Shafin-

,

Stablecoins are now that dominant use case, and they place
very different demands on a network.Plasma takes a specialized approach.
Instead of asking how many things it can support, it asks how well it can
support one thing: stablecoin settlement. Specialization allows tighter
optimization, clearer performance targets, and fewer trade-offs. In finance,
specialization is normal. Payment networks, clearing houses, and settlement

systems all exist for specific roles.As stablecoins continue to absorb more real
world value flows, the infrastructure behind them will need the same clarity of
purpose. Plasma's design reflects a shift in thinking from building flexible
platforms to building dependable systems. That shift may not look exciting, but
it's often how lasting financial infrastructure is built.
 

Every emerging infrastructure project eventually faces a
paradox: the more fundamental the role it plays, the harder it is to explain
its value in simple terms. Plasma sits squarely inside this paradox.

Unlike consumer-facing applications, Plasma does not compete
for attention through flashy features or immediate user growth. Instead, it
operates in a layer where relevance is defined by dependence, not popularity.
This raises a set of recurring questions from investors and builders alike —
questions that are often dismissed as impatience, but are in fact structural
concerns worth addressing.

This article examines the key issues surrounding Plasma
today, why they exist, and how Plasma attempts to resolve them.

1. If Plasma Is Critical Infrastructure, Why Isn’t Adoption
Obvious Yet?

One of the most common doubts is straightforward:

If Plasma solves a real problem, why aren’t applications
rushing to use it?

This question assumes that infrastructure adoption behaves
like consumer adoption. It doesn’t.

Infrastructure adoption is reactive, not proactive. Builders
do not migrate to new primitives because they are novel, but because existing
systems begin to fail under real operational load. Most chains and layers
appear “good enough” early on. Pain only emerges at scale — sustained
throughput, persistent storage, and predictable costs over time.

Plasma is designed for that second phase: when
inefficiencies stop being theoretical and start appearing on balance sheets.
Until applications reach that point, Plasma looks optional. When they do, it
becomes unavoidable.

This delay is not a weakness. It is a structural feature of
infrastructure cycles.

2. Is Plasma Competing With Existing Layers or Replacing
Them?

Another frequent concern is positioning. Investors often ask
whether Plasma is attempting to displace existing L1s, L2s, or data layers — or
whether it simply adds more fragmentation.

Plasma’s design suggests a different intent: complementarity
rather than displacement.

Instead of replacing execution layers, Plasma focuses on
providing an environment where persistent performance remains stable regardless
of execution volatility. It assumes that execution environments will continue
to change, fragment, and compete. Plasma positions itself as a stabilizing
layer beneath that chaos.

In that sense, Plasma is not competing for narrative
dominance. It is competing for irreversibility — becoming difficult to remove
once integrated.

3. Why Does Plasma Appear More Relevant in Bear Markets Than
Bull Markets?

This is not accidental.

Bull markets reward optionality. Capital flows toward what
might grow fast, not what must endure. In those conditions, infrastructure
optimized for long-term stability is underappreciated.

Bear markets reverse the incentive structure. Capital
becomes selective. Costs matter. Reliability matters. Projects that survive are
those whose infrastructure assumptions hold under reduced liquidity and lower
speculative throughput.

Plasma is implicitly designed for this environment. Its
relevance increases as speculative noise decreases. That does not make it
immune to cycles, but it aligns its value proposition with the phase where
infrastructure decisions become irreversible.

4. Is $XPL Just Another Utility Token With Limited Upside?

Token skepticism is justified. Many infrastructure tokens
have failed to accrue value beyond short-term speculation.

The key distinction with $XPL lies in where demand
originates. If token demand is driven by incentives alone, it decays once
emissions slow. If demand is driven by dependency — applications requiring the
network to function — value accrual becomes structural rather than
narrative-driven.

Plasma’s thesis is that sustained usage, not transaction
count spikes, will determine demand for $XPL . This is slower to materialize,
but harder to unwind once established.

That does not guarantee success. But it defines a clearer
failure mode: if applications never become dependent, Plasma fails honestly
rather than inflating temporarily.

5. Is Plasma Too Early — or Already Too Late?

Timing is perhaps the most uncomfortable question.

Too early means building before demand exists. Too late
means entering after standards are locked in. Plasma sits in a narrow window
between these extremes.

On one hand, many applications have not yet reached the
scale where Plasma’s advantages are mandatory. On the other, existing solutions
are showing early signs of strain under sustained usage. Plasma is betting that
the transition from “working” to “breaking” will happen faster than most expect
— and that switching costs will rise sharply once it does.

This is not a safe bet. But infrastructure timing never is.

6. Who Is Plasma Actually Built For?

Retail narratives often obscure the real audience.

@Plasmais not built for short-term traders, nor for
speculative users chasing early yields. It is built for application teams
planning multi-year roadmaps, predictable costs, and minimized operational
risk.

That audience is smaller, quieter, and less vocal — but also
more decisive once committed. Plasma’s design choices make more sense when
viewed through that lens.

Conclusion: The Cost of Asking the Wrong Questions

Most debates around Plasma focus on visibility, hype, and
near-term metrics. These questions are understandable — but they are also
incomplete.

The more important questions concern dependency,
persistence, and long-term risk allocation. Plasma does not attempt to win
attention. It attempts to remain useful after attention moves elsewhere.

Whether it succeeds depends less on market sentiment and
more on whether applications eventually reach the limits Plasma was designed
for.

Infrastructure rarely looks inevitable at the beginning. It
only becomes obvious after it is already embedded.

Plasma is betting on that moment.

#Plasma $XPL

 

Dusk does not utilize generic blockchains, instead focusing
on a carefully chosen set of building blocks to allow for compliant, privacy
preserving and high performance financial applications.....Dusk is an
architected blockchain built from scratch with the goal of implementing real
world financial infrastructure. Every component supports the overall
architecture of the blockchain and is built specifically for its assigned job
on the blockchain.

Privacy as a Core Architectural Principle

The Dusk Network's primary and essential feature is Privacy.
While the sender, recipient, and amount transferred in every transaction are
kept private by default and are not recorded publicly on-chain. Privacy is
accomplished through native zero-knowledge proof primitives that are integrated
into the protocol itself.

The primary concern with respect to Privacy on Dusk is that
it provides a selective rather than total trade off - The Dusk Network has a
functionality of ‘Selective Disclosure’, whereby when information is to be
validated by an Authorised Third Party (for example, a Regulator or Auditor),
the chosen information can be validated without having to disclose that
information publicly, thereby allowing Dusk to meet regulatory obligations and
account for User Confidentiality.

 2 . The DUSK Native
Asset

DUSK serves as a base unit of value and provides many uses
beyond just simple value exchange. It provides both the exclusive economic
asset of the network as well as providing security to the network. In addition
to being used for staking and paying transaction fees, it is also used in the
consensus mechanism of the network and creates the proper alignment between
network security and economic incentives.

With one single and privileged asset, Dusk prevents
fragmented security frameworks and provides a clean and auditable economic
system. This helps Dusk create strong Sybil resistance and guarantees the
long-term viability of Dusk's ecosystem as a result.

 3 . Consensus and
Network Security

A consensus mechanism is an essential part of Dusk. Dusk’s
consensus mechanism is a privacy-preserving proof-of-stake mechanism with
cryptographic leader selection - rather than public visibility. The block
proposal process has a unique set of rules that allows for the generation of
blocks without exposing the names of proposed block generators, thereby
protecting them against targeted attacks, censorship, and front-running.

The DUSK tokens are staked by those that participate in the
consensus to guarantee security for the network using committee based agreement
to allow finality (settlement) to happen quickly with solid Byzantine fault
tolerance. Therefore, the network will be able to support the requirements
needed by financial-grade applications.

 4 . Smart Contracts
and the Rusk Virtual Machine

The Rusk VM (Rusk Virtual Machine) is responsible for
executing smart contracts on Dusk and was created especially to enable
zero-knowledge proof-based verification and allow developers to create
applications that can validate intricate conditions without disclosing any of
the underlying data.

Rusk is quite different from conventional virtual machines
because it creates a direct integration between cryptographic verification and
execution logic. As a result of this direct integration, private DeFi,
compliant asset issuance and secrecy in financial workflows can all be
maintained in a deterministic and secure manner while achieving full usage
efficiency.

 5 . Transaction Model
and State Management

Dusk operates a privacy-preserving transaction model which
allows for accurate balance accounting without the use of the public ledger.
The transfer of assets remains in a pending state until the recipient expressly
accepts it; thereby avoiding any premature changes in balances and guaranteeing
accuracy of those balances.

The state transitions that occur through Dusk's
protocol-level contracts are tightly regulated, thereby minimising systemic
risks and allowing for simplified verification. The structure of these
transactions increases their auditability while maintaining confidentiality.

 6 . Compliance by
Design

The fact that Dusk has a foundation built on its
compliance-aware architecture is one of its most important and distinguishing
features; Dusk was designed to be able to work with many regulatory frameworks
– for example, when it comes to security token issuance, lifecycle management,
and institutional reporting responsibilities.

Dusk, through use of selective disclosure and cryptographic
attestations, can allow for compliance in a manner that does not compromise
either decentralization or privacy; therefore, it has an almost exclusive
capability to connect traditional financial institutions and the blockchain.

 7 . Interoperability
and Extensibility

The Dusk Network is designed for interoperability with other
blockchain ecosystems. By utilizing trusted or trust-minimized interoperability
solutions, Dusk can act as a privacy-preserving sidechain or execution layer
for existing Layer-1 networks.

The extensibility of the Dusk Network allows for a large
variety of applications to be hosted on the network, while still maintaining
its primary focus of confidential, compliant finance.

The components that form the Dusk Network are not simply a
collection of distinct features but rather they work together as part of a
unified structure to create a complete solution. All the elements (privacy,
consensus, smart contracts, compliance, and incentivisation) have been
interwoven into one cohesive purpose-built system.

Through creating these components in a native form rather
than as a type of extension or add-on, Dusk has created a Blockchain platform
designed to support the 'real money' Financial Markets in a secure and private
manner at scale.

@Dusk k

A High Level Look at Walrus and Its Role in Web3 Storage

Most traders only notice storage when something breaks. An NFT collection reveals it was pointing to a dead link. A gaming project ships an update and players cannot load assets. A data heavy app slows down because the “decentralized” part is still hiding on a centralized server. The market can price narrative all day, but users price reliability in seconds. If the data is not there when it matters, nothing else in the stack feels real.
Why Storage Still Breaks Web3
Blockchains are great at small, verifiable state changes. They are not designed to replicate giant files across every validator forever. That mismatch is why so many apps keep the heavy stuff elsewhere and leave only a pointer onchain. The pointer is cheap, but it creates a trust gap. If the hosting provider deletes content, rate limits it, or simply goes offline, the onchain record becomes a receipt for something you cannot retrieve.
Walrus exists to shrink that trust gap for large, unstructured data: media, datasets, archives, and the “blobs” that modern apps actually need. Mysten Labs introduced Walrus as a storage and data availability protocol aimed at blockchain applications and autonomous agents, with a focus on efficiently handling large blobs rather than forcing full replication across validators.
What Walrus Actually Is
At a high level, Walrus is a decentralized storage network with an onchain control plane. Storage nodes hold pieces of data, while Sui is used for coordination, payments, and rules around the lifecycle of stored content. The Walrus docs frame it as a way to store unstructured content on decentralized nodes with high availability and reliability, even with Byzantine faults, and to make stored blobs programmable through onchain objects.
That last part matters more than it sounds. Programmable storage means an app can do more than “upload and hope.” Smart contracts can check whether a blob is available, how long it will remain stored, and can extend or manage that lifetime. In practice, that turns storage from a background service into something apps can reason about directly.
How It Works Without Forcing Full Replication
Walrus leans on erasure coding to split a blob into many smaller “slivers” distributed across nodes. The original file can be reconstructed from a subset, which is the whole trick: resilience without storing full copies everywhere. Mysten Labs described being able to reconstruct even when up to two thirds of slivers are missing, while keeping overhead around 4x to 5x rather than the very high replication you see when every validator stores everything. This is also consistent with the protocol’s published technical work, which positions Walrus as a third approach to decentralized blob storage focused on high resilience with low overhead and an onchain control plane.
If you have ever watched a chain slow down because everyone is trying to store more than state, the appeal is obvious. Walrus is trying to keep the chain focused on verification and coordination, while the bulk data lives in a network designed for it.
Where the Market Data Fits, and Why Traders Should Care
Walrus also has a token, WAL, because incentives are not optional in decentralized storage. On the Walrus site, WAL is described as the payment token for storage, with a mechanism designed to keep storage costs stable in fiat terms by distributing prepaid storage payments over time to nodes and stakers. WAL is also used for delegated staking that underpins network security, and for governance that tunes system parameters.
As of January 30, 2026, CoinGecko shows WAL trading around $0.1068, with about $11.0M in 24 hour volume, and about 1.6B tokens in circulating supply. Those numbers are not “the story,” but they help you place Walrus on the map: liquid enough to trade, volatile enough to demand risk controls, and early enough that adoption and usage metrics can still move the narrative.
The Retention Problem
Here is the uncomfortable truth in Web3 infrastructure: getting a developer to try you is easier than getting them to stay. Storage networks have an extra retention hurdle because the product is time. Users do not just upload once; they must renew, extend, and trust that retrieval will work months later when nobody is watching.
Walrus tries to address this with explicit time based storage payments and onchain representations of storage and blob lifetimes, so apps can see and manage retention rather than treat it as an offchain promise. If it works as intended, retention becomes less of a marketing problem and more of a system behavior: predictable costs, verifiable availability, and simple renewal flows. If it fails, churn will look like “missing content,” and missing content is the fastest way to lose users permanently.
Risks You Should Not Hand Wave Away
The cleanest risk is operational. Decentralized storage depends on a healthy set of nodes. If incentives misprice storage, node operators leave, availability degrades, and the user experience quietly rots.
Next is mechanism risk. Walrus plans and parameters can change through governance, and staking and slashing design choices affect who bears losses when performance drops. Any investor should treat incentive design as part of the product, not an accessory.
There is also ecosystem concentration risk. Walrus is deeply integrated with Sui for coordination and object based programmability. That can be an advantage, but it also means adoption may track Sui’s developer gravity and tooling comfort more than abstract “storage demand.”
Finally, there is market risk. WAL can be tradable and liquid while still being disconnected from real usage for long stretches, especially in risk on or risk off cycles. Traders should assume narratives can outrun fundamentals in both directions.
A Practical Way to Evaluate Walrus
If you are looking at Walrus as a trader or investor, do not start with slogans. Start with behavior. Are real applications storing meaningful volumes, renewing storage, and retrieving content reliably? Is WAL demand tied to storage payments and staking in a way that is visible onchain, or is price action mostly exchange driven? The protocol launched developer preview in 2024 and later moved through testnet toward mainnet with Walrus’ own mainnet launch announcement dated March 27, 2025. That timeline matters because storage trust is earned through time not headlines.
If you want one concrete next step, pick a simple use case and follow it end to end store a file, verify its availability retrieve it under different conditions and understand the true all in cost over a realistic retention window. Read the docs, then watch what builders do with them.
If Web3 is going to feel real to mainstream users, it needs memory that does not vanish. Walrus is one serious attempt at making that memory programmable, verifiable, and economically sustainable. Your edge, as always, is not believing or dismissing it. Your edge is measuring it, patiently, until the numbers match the story.
#WALRUS @Walrus 🦭/acc 🦭/acc $WAL

When I first started paying attention to payment chains, it
was not because of throughput charts. It was because of the moments nobody
screenshotted. A transfer that “should have” landed, but did not. A merchant
staring at a loading spinner. A fee estimate that looked fine, then quietly
jumped right as someone pressed confirm. The pattern was boring in the worst
way: the fastest rails were often the least dependable when it mattered.

That mismatch is easier to see right now, because the market
has its old texture back. Bitcoin is sitting around $89,322 and still swinging
intraday by more than a thousand dollars, and ETH is around $3,021 with
similarly sharp daily ranges. In that kind of environment, stablecoins become
the steady middle layer, not because they are exciting, but because they let
people step out of the noise without exiting the system.

You can see it in the numbers. Multiple trackers and market
reports have the global stablecoin market around the low $310 billions to $317
billions in early January, an all time high zone, and the framing across those
reports is consistent: traders shelter in stables when volatility rises, and
that liquidity becomes the foundation everything else leans on. Tether alone is
described by Reuters as having about $187 billion USDT in circulation. If you
accept that stablecoins are the cash layer of crypto, then the quality of the
rail starts to matter more than the raw speed of the chain.

That is where Plasma gets interesting, and not for the
reason people usually lead with. Plasma describes itself as a Layer 1 purpose
built for USDT payments, with near instant transfers, low or zero fees for
USDT, and EVM compatibility so existing tooling can come along for the ride.
The obvious headline is speed and cost. The quieter thesis underneath is
reliability, meaning the user experience of money that behaves the same way
twice.

It helps to say what reliability actually means in payments,
because people confuse it with latency. Speed is how fast a single transfer
confirms under ideal conditions. Reliability is whether the system keeps its
promises when conditions are not ideal, during congestion, during partial
outages, during fee spikes, during wallet mistakes, during adversarial
activity. Payments have a different definition of “works” than trading. In
trading, a failed action is a missed opportunity. In payments, a failed action
is a broken relationship.

The funny thing is that most major chains are already “fast
enough” for a lot of consumer moments. Ethereum fees, for example, have been
unusually low lately by several public metrics, with average transaction fee
figures hovering well under a dollar and in some datasets around a few tenths
of a dollar. Low fees are real relief, but they do not automatically become
predictable fees, because averages hide the lived experience. A user does not
pay the average, they pay whatever the network demands at the exact minute they
hit confirm, and what they remember is the one time it surprised them.

Plasma’s pitch is that you can design around that memory. On
the surface, the product claim is simple: USDT transfers can be zero fee, and
the network is optimized for stablecoin settlement rather than being a general
arena where payments compete with everything else. Underneath, that implies a
different set of priorities: the chain is trying to control the variables that
create friction, like fee volatility, gas token juggling, and inconsistent
confirmation behavior, even if that means narrowing what the chain is for.

That narrowing matters because “raw speed” is often a proxy
for “we built a fast database.” Payments are not a database problem. They are a
coordination problem across humans, businesses, compliance constraints, and
timing. If a merchant has to keep an extra token balance just to pay gas, that
is not a technical footnote, it is a support ticket factory. If a chain is fast
but frequently requires users to guess fees, that is not efficiency, it is
anxiety disguised as flexibility.

Plasma also leans into gas abstraction ideas, where the user
experience can be closer to “pay in the asset you are sending” instead of “hold
the native coin or fail,” which is one of the most common points where normal
people fall off the cliff. Binance’s research summary explicitly describes
stablecoin first gas, including fees in USDT via autoswap, plus sub second
finality and Bitcoin anchored security as part of its design story. You can
argue about the tradeoffs, but you cannot pretend those details are cosmetic.
They are the difference between a rail that feels earned and one that feels
like a demo.

The other piece people miss is that “zero fee” is not only
an incentive, it is a control mechanism. If you remove per transfer pricing,
you remove one source of unpredictability for the sender, but you also create
new risks: spam pressure, denial of service games, and the need for the network
to enforce limits in other ways. The fee is not just revenue, it is a throttle.
So the real question becomes where Plasma puts the throttle instead, and how
transparent that throttle remains as usage grows. Early signs suggest teams
reach for rate limits, priority lanes, or application level gating. If this
holds, it can feel smooth. If it does not, it can create a new kind of
unpredictability where the fee is zero but the transfer sometimes stalls for
reasons users cannot see.

There is also a structural concentration risk that comes
from building “for USDT.” The upside is obvious: USDT is the dominant
stablecoin by scale, and the market is currently treating stablecoins as the
safe harbor asset class inside crypto. The risk is that you are tying the rail
to a single issuer’s regulatory and operational reality. Even if the chain is
technically reliable, the asset on top of it carries its own dependencies, from
reserve management narratives to jurisdictional pressure. That does not
invalidate the approach, it just means the foundation is partly off chain.

Zoom out and you can see why the timing is not random.
Visa’s head of crypto has been publicly talking about stablecoin settlement as
a competitive priority, and Reuters reports Visa’s stablecoin settlement flows
are at an annual run rate of about $4.5 billion, while Visa’s overall payments
volume is about $14.2 trillion. That gap is the story. Stablecoins are already
huge as instruments, but still small as integrated merchant settlement, and the
bottleneck is not awareness, it is dependable plumbing that merchants can trust
without thinking about it.

This is where Plasma’s angle, when taken seriously, is less
about beating Ethereum or Solana on a speed chart and more about narrowing the
surface area where things can go wrong. Payments rails win by being quiet. They
win when nobody tweets about them, when the system absorbs load without drama,
when the user forgets there was a blockchain involved. Plasma is explicitly
trying to make the “stablecoin transfer” a first class product rather than a
side effect of general purpose execution.

The obvious counterargument is that general purpose chains
are improving, and the data supports that in moments like today’s low fee
regime. If fees stay low and L2 adoption keeps growing, maybe “payment
specific” chains do not get a large enough advantage to justify new liquidity
islands and new bridges. That is real. The other counterargument is
composability, meaning that the more specialized you get, the more you risk
being a cul de sac instead of a city. If a payment chain cannot plug into the
wider credit and trading ecosystem, it can feel clean but constrained.

Plasma’s response, implied more than declared, is that
specialization is not isolation if you keep the right compatibility layers. EVM
support reduces developer friction. A payment first chain can still host
lending, card settlement logic, and merchant tooling, it just tries to make the
stablecoin transfer path the most stable thing in the room. The question is
whether that stability remains true when usage stops being early adopter volume
and starts being repetitive, boring, payroll like flow.

What this reveals, to me, is a broader shift in crypto’s
center of gravity. In the last cycle, speed was a story people told to other
crypto people. This cycle, the pressure is coming from outside, from payments
companies, from merchants, from compliance teams, from anyone who does not care
about block times but cares deeply about predictable outcomes. The market is
already saying stablecoins are the preferred unit of account in volatile weeks,
and the next fight is about rails that feel steady enough to carry real
obligations.

If Plasma succeeds, it will not be because it was the
fastest. It will be because it made reliability feel normal, and made speed
fade into the background where it belongs. The sharp observation that sticks
for me is simple: in payments, the winning chain is the one that makes you stop
checking.

#Plasma   $XPL   @Plasma

 

When I first started paying attention to Vanar, it was not
because of a headline or a big announcement. It was because I kept seeing the
same quiet pattern across markets: most chains say they want “real users,” then
they build systems that assume users will tolerate constant micro decisions.
Pick a wallet. Manage gas, Read a signature prompt, Wait for confirmation.
Repeat. Traders can muscle through that texture because they have a reason to.
Normal users rarely do. They leave, and everyone calls it “lack of education”
instead of what it is, a product leak.

That leak matters more right now than it did in the
easy-money cycles, because the market is acting like it remembers risk again.
On January 28, 2026, Bitcoin is trading around $88,953 and Ethereum around
$2,997 in a cautious tape, with people watching macro catalysts like the Fed
and treating liquidity like something you earn, not something you assume. In a
market like that, hype does not carry onboarding friction for long. If activity
is real it has to be steady.

Vanar’s interesting move is that it is trying to win in the
part of the stack most chains avoid: the boring interface between a person and
a transaction. The official framing is “mass market adoption,” which is a
phrase every L1 uses, but the details underneath it are more specific: 3-second
block time, a 30 million gas limit per block, and a transaction model that
prioritizes predictable throughput and responsiveness. The numbers only matter
if you translate them into the sensation a user feels. Three seconds is not a
benchmark trophy. It is the difference between “did it work?” and “did I just
mess something up?”

What struck me is that Vanar also leans into fixed fees and
first-come, first-served ordering, explicitly describing validators including
transactions in the order they hit the mempool. That is not the default posture
in 2026, where many networks embrace fee markets that turn block space into an
auction. Auctions can be great for chain revenue and for allocating scarce
capacity under stress. They also create a constant background stress for users,
because the price of doing something is never quite stable, and the reason it
changed is usually invisible.

On the surface, fixed fees and FIFO ordering read like
“simple UX.” Underneath, it is a choice about who the chain is optimizing for.
An auction fee market tends to reward whoever can price urgency best, which in
practice means bots, arbitrageurs, and sophisticated wallets. FIFO tries to
make execution feel fair in a human way, where you are not forced into a
bidding war just to click a button. If this holds under load, it changes the
emotional character of the chain from competitive to predictable, and predictable
is how habits form.

Now zoom out and look at the token and the market’s current
expectations. VANRY is trading around $0.0076 today with roughly $2.6M in
24-hour volume and about a $17.0M market cap. Those are not “mainstream
adoption” numbers. They are the numbers of a small asset in a big ocean, where
attention can spike and vanish. The context matters: in a $3.13T total crypto
market, small tokens can move on narrative alone, and then drift for months
when the narrative rotates. If Vanar is serious about real users, the proof
will show up less in candles and more in whether usage feels earned, then
repeats.

This is where the chain data gets interesting, but also
where you have to be honest about what it can and cannot tell you. Vanar’s
explorer currently shows 8,940,150 total blocks, 193,823,272 total
transactions, and 28,634,064 wallet addresses. Those are large cumulative
counts, and if they reflect organic usage, that would imply a lot of surface
level activity and a wide top of funnel. At the same time, the same page
displays “latest” blocks and transactions with timestamps reading “3y ago,”
which makes it hard to use that front page as a clean window into current
momentum without deeper querying. The takeaway is not “the chain is alive” or
“the chain is dead.” The takeaway is that vanity counters are easy, and
retention signals are harder.

Retention is the part most chains do not build for because
it is quiet. You do not trend on retention. You trend on launches. But
retention is where real users live. A chain can buy its first million clicks.
It cannot buy the second month of someone using it without thinking. That is
why Vanar’s emphasis on responsiveness and predictable execution is more
meaningful than yet another claim about scale. It is aiming at the moment after
the first transaction, when novelty is gone and friction becomes visible.

There is also a deeper market structure angle here that
traders should care about. Fee auctions and complex ordering are not just UX
problems, they are strategy surfaces. If you have ever watched a user get
sandwiched, or watched gas spike mid action, you have seen how quickly trust
breaks when people feel hunted. Vanar’s choice to push a fixed fee, FIFO style
model is, in part, an attempt to shrink that adversarial texture for everyday
flows. It will not remove adversarial behavior entirely, nothing does, but it
can change where the adversarial games can be played.

Of course, the obvious counterargument is that “simple” can
become “fragile.” Fee markets exist for a reason. If demand spikes, and fees do
not float, you need other pressure valves: rate limits, strong spam resistance,
and a credible story for how the network stays usable under stress. The same
design that makes fees feel stable can invite a different kind of attack
surface if it is cheap to flood the mempool. And FIFO can be fair, but fairness
does not automatically mean efficiency, especially when sophisticated actors
learn how to game timing rather than price. None of this is fatal, but it is
real and it is the trade.

Another counterargument is that prioritizing EVM
compatibility, which Vanar does, can pull you back toward the very complexity
you are trying to hide. EVM is a giant pool of developer tooling and liquidity
expectations, but it also carries the baggage of approvals, signatures, and
interactions that are confusing for normal people. So the chain can do
everything right at the protocol layer and still lose at the wallet layer. That
is why “building for real users” cannot stop at block time. It has to show up in
the surrounding defaults: how wallets explain actions, how apps handle gas, how
errors are phrased, and whether a user can recover from mistakes without
feeling punished.

Meanwhile, the broader pattern in crypto is that the market
is slowly separating infrastructure that is technically impressive from
infrastructure that is usable. When Bitcoin dominance is above 57% in a $3T
market, you are seeing capital cluster around perceived foundations, not
experiments. In that environment, smaller chains do not get infinite shots.
They need a real wedge. Vanar’s wedge is not “we are faster than X,” because
there is always a faster X. The wedge is “we make the chain disappear enough that
people stop noticing it.”

If that sounds small, it is worth remembering how most
consumer products win. They win by removing decisions, not by adding features.
They win by being boring in the right way. They win when the user can predict
what happens next. And that is the choice most chains avoid because it is hard
to market and harder to measure in a bull post screenshot.

So here is what I will be watching, and I do not think I am
alone. Not whether VANRY pumps in a week, because small caps do that all the
time. I will be watching whether the network can hold its promise of fast,
predictable confirmations, whether the fixed-fee and ordering model holds up
when demand is real, and whether apps on top of it feel calm instead of clever.
If those early signs stack up, Vanar is not just another chain with throughput
claims. It is a bet that the next growth phase belongs to the teams willing to
trade spectacle for a steady user habit.

The sharp observation that keeps sticking with me is this:
most chains compete to be the most visible, but real users pick the one that
feels quiet underneath their hands.

#vanar   $VANRY   @Vanarchain

If you’ve been watching WAL and wondering why it can feel “dead” even when the product news keeps coming, I think the market is pricing Walrus like a generic storage token instead of what it actually is: a throughput-and-reliability business where the real choke points are the operators in the middle. Right now WAL is trading around $0.12 with roughly ~$9M in 24h volume and a market cap near ~$190M (about 1.58B circulating, 5B max). That’s a long way from the May 2025 highs people remember, with trackers putting ATH around $0.758, which is basically an ~80%+ drawdown from peak. So the question isn’t “is decentralized storage a thing,” it’s “what part of Walrus actually accrues value, and what has to happen for demand to show up in the token?”
Here’s the moving-parts version that matters for trading. Walrus is built to store big unstructured blobs off-chain, but still make them verifiable and retrievable for onchain apps, with Sui acting as the coordination layer. When you upload data, it doesn’t get copied whole to a bunch of machines. It gets erasure-coded into “slivers,” spread across storage nodes, and the system is designed so the original blob can be reconstructed even if a large chunk of those slivers are missing. Mysten’s original announcement frames this as being able to recover even when up to two-thirds of slivers are missing, while keeping replication overhead closer to cloud-like levels (roughly 4x–5x). If you trade infrastructure tokens, that sentence should jump out. That’s the difference between “we’re decentralized” and “we might actually be cost-competitive enough to be used.”
Now here’s the thing most people gloss over: end users and apps typically aren’t talking to raw storage nodes. They go through publishers and aggregators. The docs are pretty explicit about it. A publisher is the write-side service (it takes your blob, gets it certified, handles the onchain coordination). An aggregator is the read-side service (it serves blobs back, and it can run consistency checks so you’re not being fed garbage). Think of storage nodes as warehouses, publishers as the intake dock, and aggregators as the delivery fleet plus the “did we ship the right box?” verification layer. Traders love to model “network demand,” but in practice, UX and latency live at the aggregator layer. If aggregators are slow, flaky, or overly centralized, the product feels bad even if the underlying coding scheme is great.
This is why Walrus’s architecture matters for WAL’s economics. Mainnet launched March 27, 2025, and the project’s own launch post ties the system to a proof-of-stake model with rewards and penalties for operators, plus a stated push to subsidize storage prices early to accelerate growth. Translation: in the early innings, usage might be partially “bought” via subsidies, and token emissions and incentive tuning matter as much as raw demand. That’s not good or bad, it’s just the part you have to price. If you’re looking at WAL purely as a bet on “more data onchain,” you’ll miss that the path there is paved with operator incentives, reliability, and actual app distribution.
So what would make me care as a trader? I’d watch for evidence that aggregators are becoming a real competitive surface instead of a thin wrapper. The docs mention public aggregator services and even operator lists that get updated weekly with info like whether an aggregator is functional and whether it’s deployed with caching. That’s quietly important. Caching sounds boring, but it’s basically the difference between “decentralized storage” and “something that behaves like a CDN.” If Walrus starts looking like a programmable CDN for apps that already live on Sui, that’s when WAL stops trading like a forgotten midcap and starts trading like a usage-linked commodity.
Risks are real though, and they’re not just “competition exists.” First, demand risk: storing blobs is only valuable if apps actually need decentralized availability more than they need cheap centralized S3. Second, middle-layer centralization: even if storage nodes are decentralized, a handful of dominant aggregators can become the practical gatekeepers for reads, and that concentrates power and creates outage tail risk. Third, chain dependency: Walrus is presented as chain-agnostic at the app level, but it’s still coordinated via Sui in its design and tooling, so Sui health and Walrus health are correlated in ways the market will notice during stress. Fourth, incentive risk: subsidies can bootstrap growth, but if real willingness-to-pay doesn’t arrive before subsidies fade, you get a usage cliff and the token charts it immediately.
If you want a grounded bull case with numbers, start simple. At ~$0.12 and ~1.58B circulating, you’re around ~$190M market cap. A “boring” upside case is just re-rating back to a fraction of prior hype if usage and reliability metrics trend the right way. Half the old ATH is about $0.38, which would put circulating market cap around ~$600M-ish at today’s circulating supply. That’s not fantasy-land, that’s just “the market believes fees and staking demand can grow.” The real bull case is if Walrus becomes the default blob layer for a set of high-traffic apps (media, AI datasets, onchain websites), because then storage spend becomes recurring and WAL becomes the metered resource that operators secure and users consume. The bear case is simpler: WAL stays a token with decent tech but thin organic demand, aggregators consolidate, subsidies mask reality, and price chops or bleeds while opportunity cost does the damage.
So if you’re looking at this, don’t get hypnotized by “decentralized storage” as a category. Track the parts that turn it into a product. Are aggregators growing in number and quality? Are reads fast and consistent enough that builders stop thinking about storage as a bottleneck? Are storage node incentives stable without constantly turning the subsidy knobs? And is WAL’s liquidity and volume staying healthy enough for real positioning, not just spot tourists? Right now we at least know the token is liquid and actively traded on major venues, with mid-single-digit millions in daily USD volume.
My base take: Walrus is one of the cleaner attempts to make “big data off-chain, verifiable onchain” feel normal for apps, and the storage nodes-to-aggregators pipeline is where that either works or dies. If the middle layer matures, WAL has a path to trade on adoption. If it doesn’t, it’ll keep trading like a concept.
@Walrus 🦭/acc 🦭/acc

误解 WAL 最简单的方法就是盯着图表，以为代币就是一切。交易者之所以会这样做，是因为价格波动剧烈且立竿见影。而存储则悄无声息且缓慢。只有当出现问题时，你才会注意到它的存在：比如文件链接在发布过程中失效，数据集消失，或者产品团队惨痛地意识到“去中心化”并不意味着“可以安全保存一年”。WAL 之所以重要，是因为它旨在为时间付费，而非为瞬间付费，这改变了 Walrus 经济中需求的定义。

Walrus 是一个基于 Sui 构建的去中心化存储网络。简单来说，它旨在存储图像、视频、游戏资源、网站、模型权重、数据集和其他“blob”类型的大型数据，同时将元数据和可用性证明放在 Sui 上，以便应用程序可以验证它们引用的内容是否真实存在。换句话说，Walrus 试图让存储成为一种可编程的工具，而不仅仅是一个存放文件并祈祷它们能一直存在的地方。

WAL 是为该服务提供资金的原生代币。其核心功能是支付存储费用，并采用专门设计的机制，即使 WAL 的市场价格波动较大，也能确保以法币计价的存储成本保持稳定。用户预先支付一定费用以存储固定时间的数据，这笔费用随后会分摊到存储节点和质押者手中，由他们负责维护和提供服务。这种“分摊到不同时间”的设计并非无关紧要，而是 Walrus 的经济核心。存储是一种跨期承诺：您现在付费，是为了确保数据在未来仍然可以检索。Walrus 正是利用了这一点，将奖励与跨周期的持续服务挂钩，而不是一次性支付所有费用。现在，不要一开始就关注市场行情，而是在真正理解你所评估的价值之后，将其作为现实检验的依据。截至2026年1月28日，WAL的交易价格约为0.121美元，24小时交易量约为780万美元，流通供应量约为15.8亿枚，最大供应量为50亿枚。价格、流动性和流通量对于风险管理固然重要，但它们并不能解释其商业模式。该商业模式是预先支付存储费用，这些费用会随着时间的推移分摊给运营商和质押者，并提供早期补贴以支持其普及。Walrus明确预留了10%的WAL用于补贴，以便用户在早期阶段能够以低于市场价格的价格获得存储服务，同时还能保证节点经济的可行性。

这正是用户留存问题出现的地方，而且这个问题比大多数人意识到的更为重要。在许多代币网络中，用户留存主要是指防止用户离开应用程序。而在存储网络中，用户留存还意味着要让提供商和质押者长期保持投入，因为其价值主张在于长期可用性。 如果节点运营商频繁更迭，或者质押在节点间剧烈波动，网络将承担实际的迁移成本，用户也会因此获得更差的服务。Walrus 通过激励机制来解决这个问题，鼓励长期质押，并抑制短期波动。该协议将 WAL 描述为通缩机制，并概述了与短期质押波动罚款挂钩的销毁机制，以及在启用惩罚机制后，与低性能节点惩罚挂钩的部分销毁机制。其目标并非制造混乱，而是维护稳定性：保持参与者的一致性，从而确保服务的可靠性。

一个现实生活中的例子可以帮助我们更好地理解这些激励机制。想象一下，一个小型工作室正在开发一款带有季节性更新的 Web3 游戏。他们需要存储美术资源包、补丁文件、回放片段，以及一些个性化数据集，以便游戏能够生成精彩集锦或比赛总结。如果他们将这些资源存储在普通的中心化服务上，成本虽然可预测，但信任模型却无法预测，政策的任何变化都可能导致分发中断。 如果玩家通过 Walrus 存储游戏，他们需要预付一定期限的存储费用，以法币进行预算，并依赖网络在整个赛季中保持文件的可检索性。这并非出于意识形态，而是为了寻求保障：没有人希望发布更新后才发现内容管道已经变成了一场噩梦。在这种情况下，WAL 不是一种投机性收藏品，而是维持游戏运行的吞吐量成本，而网络能否长期留住可靠的运营商则成为了其最终产品。

那么，交易者或投资者如果想了解 WAL 是否发挥了作用，应该关注哪些方面呢？首先，要观察存储使用量是否增长到足以抵消补贴的程度，因为补贴可以吸引用户尝试，但无法培养用户习惯。其次，要观察质押参与度是否稳定，因为该系统旨在奖励随着网络发展而保持耐心的用户，而不是为了追求早期收益。最后，要观察治理和惩罚机制的设计是否能在保持高性能的同时，避免吓跑诚实的运营商。 同时，要关注市场基本要素，例如流动性、流通供应量和波动性，因为即使是设计精良的实用型代币，在避险情绪高涨的环境下也可能表现不佳。

如果您想深入了解，请阅读 Walrus 对 WAL 支付设计、质押安全模型、补贴和计划销毁机制的描述，然后将这些机制与您实际观察到的情况进行对比：使用情况、质押分布，以及在人们不再关注新闻头条时，网络是否仍能保持可用性。请将 WAL 视为其本质——一种与基于时间的服务挂钩的代币。将其视为风险资产进行管理，并根据风险资产规模进行合理配置，不要将短期价格波动与长期产品留存率混淆。真正能够长久存在的代币，是在热度消退之后，仍然能够继续在用户的工作流程中占据一席之地。

WAL 是维系该系统运转的代币。它奖励用户参与，支持治理，并确保存储提供商有理由保持可靠性。重要的不是代币本身，而是控制权的转移。 当存储不再集中化时，审查就不再那么简单了。而这正是 Walrus 悄然构建的核心理念。Walrus：当存储不再是控制手段

互联网上的大部分权力并非来自金钱或代码，而是来自存储。谁控制了服务器，谁就控制了哪些内容可见、哪些内容消失以及哪些内容被悄悄限制。这就是为什么审查通常首先针对数据，而不是交易。

Walrus 的设计理念就是打破这种模式。Walrus 协议并非将文件集中存储在一个位置，而是将大数据分散在 Sui 上的去中心化网络中。这样一来，就不存在需要施压的单一服务器、需要发送邮件的单一公司，或者需要关闭的单一开关。即使某些节点发生故障或停止运行，数据也不会消失，仍然可以被重建。

对于交易者和投资者而言，将 WAL 理解为三个相互关联的流程会很有帮助。首先，WAL 是由存储使用量驱动的需求，因为存储费用以 WAL 支付。其次，WAL 通过委托质押发挥着安全作用，代币持有者可以质押给存储节点，节点之间竞争以吸引质押，而奖励则取决于节点的行为和表现。 第三，WAL 是一种治理杠杆，用于通过与权益挂钩的投票来调整系统参数和惩罚设置。@Walrus 🦭/acc l #walrus $WAL

The first time a market truly punishes a mistake, you learn what “privacy” and “compliance” actually mean. Privacy is not a slogan, it is the difference between keeping a position quiet and advertising it to competitors. Compliance is not paperwork, it is the difference between an asset being tradable at scale or being quarantined by exchanges, custodians, and regulators. Traders feel this in spreads and liquidity. Investors feel it in whether a product survives beyond a narrative cycle. Put those two realities side by side and you get a simple question: can a public blockchain preserve confidentiality without becoming unusable in regulated finance?
Dusk is built around that question. It positions itself as a privacy focused Layer 1 aimed at financial use cases where selective disclosure matters, meaning transactions can stay confidential while still producing proofs that rules were followed when oversight is required. The project describes this as bringing privacy and compliance together through zero knowledge proofs and a compliance framework often referenced as Zero Knowledge Compliance, where participants can prove they meet requirements without exposing the underlying sensitive details.
For traders and investors, the practical issue is not whether zero knowledge cryptography sounds sophisticated. The issue is whether the market structure problems that keep institutions cautious are addressed. Traditional public chains make everything visible by default. That transparency can be helpful for simple spot transfers, but it becomes a liability when you are dealing with regulated assets, confidential positions, client allocations, or even routine treasury management. If every movement exposes identity, size, and counterparties, you create a map for front running, strategic imitation, and reputational risk. At the same time, if you go fully opaque, you hit a different wall: regulated entities still need to demonstrate that transfers met eligibility rules, sanctions screens, or jurisdiction constraints. Dusk’s core promise is to live in the middle, confidential by default, provable when needed.
A simple real life style example makes the trade off clear. Imagine a mid size asset manager that wants to offer a tokenized fund share to qualified investors across multiple venues. Their compliance team needs to enforce who can hold it, when it can move, and what reporting is possible during audits. Their portfolio team wants positions, rebalances, and counterparties kept confidential because that information is part of their edge. On a fully transparent chain, every rebalance becomes public intelligence. On a fully private system, distribution partners worry they cannot prove they are not facilitating prohibited transfers. In a selective disclosure model, the transfer can be validated as compliant without revealing the full identity or position size publicly, while still allowing disclosure to the right parties under the right conditions. That is the “side by side” argument in plain terms: confidentiality for market integrity, compliance for market access.
Now place that narrative next to today’s trading reality. As of January 27, 2026, DUSK is trading around $0.157 with a 24 hour range roughly between $0.152 and $0.169, depending on venue and feed timing. CoinMarketCap lists a 24 hour trading volume around the low tens of millions of USD and a market cap in the high tens of millions, with circulating supply just under 500 million tokens and a stated maximum supply of 1 billion. This is not presented as a price story. It is a liquidity and survivability context: traders care because liquidity determines execution quality, and investors care because a network’s ability to attract real usage often shows up first as durable activity, not just short bursts of attention.
This is also where the retention problem belongs in the conversation. In crypto, retention is not only “do users like the app.” It is “do serious users keep using it after the first compliance review, the first audit request, the first counterparty risk meeting, and the first time a competitor watches their moves.” Many projects lose users not because the tech fails but because the operating model breaks trust. If a chain forces institutions to choose between full exposure and full opacity adoption starts then stalls. Teams pilot quietly then stop expanding because the risk committee cannot sign off, or the trading desk refuses to telegraph strategy on a public ledger. Retention fails in slow motion.
Dusk’s bet is that privacy plus auditability is not a compromise, it is a retention strategy. If you can give participants confidential smart contracts and shielded style transfers while still enabling proof of compliance, you reduce the reasons users churn after the novelty phase. Dusk’s documentation also describes privacy preserving transactions where sender, receiver, and amount are not exposed to everyone, which aligns with the confidentiality side of that retention equation.
None of this removes normal investment risk. Execution matters. Ecosystems need real applications. Market cycles still dominate shorter horizons. And “selective disclosure” can only work if governance, tooling, and integration paths are straightforward enough for regulated players to actually use without custom engineering every time. But the thesis is coherent: regulated finance demands proof, while markets demand discretion. When a network treats both as first class requirements, it is at least addressing the right reasons projects fail to hold users.
If you trade DUSK, treat it like any other asset: respect liquidity, volatility, and venue differences, and separate market structure progress from price noise. If you invest, track evidence of retention, not slogans. Watch whether compliance oriented partners, tokenization pilots, and production integrations increase over time, and whether tooling like explorers, nodes, and developer surfaces keep improving. The call to action is simple: do not outsource your conviction to narratives. Read the project’s compliance framing, verify the on chain activity you can verify, compare market data across reputable feeds, and decide whether “compliance and confidentiality, side by side” is a durable advantage or just an attractive line.
@Dusk
@undefined k
$DUSK K
#dusk

扼杀一款 Web3 产品最快的方法，就是让用户在最初一分钟内感觉像是在参加安全考试。用户点击“开始”，期待获得良好的体验，结果却看到钱包安装提示、助记词警告、网络切换、他们无法理解的 Gas 费，以及看似不可逆转的交易授权。大多数人不会怒而放弃，他们只会关闭标签页。交易员通常称之为“糟糕的用户体验”，但投资者应该将其视为用户流失的隐患，而且这种流失会随着时间的推移而加剧。

这就是 Web3 的登录难题，而它真正的问题不在于登录本身，而在于要求新用户在感受到任何价值之前就承担操作风险。传统应用会先让用户探索，然后再赢得信任。而许多 Web3 流程却颠倒了这一顺序。《The Block》最近清晰地描述了这种动态：用户在还没弄明白产品用途之前，就被迫做出高风险的选择，例如保护助记词、选择网络以及了解费用。当这种情况发生时，获客成本就变成了一次性的好奇心，而不是用户群。 这就是用户留存问题，它会悄然显现，表现为用户活跃度下降、转化率低以及收入不稳定。

Vanar 在这方面处于一个有趣的位置，因为它瞄准的是主流用户行为至关重要的领域：娱乐体验和“感觉像 Web2 的 Web3”，同时还将自身定位为面向人工智能的基础设施。在 Virtua 的网站上，其即将推出的市场被描述为基于 Vanar 区块链构建，重点在于面向用户的收藏品和市场体验，而非区块链知识。Vanar 的官方定位倾向于构建支持智能应用的基础设施。但这些方向只有在用户不再觉得注册流程繁琐的情况下才能奏效。

令人不安的是：Vanar 的文档也反映了用户在 EVM 式生态系统中普遍面临的摩擦。如果用户必须先将 Vanar 添加为网络到 MetaMask 等 EVM 钱包才能进行任何其他操作，那么该项目就继承了其他 Web3 项目正在努力克服的早期用户流失模式。这并非批评，而是大多数加密产品目前运行的基本现实。 对于投资者而言，仅仅提供基准数据是不够的。关键在于，对于大多数用户来说，整个生态系统能否绕过这个基准数据。

Vanar 更重要的信号在于，它明确地记录了如何利用账户抽象来降低用户注册的门槛。在其“Connect Wallet”开发者文档中，Vanar 描述了如何使用 ERC 4337 风格的账户抽象，以便项目可以代表用户部署钱包，抽象化私钥和助记词，并启用传统的身份验证方式，例如社交登录或用户名和密码。这并非营销话术，而是直接承认 Web3 登录（就大多数人的体验而言）会严重影响转化率。如果基于 Vanar 的应用程序能够很好地实现这一点，用户就可以使用熟悉的身份信息，首先体验价值，之后才会意识到自己拥有一个钱包。

这一方向与更广泛的行业趋势相符。嵌入式钱包结合社交登录功能正日益成为面向消费者的默认注册方式，因为它们消除了“先安装钱包”的要求，并能消除新用户对助记词的焦虑。 Alchemy 还指出，嵌入式钱包的交易量在一个月内就达到了数千万笔交易和数十亿美元的交易额，这凸显了这种转变的规模。这一点至关重要，因为它表明，当用户觉得加密货币交易流程正常化时，他们就会接受加密货币交易。这对投资者的启示显而易见：市场奖励的是那些像消费级软件一样运作的交易流程，而不是像协议教程一样的流程。现在，请将市场数据放在它应有的位置：作为背景信息，而非故事本身。截至今日，Vanar Chain 的代币交易价格约为 0.0076 美元，24 小时交易量约为 400 万美元，据报道其市值在数百万美元左右，具体数值取决于数据来源和时间。你可以整天分析这张图表，但更持久的驱动因素是，基于 Vanar 的应用能否在不强迫用户成为钱包专家的情况下，持续地将陌生人转化为回头客。如果用户注册流程存在漏洞，流动性事件和公告或许能吸引关注，但关注度不会累积，留存率才能。
一个简单的现实案例可以解释这一机制。想象一下，一位普通买家想要购买与游戏或品牌活动相关的数字收藏品。他点击链接，看到“连接钱包”的提示，却发现自己没有钱包。他安装了一个扩展程序，收到助记词警告，然后被要求切换网络并购买少量 gas 费用。此时，他根本无暇顾及收藏品本身，而是在想：“如果我犯了一个错误，是不是就永远损失了这笔钱？” 这种情绪转变正是用户流失的转折点。即使他们完成了注册，许多人也不会再回来，因为第一次体验带来的不是愉悦而是紧张。产品并非惨遭失败，而是未能营造出舒适的体验。
那么，交易者和投资者应该如何应对呢？应该将用户引导视为尽职调查的一部分，而不是设计细节。如果您正在评估 Vanar 或任何基于其构建的 Web3 产品，请务必在全新的浏览器配置文件上亲自测试首次体验。仔细计算从登录页面到用户获得第一个有意义的结果所需的步骤。询问 gas 是否由商家赞助，或者用户是否必须付费才能感受到价值。关注嵌入式钱包或账户抽象的实现，而不仅仅是提及。然后，要关注用户上线后的情况。用户留存问题通常出现在钱包连接之后，此时用户看到的是一个空荡荡的仪表盘，没有引导式的“零点成功”，也没有理由再次访问。这就是用户悄然流失的根源。
如果 Vanar 的生态系统能够成功，那并非仅仅因为区块链的存在。 原因在于 Vanar 优化了激励机制和工具，让开发者能够让用户感觉不到登录的便捷，让用户立即获得体验，并让用户自然而然地再次访问。如果您正围绕这一主题进行投资，请不要只问“技术是否可靠？”，而应该问“用户第一分钟能否建立信任？第二周能否养成使用习惯？”在进行交易之前，先进行这样的测试，并在投资之前要求获得这些问题的答案。
#vanar $VANRY @Vanarchain