I stopped assuming that smarter agents automatically need more flexible infrastructure.
After watching enough automated systems run for long periods, I noticed the opposite pattern. The more flexible the base layer is, the more defensive logic the agent has to carry. Variable fees, shifting execution timing, probabilistic finality each one adds another condition the agent must check before and after every action.
Flexibility at the bottom becomes complexity at the top.
Most chains still optimize for adaptability. Parameters move. Costs react. Ordering shifts under load. That works fine when humans supervise execution. Someone interprets what changed and adjusts behavior. An agent cannot do that cheaply. Every moving parameter turns into more state tracking and more branching logic.
What made me pay attention to Vanar is that it leans toward constraint instead of adaptability at the settlement layer.
Execution is not treated as “try first, resolve later.” It is gated by whether outcome conditions are predictable enough. That removes a class of half-valid states that agents usually have to reason about. Fewer ambiguous states means fewer retries, fewer guards, fewer recovery branches.
It looks conservative on paper. In automation, it looks practical.
For long-running agent systems, boring infrastructure is not a weakness. It is what keeps reasoning cost from exploding over time.
