@Vanar "Do games really need a dedicated L1-or just better UX?"
Most “gaming L1s” are solving the wrong problem. Gamers don’t quit because blocks are slow. They quit because wallets, bridges, and gas break immersion. Latency is annoying. Friction is fatal.
VANAR’s bet is interesting because it quietly flips the thesis. Instead of shouting “we’re faster,” it’s pushing infra that hides blockchain complexity from players: account abstraction, near-instant finality, and a chain design optimized for in-game state changes, not DeFi spam. That matters more than raw TPS.
But here’s the uncomfortable part: a dedicated L1 only earns its existence if it removes UX decisions from developers, not adds new ones.
VANAR’s architecture works only if studios can ship games without explaining wallets, tokens, or bridges at all. If players notice the chain, the chain already failed.
Token utility is the stress test.
VANRY isn’t valuable because “games use it.” It’s valuable only if it becomes invisible fuel for execution, settlement, and in-game economies—used constantly, thought about never.
A comparison table using public docs: Ethereum L2 vs VANAR — columns for wallet steps to first action, average confirmation time, and on-chain interactions per gameplay loop. It visually proves that UX steps, not TPS, are the real bottleneck.
