I have recently become increasingly aware of one thing:
The blockchain technology is already lacking 'underlying capabilities'; what it lacks is the interface form that is truly used in the real world.
#Layer1 In the volume TPS, #Layer2 In the volume cost, modular in volume architecture, but when I look from the perspective of a traditional enterprise, content IP, entertainment brand, or even a regional government, these discussions are almost meaningless.
What they really care about is a simpler and more brutal question: Can I use it? How long can I use it? After using it, can it continue to operate?
It is precisely on this issue that I began to rethink what Vanar means by BaaS—Brand as a Service.
This is not a marketing phrase, but a very realistic engineering judgment.
From the fantasy of 'on-chain' to the reality gap of 'system integration'
We have seen too many failures of 'enterprises going on-chain' in the past few years.
It's not that enterprises are unwilling to try, but the answers provided by blockchain are always fragmented.
Wallets need to connect themselves.
NFT issuance needs to find third parties.
User systems and Web2 data are fragmented.
On-chain behavior and real incentives do not align.
Token economic models need to be designed from scratch, and they must also bear regulatory risks.
The end result is: the project has not gone live, and the organization has already been messed up.
Vanar's judgment on this issue is very straightforward:
What enterprises need is not blockchain, but a complete set of 'operational systems'.
This is also why it did not define BaaS as 'giving you a chain', but as an end-to-end on-chain brand operating environment.
The essence of BaaS: it's not a toolkit, but an operating system.
If BaaS is only understood as an SDK or API, then it is actually underestimated.
In my view, it is more like an on-chain operating system designed for brands.
It defaults to solving a few of the most pressing issues for enterprises:
The identity system is not about 'figuring out how to create DID', but naturally mapping Web2 users, on-chain addresses, and behavior records into a usable account system.
The asset system is not about 'issuing NFTs', but abstracting content, rights, points, and interactive behaviors into combinable digital assets.
The incentive system is not about 'token-driven new users', but making VANRY take on clear functional roles within the system, instead of a price narrative.
When enterprises come in, they do not face a pile of technical choices, but a set of operational environments with predefined default values.
This point is very crucial.
The premise of plug-and-play is the foresight of failure paths.
Many people like to say 'modular' and 'flexible', but the reality is:
For non-crypto-native enterprises, too many choices equate to no choice.
Vanar's BaaS thinking is the reverse:
First, directly seal off the easiest paths to failure.
It's hard to create a purely financial shell project on Vanar, detached from content and interaction.
It's also hard to just issue assets without designing behavioral feedback.
It's harder to treat tokens as the only growth engine.
It's not a limitation, but a result of engineering experience.
This is also why components like Virtua and VGN in the BaaS system are not 'optional plugins', but structurally necessary.
Why do brands need to be on-chain? Vanar does not provide an ideal answer, but a realistic one.
I have never agreed with the idea that 'brands go on-chain for decentralization'.
For most brands, this is not a necessity.
The real necessities are three things:
Whether user relationships are sustainable.
Are incentives quantifiable?
Whether content can settle across platforms.
Vanar's BaaS focuses on these three aspects of on-chain value, rather than 'ownership narratives'.
Brands do not need to understand blockchain; they only need to see:
User behavior in the system will leave long-term value.
Incentives are not one-time activities, but structures that can compound.
Content is no longer the platform's, but can flow across ecosystems.
Blockchain is just the technological carrier to achieve these goals, not the end itself.
VANRY's position in BaaS: not a financing tool, but operational fuel.
under the BaaS structure, the role of $VANRY is actually very clear.
It's not 'investment targets first', but the general consumption and coordinating assets necessary for system operation.
Whether it is content unlocking, behavioral incentives, creator revenue sharing, or value settlement among different modules within the ecosystem, VANRY is the default medium.
Its value comes from usage frequency and system dependency, not a single narrative.
This also explains why Vanar has always focused on 'whether it can run in real scenarios', rather than grand visions.
Why I think BaaS is the most easily underestimated step for Vanar.
In the current market environment, people are more easily attracted by ETFs, prices, and narrative cycles.
However, from a longer time dimension, the infrastructure that truly remains is often the least sexy things.
BaaS will not create short-term emotional highs, but it determines:
Are there any enterprises willing to stay?
Are users forming habits?
Is there real demand driving on-chain activities?
If many Layer 1s are waiting for 'killer applications',
So Vanar's idea is: I will prepare all the conditions needed for the application to be born.
Moon's thoughts and judgments.
Vanar is not trying to define the next generation of blockchain narratives, but is answering a more realistic question:
When blockchain is no longer fresh, who will it serve?
The direction of BaaS may not be favored by the market in the short term, but it is very likely to become Vanar's moat with the most long-term value.
Not because the concept is advanced, but because it directly addresses the real reasons for landing failures.
Waiting for the day when enterprises no longer ask 'should we go on-chain', but 'which system is more convenient',
Only then will BaaS truly be seen.
