a trustworthy manner.
Compared to projects that "build a high-speed chain first," this approach takes a different path. One stacks infrastructure; the other redefines the core requirements. For AI agents that need long-term decision-making, fund management, and interaction history, the latter is clearly more meaningful.