2026-01-20 22:21:49

I noticed that Vanar Chain wasn't initially driven by price or narrative storytelling, but rather by its engineering approach which is somewhat "non-conventional." Currently, most projects in the blockchain space focus on TPS wars, marketing battles, or new concepts, but Vanar gives a completely different impression—these folks clearly think like engineers, designing from the perspective of system stability rather than just "how to sell better."

The underlying philosophy is quite interesting. Vanar didn't follow the trend of hyping up "extreme TPS," a metric that's become quite common, but instead built its architecture around the long-term stability of on-chain assets. You can sense that its engineering assumptions are very clear: the truly sustainable public chains in the future must support stablecoins, collateral assets, and real settlement scenarios, rather than just patching short-term trading emotions.

This involves the collateral system. Vanar's collateral design isn't about "locking assets to create scarcity," but directly serves the security boundary of the stablecoin system. The collateral ratio is set conservatively, and the liquidation logic resembles traditional financial risk buffers, not the high-leverage temptation models typical in DeFi. From an experienced player's perspective, this design may not be very sexy in a bull market, but when the system faces real pressure, it demonstrates resilience.

The most underestimated part is actually the stablecoin mechanism. There are too many pseudo-stablecoins in the market, which are essentially liquidity games, but Vanar's stablecoin feels more like an engineering product rather than a marketing gimmick. It doesn't rely on subsidies to artificially boost demand but integrates stablecoins into on-chain economic activities, making it a hub for value transfer. This approach is slow but logically coherent.

And then there's the $VANRY value capture issue. Many projects have good technology but fail because their tokens become marginal roles like "transaction fee discounts" or "governance voting." At least in Vanar's architecture, there's an attempt to tie $VANRY with collateral security, system stability, and on-chain economic scale. This binding isn't just a slogan on the whitepaper but is genuinely reflected in parameter design.

VANRY-0,4%

View Original

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.

6 Likes

Reward
6
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MetaEggplant

· 6h ago

Oh no, this guy makes some sense. Most blockchains are really just hype, but I find Vanar's stablecoin approach quite comfortable to watch. Wait, the conservative collateralization ratio... in a bear market, it's a moat, but in a bull market, could it get wiped out? Finally someone understands that stablecoins are the future, not those flashy high-TPS numbers. $VANRY is really undervalued. If I hadn't read this article, I wouldn't have realized how critical the token value capture design is. But the question is, can this stablecoin system really support the ecosystem's activity? Seems like we need to observe more. I'm a bit touched by this engineer mindset, not the kind of "raise funds first and then boast" routine. By the way, a conservative collateral system is indeed stable, but could being too conservative make it less used?

View OriginalReply0

DeFiAlchemist

· 6h ago

ngl the collateralization mechanics here are giving actual risk-adjusted equilibrium vibes, not that ponzi liquidity theater most chains peddle... really curious if the stablecoin transmutation can sustain without market-making subsidies tho

Reply0

SybilAttackVictim

· 6h ago

Careful, this is exactly what I want to see. A bunch of projects just hype TPS, but when pressure comes, they reveal their true colors. The conservative design of collateralization is indeed to my taste. Compared to those DeFi schemes tempting with high leverage, it feels more like doing real work. The idea of integrating stablecoins into economic activities sounds quite practical, but I wonder when the market will fully grasp this logic. Can $VANRY really be tied to system stability? It seems to depend on subsequent execution; anyone can write a white paper. Coming from an engineering background, it's truly different. What’s missing is this kind of "survive first, then make money" mindset.

View OriginalReply0

LidoStakeAddict

· 6h ago

How should I put it, this article has said everything I wanted to say. Vanar and its team are indeed different, not the kind of project that just炒概念. Really, is the stablecoin part so solid? That depends on how it performs once it goes live. A conservative collateral system isn't a bad thing; it's okay if it's not sexy in a bull market. Surviving in a bear market is already a win. The binding logic of $VANRY still depends on whether it can truly be implemented; don’t let it become just a toy for governance voting. Honestly, projects with this kind of engineer mindset are really scarce in this market.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCryer

· 6h ago

It does sound like there is some substance, but can this kind of "pragmatist" design really survive before the bear market arrives? To be honest, the conservative collateralization ratio seems like adding more to oneself in the short term, but what if there's another wave of market crashes? Can this buffer really hold up? I buy the logic of using stablecoins as a value hub, but the problem is, who will use it? Without application scenarios, even the most robust architecture is useless. As for $VANRY 's value capture binding parameters, I feel like I've heard too many promises about this... Maybe we should just look at on-chain data to speak for itself, and stop listening to stories.

View OriginalReply0