Cas Abbé

I’ve been in this space long enough to know that whenever crypto starts moving, the fear‑mongering begins. Certainly some panic is warranted, however, the larger part is racket and intended to frighten new entrants and to discredit the builders. I have been hearing the same arguments all over again lately; Binance has a stablecoin; the DOJ lawsuit was fraudulent; AI bots say Binance is bankrupt; why is it not giving to charity? I am fed up with half-truth and blatant lies of panderers and perennial popularizers.

I find it interesting how some people pretend this is all organic concern, while at the same time influencers are being approached with real money to push fear for an entire month. Let’s be honest when someone is offered $25,000 just to spread FUD, that’s not activism, that’s marketing. And while some are busy negotiating briefcases, Binance is reporting 300 million users globally, processing $34 trillion in trading volume in 2025 alone, maintaining over $162.8 billion in proof-of-reserves, and helping prevent $6.69 billion in fraud while protecting 5.4 million users. If you need paid noise to compete with those numbers, maybe the problem isn’t Binance maybe the problem is that infrastructure beats influence every single time.
A Man Sold His Apartment. So What?
Among the most absurd slurs, there is the argument that CZ sold his apartment to purchase Bitcoin. People re-share an interview in which he was interviewed many years ago and gasp with horror as though he mortgaged the future of Binance. He didn’t. He just applied his own money and his capacity to take risks. In my case, this narrative is a demonstration of belief, rather than a warning sign. When you really believe in paradigm shift, you put skin on the game. CZ made a bet on himself that it was all right to lose everything. That is not even misappropriation of customer money. This is contrasted with other personalities in the industry, who were playing with the deposits of users, there is a sharp contrast that justifies the reason as to why some are jailed up to 30 years and CZ served just four months and continued with his life.
This is the Guilty Plea that Everybody Loves to Misread.
It is time to discuss the elephant in the room the settlement of the U.S. Department of Justice in 2023. The critics scream criminal, fraud and scammer, like Binance stole the coins of the users. The charges were actually failure to adopt an effective anti-money-laundering program and failure to be registered as a money transmitter. Different and severe mistakes in compliance, yes, however, the DOJ did not charge CZ or Binance with embezzling the funds of customers. The result: Binance was fined 4.3billion, and CZ was fined 50 million criminal money. He stepped down as the CEO and took responsibility and was not conducting a fraudulent exchange. The prosecutor admitted that he is not implying that Mr. Zhao is Sam Bankman-Fried, or that he is a monster. Concisely, non-compliance is not equivalent to stealing money by users.
Others attempt to use the pardon of Trump as a weapon and argue that it erases wrong or is an indicator of a dirty deal. It is just a matter of fact that in October of 2025, President Trump handed over a full and unconditional pardon. At this time CZ had already been released and fined. He is not a fugitive shareholder living on a yacht. In my opinion, the pardon is a political gesture, and not an exoneration. It does not alter anything regarding the daily affairs of Binance-regulatory compliance remains an issue and the new CEO, Richard Teng, remains in charge of the ship.
We Still Means Something
The fact that many people become agitated about CZ using we in his posts is surprising. How can he say we about Binance, having resigned? This is a man who is a founder of the company, he still has a big share and is interested in the success of the company. By we, he means the fellowship of the builders, the users and the shareholders who have the common mission. I no longer do my projects day-to-day, but still, I employ we when making references to them. It is a sense of pride and ownership. When that fires you, have you ever made anything worthy of a defense?
Stablecoins and the 87 Percent Myth.
A report by Forbes is the most consistent FUD and suggests that wallets that are linked to Binance contain approximately 87 percent of the supply of the USD1 stablecoins. 87 per cent is worrisome on its own but the report indicates that Binance holds a share in the form of about 4.7 billion USD1 of the total amount of 5.4 billion supplied by USD1.
It also points out that it is not exceptional to have stablecoin concentration on one venue, Ethena is 77.48 on its own site, USDe, and Sky Dollar is 55.78 on Sky. Satoshi Club and other people mentioned that these tokens are possessed by users and not Binance. According to CZ himself, looking at the holdings in centralized exchanges across the board in stablecoins, Binance has a total share of approximately 60-70 percent. Meaning, USD1 concentration just represents users depositing their stablecoins on the most liquid exchange; no cabal is involved.

An Associated Cost: Systemic Risk?

It is said that this concentration is systemic risk. That claim ignores facts. The evidence of reserves program at Binance demonstrates that all user deposits raise reserves at the same rate. The assets are subjected to 1:1 holding, no corporate debt, and an emergency Secure Asset Fund for Users (SAFU) is provided as a backstop. According to independent on-chain analysts AMBCrypto, the reserves of Bitcoin at Binance were approximately 650,000 BTC in February 2026, or less than a decade after such a small volume could be speculated about across social media. The netflow data demonstrated the regular inflows and outflows, and there were no signs of the rush to self-custody. Those figures are no bank run, they are just standard trading.

Orchestrated FUD?  You Bet

Individuals tend to say that the worries about Binance are grassroots only and that they would have to be authentic. Research disagrees. In February 2026, a report found a smear campaign against Binance organised by AI. Co-founder He Yi has indicated that the FUD wave was meant to turn active traders into sellers and long-term holders into discouraged traders. She used a fall in the Fear and Greed Index to the single digits to indicate that negativity was not formed on the fundamentals. The report implicated that the increase in the fear was not just spontaneous but an organized effort to work with the psychology. Although other people refer to this paranoia, every person in trading markets will understand that some stories are always used to push prices. To me this recognition of this coordination is realistic rather than conspiratorial.

Fraud, scam, Ponzi? Hardly.
The least irritating FUD line is the comparison of Binance to collapsed exchanges such as FTX. The DoJ case has been turned into a stick to assert similarity. It is necessary to be straightforward FTX failed as the executives embezzled the billions of deposits of its customers. The Binance problem was related to compliance and not the misuse of customer funds. This is unjustified and false.
The Binance annual report of 2025 provides figures that FUD bunnies can easily overlook. By 2025 Binance will have achieved a trading volume of $34 trillion in total on all products and will have expanded its spot offering to 490 coins, as well as 1,889 trading pairs. The separate surveys established that Binance processed between a quarter and close to fifty percent of all Bitcoin and Ethereum dealings. The books are due to the fact that the world trusts the platform to be liquid, rather than a cult. Notably, the report mentions that the direct exposure of Binance to illicit money was reduced by 96 per cent since 2023. The exchange prevented over 5.4 million users, answering more than 71,000 law-enforcement inquiries and aiding in the capture of 131M in criminal activity, in 2025 alone, the exchange halted potential 6.69 billion dollars in fraud losses. That is how a compliance oriented company acts and not a company that conceals skeletons.
In Binance 2025 proof-of-reserves, it was announced that it had a user balance of 162.8 billion in 45 assets, which was 32 percent more than it was previously. Such reserves are maintained due to the fact that users hold their assets in the exchange. In case people were panicking, those balances would drop, rather than increase. Facts still trump rumors.
SAFU Fund and the Bitcoin Conversion.
Criticizers of Binance note that Binance has a reported 1-billion emergency fund that it converted to Bitcoin and question, What happens when Bitcoin crashes in an emergency? Secure Asset Fund for Users In 2018, the Secure Asset Fund for Users was launched, which keeps approximately a billion dollars, and is invested in cold storage obtained through the fees of the trade. It is an actual insurance pool rather than a marketing slogan. Early in 2026, Binance had resolved to move a portion of the capital off stablecoins and into Bitcoin, which is an open bet on the asset that pegs the crypto market. Binance declared that it would purchase approximately 33 million dollars of Bitcoin every day over the course of approximately 1 month which amounts to approximately 11,900 BTC. It further promised to inject additional funds into the fund in case of market fluctuations reduced its worth to less than 800m dollars. The wallet address is visible, it is public. This is what transparency appears to be.
Charity Isn’t Just PR
In the event of stalling in criticism, the detractors turn to virtue signalling: Where’s the giving back? The answer is everywhere. The Binance Charity Foundation was founded in 2018 and it is incorporated in the United States and Malta as a tax-exempt entity. By the Q1 of 2025, it has donated more than 40m since its inception, benefiting an approximation of 3.8m people. CZ also introduced a self-sovereign charity system, czcharity.com, with no fees of administration and end-to-end on-chain tracking. This implies that all the money donated can be tracked and it reaches beneficiaries.
How would that appear down on the ground? The platform restored ten community food stations in Sudan. They have currently 12,000 hot meals per day, and offer monthly food packages to 6,340 households. In Kenya, the orphanage was a charity partner of CZ who provided 104,755 doses of anti-HIV medicine. This has reduced viral loads of the children to zero levels. The foundation established seven medical points along the Thailand-Myanmar border which was staffed by 23 professionals. They conducted significant surgeries and health care services to close to 19,000 refugees. The charity does not only react to crises. It is also a long-term investor.
CZ gave approximately 10m BNB as a donation to open-source biotechnology. He established a 2 million permanent education fund on behalf of children of American soldiers and airdropped 1000 BNB personally in an earthquake relief program where up to 1.5 million dollars were distributed to users which were affected. These are not tweets but actual deeds.

In case those numbers are not sufficient, look at smaller stories. CZ himself financed operation on cardiac patients and extremely disfigured jaws. In 2024, when he had completed his term, his charity organization said that its projects helped more than 69,360 individuals in Sudan, Kenya, Thailand, and Myanmar. They aren’t PR stunts those are lives altered. Honestly, I would prefer that the executives invest their millions of dollars in surgery and food initiatives rather than invest in super-PAC.

The Power of Community, Liquidity and Volume.

It is no wonder that FUD campaigns continue returning to Binance: it is the largest player in the room. Having 300 million registered users and trading up to 34 trillion by 2025, Binance will still be the liquidity provider to the crypto market. According to studies, Binance processed up to half of all Bitcoin and Ethereum transactions in the global market during times of stress. Such liquidity is appealing to the traders and poses threat to competitors. All the trolls screaming toward the bank to run want to hope that in case enough people believe this, the liquidity will move to the exchange of their choice. On-chain evidence however does not reflect this: reserves of Bitcoin remain within their usual range, and netflows are standard. Users are not actually purchasing the FUD.
The community is stronger than a trading community. According to Binance 2025 report, the Alpha 2.0 platform obtained 17m users and achieved more than 1trillion volume. It rewarded 782,000,000 and prevented 270,000 attempts of participation by fraudsters. These figures show how innovation and security may co-exist. Trading volumes increased 21 per cent and over-the-counter fiat trading increased 210 per cent in the institutional arena. These are not the measures of a platform that is dying.

And finally, FUD is a success factor. No one is bothered to create fear regarding irrelevant projects. When you move 34 trillion dollars of volume, cut exposure to illicit funds by 96 percent, save 5.4 million users $6.69 billion of fraud and give tens of millions to charity, you are a target. The boundaries between healthy skepticism and wicked gossip are shallow and most walk across them to gain power or even wealth. I have a simple method of this; I read the data, and I disregard the noise.
Whenever a coordinated smear occurs, I enquire about whether the numbers coincide with the narration. Do withdrawals spike? Do reserves fall? Is there a collapse in trading volume? The first response has been a resounding no. I would rather view it as an investment by a company in compliance, developing new products, assisting regulators, and returning to communities. As soon as critics stick up their noses with a man who is selling his apartment or is abusing the term criminal, I see an element of desperation and not hard work.
Keep your money and your eyes open then yes. However, keep in mind that FUD usually speaks more of the origin than of the object of the fear. Binance and CZ are storm resistant and emerge stronger after each storm. They will repeat the same thing, as history tells us, and we shall be here trading, building, and laughing at the trolls.

The pattern followed by most new blockchains in the layer-one model is to raise substantial amounts of capital, aggressively market, ship subsequently, and hope that liquidity and hype keep it alive in the tumultuous initial months. Fogo was different when it decided to take the more difficult way. It embraced a community-first distribution strategy based on Flames and early involvement and maintained the sale component small. That choice is significant as the chain based on trading requires more than people; it requires constructors, liquidity providers, and individuals to actually test the network.

In this article, I will do a bare statement; distribution is product design. When you get distribution wrong, you fail to create a network, you simply create a chart.

The thesis: unsafe at any rate, market infrastructure cannot be made by using sell-pressure schedules.

Fogo also seeks to be a layer-one, high-performance, single-validated-message (SVM) layer-one that is already a high bar technically. However, there is a second hurdle that is equally challenging making a believable token economy in which early adoption is not controlled by one short-term action dumping.
When your first year is largely spent in opening the doors of Calendars, your chain is a marketplace of exits, rather than a marketplace of trades. That is why I concentrate on the way in which teams organize the initial ownership: who gets the tokens and when and why.
The purpose of the tokenomics write-up by Fogo is quite clear: valuable distribution to community airdrops and community ownership, and big buckets such as core contributors are locked up under long vesting curves.
The reason why Flames is more important than airdrops as a concept.

Airdrops are not difficult to promote, but not easy to do properly. It is not about giving out tokens, it is about whom to give them to.

The appeal of Fogo Flames program is that it is structured in the form of participation loop: it rewards people who actually attended early: use testnet, participate in the ecosystem, bridge activity, and other quantifiable behavior.

I do not merely read it and see that there are marketing points. I observe a team that is attempting to divide two groups:

- One group wants a token event.

- There is a group of people who want to develop and trade on a rapid chain.

The second group is more needed by a trading-first layer-one than the first one.

The underestimated indicator: Fogo was ready to cancel a presale.

Later in 2025 coverage, several outlets reported that Fogo eliminated an intended presale and transitioned its focus to community distribution via Flames and similar initiatives.

You love or hate token sales, but calling off one sends a strong message since it is the very reverse of the least path to an easy fund-raising. It also helps in diminishing I bought first, I sell first dynamism that can prevail during a launch.

To me, the point isn’t moral. It is mechanical: a market place cannot begin its existence as a liquidation event.

The term small sale can only have a sense when it is also small and well identified.

The official tokenomics listing on Fogo has a Binance Prime Sale (2%) and defines other buckets such as Community Airdrop (6%).

This matters for two reasons.

First, it creates a distinct boundary on what was sold, rather than allowing the strategic allocations to later expand into something bigger.

Second, it renders the story decipherable. When you are trusting, it has a characteristic of clarity: people can see what has taken place and what has not taken place.

Another form of community ownership is community ownership that is locked.

I like one aspect of the structure: not all of their own community ownership is liquid cash. The Echo fundraising allocation, as an example, is said to be locked at TGE and has a longer unlock schedule.

That forms an alternative set of behavior. The ones who purchased using community channels but are locked are more of long-term stakeholders than short-term sellers. That would suit a chain that would like to be infrastructure, since infrastructure must have patient capital--in particular, early.

The additional value of distribution to a trading-first chain.

When you are creating a chain of apps, sometimes you can get away with a sloppy first year. However, when you are constructing a chain to markets, say order books, liquidations, real time risk systems, your reputation has been determined in the first few months.
Markets are concerned with dependability, availability, and stability. A token economy which generates perpetual sell and disorderly liquidity may leak into the perception of the chain.
And therefore when Fogo writes performance, I do not simply interpret it as engineering. I interpreted it as a stack level objective: chain performance and ecosystem behavior performance.
The Flames -Ownership loop is actually a coordination mechanism.
The most effective incentive programs do not simply pay individuals, they organize individuals.
Any good points program accomplishes three things:
1. It arouses action in a foregoing manner--people arrive early.
2. It concentrates on the right actions - testing, building, liquidity.
3. It forms a social identity in which participants are made to feel like stakeholders.
The Flame system The Flame framework, which are converted into tokens based on milestones on main-net, is a system of coordination: do the work early, own later.
That precisely is how you want to bootstrap a chain which is meant to be traded. You must be actually used before being on stage, not on.
What is profounder is that distribution defines the building.
This is a perspective that is not talked about because enough: token distribution does not only have an impact on price, it also defines product preferences.
Without the presence of early tokens becoming widely held, the results of hype cycles will be pursued by builders. When builders and operators have early tokens in their possession, the builders will aim at uptime, tooling, and real flows- since that is exactly what the token-holders require in order to win.
The strategies of Fogo encourage early involvement, which pour valuable sums into community buckets, and lock a few sizeable sums. This pushes the ecosystem towards being driven to operate the chain instead of trading the narrative.
The next thing I will observe is whether the incentives will cause good habits.
I have hope that everything is heading in the right direction; I am not naive about the risk. Farmers can be attracted to any points program. Mercenaries can be attracted through any airdrop. The true test is what is after launch: will those who participated remain and develop or will they fade away?
It is not possible to know only by looking at tweets. Look instead at whether:
1- Apps keep shipping.
Liquidity continues to come where it is required.
2- Rewards do not result in users returning to a product, just in case they have a better UX.
When Fogo is able to transform early participation in Flames to long-term operator behavior, distribution ceases to be a launch strategy, but it turns into culture.
The conclusion: I put more trust to the chain that will not go to easy hype rather it chooses hard alignment.
The performance thesis of Fogo is already grandiose. The thing that made me take more notice is its readiness to make distribution of tokens a product attribute: match those who test, construct, and utilize, and then restrict the section that is merely bought to sell.
Well, that is not an assurance of excellence. Nothing does.
However, it is the type of decision that provides a trading-first L1 its genuine opportunity to be more than just a rarity in crypto: a market infrastructure that does not begin by cannibalizing itself.
#fogo $FOGO @fogo

The majority of Layer-1 tokens are affected by the same issue: they are commodity-constructed, but sold as businesses. Individuals say that there are users of a chain, but the token is hardly going to capture it unless the network is in its full capacity. The worst business model you could think of is congestion, it is like a product only generates money when it malfunctions.

Vanar is secretly after another model. It bills intelligence through a similar model as cloud platforms bill API calls but not blockspace or even gas, but high-value actions like memory, verification, and reasoning. That transforms the chain into a service which has quantifiable outputs, a more advanced thesis than most crypto narratives.

Vanar still has set transaction charges to build on. A second level of monetization is the actual long-term change: metered intelligence.

The Cause of the Gas Fees (not) being reflected on Real Business Value

The gas model does not make a good proxy of value creation. Some really valuable action taken by a user may attract the same charge as any user who spams nonsense. In most networks, charges only increase when the demand peaks, and this links revenue to turmoil and suffering to users.

According to the documents by Vanar, fixed fees are presented as a stabilizing factor - predictability of costs to users and projects. That is helpful, however, that does not answer the larger token question, how is the token capture value when the chain is operating well?

The response to this query by Vanar is very straightforward: gas to move, VANRY to know. As you add some advanced Neutron and Kayon capabilities, including storing meaning, querying structured memory, implementing compliance logic, you pay in the same way that a company can buy more advanced cloud capabilities.

The Real meaning of Metering Intelligence.

Metering intelligence is not a poetical notion, it is converting AI-native functionality into quantifiable, invoicable units.

Vanar restructures data into programmable Seeds placed in a layer known as Neutron as a semantic compression layer. The Neutron page explains how to compress large files into smaller and verifiable Seed objects created to fit agents and applications. This transforms data at one end of the chain, that which is a blob somewhere, into something which is workable by the chain.

Kayon is the reasoning layer - natural-language intelligence and logic having the capability of query, and validating such Seeds.

The metering section: disclosures of new ecosystems write-ups and Vanar conformist stories tell of a transition towards a subscription format that is paid in VANRY beginning in Q1/Q2 2026. This transforms VANRY into a less specificational chip into a payment rail to use in terms of higher order.
Thesis Why This Is a Better Token Thesis than More TVL?
TVL is regarded as a scoreboard in most crypto. But TVL is not a business model that is a record of capital sitting somewhere. There must be a recurring need of utility in a network, something that must occur regardless of whether the market is either green or red.
A subscription or usage-based model accomplishes two things.

Firstly, it reduces the reliance of demand to hype cycles. When a firm relies on the chain reasoning layer to do document processing, prove verification or compliance checks a company does not stop simply because the token price went down. Work flows remain attached to demand.

Second, it provides builders with a clean sheet: “Assuming that your product uses intelligence capabilities, that price is foreseeable. The design of fixed fee by Vanar already attempts to simplify cost projection. Metered intelligence goes beyond transactions to the transactions layer of AI.

Neutron Not storage, but structured proof.

I have witnessed storage stories fail many times in crypto since storage is not the reward. The prize is usable proof.

Vanar is aggressive in the placement of its Neutrons: it is not store files but restructure files into programmable Seeds. The central argument is that of semantic compression which keeps the meaning intact, not merely the bytes and thus an AI agent can query a Seed without having to recreate the original file.

It is not whether all the marketing numbers work or not, it is the direction, to change the slogan to move a hash point to file to Seed behaves like proof.

That is what makes it possible to meter. You can meter store a blob, but that is low value and is easily commodifiable. You can at a meter create a verifiable, queryable proof object and you are suddenly in one of the premium levels that can be translated to real business value.

Kayon As the Revenue Surface: The Place That Businesses Touch the Value.

The majority of chain cassettes monetize on the ground floor and then hope that everything will be fine. The opposite is alluded to in Vanar model: the reasoning layer turns into the revenue surface.

According to documentation and product pages published by Kayon, it is capable of connecting with the common platforms and handling natural-language queries to generate actionable insights. In simple terms: in case a blockchain can serve as a trusted work brain, reading structured data and responding to questions, users will pay money to it just like they pay money to analytics, security, or automation software.

In my opinion, Vanar is moving into a new market programmable compliance and verification as a service, which is priced in VANRY, rather than hidden in volatile gas pricing.

In case that comes off mainstream SaaS, it is not without purpose. Crypto will evolve into a fastest-growing business by acquiring business models that are easy to copy in the non-crypto world.

The Real Moat: Predictability + Metering = Budget-able Automation.

AI agents need something more than cheap transactions, they need foreseeable budgets. Millions of micro actions may be performed by a machine only in the case when the system on which it is based permits such planning to be performed.

The fixed-fee scheme by Vanar levels the transaction costs and also cuts the anarchic nature of the gas market which is about to ruin automation. Superimposing metered intelligence over the base operations produces a model that reminds of cloud computing: you have an idea of the price of base operations and the price of premium intelligence operations.

One possible path to sustained 24/7 automation that never turns into an accounting nightmare is to combine unpredictable base charges with billable intelligence.

The subscription transition is important since it demonstrates that Vanar is not just a blockchain-only beginner; it is an infrastructure provider.

The Hazard: Metering Should Remain Truthful and Serviceable.

I have hope and I am pragmatic: only a transparent and fair metering can be successful. When the intelligence layer becomes cloudy, developers will not believe it. They will not make budgets in case the pricing appears arbitrary. When the usage data is difficult to draw, the users are afraid of overcharging. This model is only effective when cloud billing is measured: demonstrate what was consumed, the precise price as well the value delivered.
The competitive advantage of vanar is that it focuses on predictability through the use of fixed fees and organized objects called Seeds, which naturally facilitate better accounting.
The actual test is implementation, i.e., transforming the promise of AI-native beyond a story to a system that is reliable to the developers every month.

Conclusion: Turning Utility into a Habit, Not a Hype Cycle is the Best Bet Vanar Can Make.

Removing the verbiage, the main point is straightforward: Vanar does not want VANRY to seem more like a speculative resource but rather more like a usage key, a system that opens the door and charges people to access intelligence the same way business charges people to access cloud infrastructure.

Fixed fees address chaos. Neutron Seeds address proof problems. Kayon deals with problematic issues. The subscription model addresses the problem of token value capture by basing demand on recurrent use and not congestion or hype.

This is a good story, it is not futuristic but real-life. When Vanar will be able to make metered intelligence the same type of activity as paying API calls then attention chasing will not be required; usage will spur growth in compounds.

#Vanar @Vanarchain
$VANRY

Looking at why certain chains silently build up and others yell, I always eventually go back to a single un-glamorous fact: metadata propagation, rather than TVL, trending hashtags, and media buzz, are what the process of adoption is often initiated by. It begins by making a chain ubiquitous now that developers are working everywhere - in wallets, SDKs, and infra tools.

Chain Registries Chain Registries are the EVM Adoption DNS.

I envision chain registries such as the crypto DNS. Once a chain is accessible with the right Chain ID and RPC endpoints as well as an explorer link and native currency information established, it can be accessible to the entire ecosystem.

Vanar has constant identities on major registries. Chain ID 2040 is the mainnet with active status and VANRY token and its official explorer. Vanguard, the testnet, has its Chain ID 78600, explorer and RPC list.

This is important since developers do not want to rely on a PDF to do network settings. They would like the automatic access to the settings wherever the other chains are already in use.

Add Network is not a Convenience feature it is a Distribution Channel.

The majority of individuals think that the network addition to MetaMask is only a user-experience process, but I consider it an acquisition channel.

The process of wallet-onboarding is expressly documented by Vanar: just add the network to an EVM wallet and you can now use the mainnet or the testnet. The same simplicity slices off a big dead-end - the point at which developers need to enter settings manually and choose which RPC to use, and hope that they have not pasted an evil URL.

The network information is shown as a developer product - one reference page that is supposed to be looked into when developing or integrating. It carries the message of we would want you to ship but not to read.

thirdweb Listing Makes Chains Plug and Play Infrastructure.

As of 2026, the distribution will not be restricted to wallet lists, deployment platforms are also a significant factor.

A chain deployed on thirdweb comes with a complete set of developer workflows: deployment flows, templates, dashboards and RPC routing. The thirdweb chain page dedicated to Vanar presents the Chain ID of 2040, native token details, which is a default thirdweb RPC endpoint, the explorer address.

That is important as it transforms the behavior of builders. They need no longer make decisions on whether to make Vanar a special project; they can just treat it as any other EVM chain that is already within their tool-kit. That puts the chain out of a niche subject into a casually shipable chain by the developers.

The idea of the wider chainlist as espoused by thirdweb further confirms the fact that the contemporary EVM development is registry based. Chains are made to be a choice in the tooling uncertainty, and they are no longer bespoke integrations.

The details of the mainnet and Vanguard testnet can be found in the documentation provided by Vanar. It releases all the requirements to communicate with either of the networks.

Similar key information, Chain ID 2040 and RPC URLs are echoed by independent network-setups that enforce the metadata uniformity across the internet.

That echo matters. The more locations we display network data, the less there are places of failure in the learning process of connection. It also minimizes chances of users being victims of counterfeit RPC links since they are able to cross-verify settings.

How Chains Earn Builder Time It is testnet Presence.

A chain receives adoption by gaining developer time. The biggest part of that time is dedicated to testnets by developers.
The publicly listed Vanguard testnet by Vanar has Chain ID 78600, explorer, and RPC. This allows teams to do serious work such as simulate, break things without harm and iterate.
This matters since the story of Vanar is dealing with the topic of never-ending applications, business processes, and agents, permanently interacting. Those systems require a series of test cycles, thus the testnet is not a check box view but the runway where the actual apps are developed.
Operator Documentation: The Lost Half of Growing an Ecosystem.
Ecosystems do not just scale developers, there is scaling of the network by operators.
As a network gets larger, you require additional providers of RPC, additional indexers, additional monitoring, and additional redundancy. It is infrastructure growth and not community growth.
Vanar consists of RPC node configuration notes, and frames these nodes as necessary components of network communication and interaction. This implicitly welcomes a second generation of participants, infra teams not creating dApps but serving builders.
The Distribution Thesis: The Compounds of Adoption When the Support Becomes Default.

This is the mental model that I have now regarding Vanar.

Vanar performs much of these boring operations in front of people and that is why I consider its distribution so seriously. Chain ID registries verify the core identity (2040 mainnet). It is made visible to other EVM chains through tooling platforms and thus it is not exotically foreign. The formal documentation is made like a product which requires builders to hurry.

The Importance of This More than any Single Feature

Features fade fast. Economies of distribution are lasting.
A new VM feature can be copied. A novel story can be tested out of the market.
However, a chain integrating into the routine of developers and infra teams forms a moat, which is difficult to duplicate. It is not a single integration, but it is hundreds of little this just works.
As soon as it becomes easy to try, adoption is a numbers game - a compounding game.
#Vanar $VANRY @Vanar

The latency appeared to be the apparent emphasis when I first ventured into Fogo. Sub-100ms consensus, SVM conformity, and Firedancer roots are all exciting to traders. However once I had fallen into the documentation, it was not the speed that made me change my perception of Fogo, but a product building block: Sessions.

Should you wish on-chain trading to have the feel of a traditional trading floor, half of it is speed. The other side is: how could one allow the user to do anything fast without teaching them to lose the full wallet control?

Fogo makes an effort to provide the answer to this question.

The thesis: scoped delegation, and no more signatures, is the next wave of on-chain UX.

The vast majority of DeFi UX presents a tradeoff: you either sign transaction-by-transaction, which is slow, irritating, prone to errors, or you give blanket permissions which are difficult to control, particularly in the case of new users. Fogo Sessions provides a moderate solution: a user grants a session once and an application can perform actions within a constrained time and scope that are pre-approved with no signature being requested at each stage.

That would be easy to say, yet it is a huge change of thinking. It transforms a wallet into a machine that grants approval every time it is used to one that acts as a modern application: you give it limited access, and that access is temporary.

In need of a phrase, it is speed limited.

What, in the plain words, Sessions really are.

To make a non-technical individual understand Fogo Sessions, I would tell him it is as though giving a temporary permission card to an application.

You identify once, you approve to the session and the app will be able to execute whatever you gave it permission to execute as long as you set it. You can limit the session in case you simply wish that the app engages in trade within a limited time period or within particular circumstances.

Documentation of Fogo defines Sessions as an account-abstraction model which consists of an intent message that demonstrates that you are in charge of the wallet. It’s made in a way that can allow users to make a signature on that purpose and end it using regular Solana wallets, though this wallet might not be Fogo-native.

Such a subtext is more than they think. It simply implies: meet users where they already exist, and not the wallet stack to everyone.

The reason this is a trading-native functionality, and not merely a convenient facility.

Trading is replete with numerous little actions that hurt when one asks to give them a signature.
Place an order. Modify an order. Cancel an order. Re‑quote. Switch markets. Manage margin. Rebalance. Add collateral. Withdraw dust.
You also know the experience of being an active onchain trader: instead of trading, you are clicking approvals. Centralized exchanges are pleasant to interact with, not because the custody is centralized, but because the loop of interaction is fast.
Fogo Sessions aims to maintain that instant interaction with retention in the possession of the user. Fogo positions Sessions as a Web3 single-sign-on and a means of bypassing both signatures and gas to support flows.
This is why the name I give to it is trading-native: it is designed with the idea that trading is a process, rather than a point-to-point transfer.
Limit and verification the safety element which gives Sessions credibility.

When one of the chains says no constant approvals what would follow is the question; What would prevent an app to drain me?
Here the Sessions story of Fogo is more serious. Protections that are specifically mentioned in the building on Fogo guidance include spending limits and domain verification, where users are allowed to view apps without putting the rest of their wallet at risk.
That’s an important signal. It demonstrates that Sessions are not only about speed, but also about the safety in a manner that can be understood by the ordinary users.
Due to the fact that the actual obstacles to adoption are not merely hacks; it is fear. Individuals are not eager to become specialists in security only to be able to carry out a trade.
Fewer clicks is therefore not the true victory. It is a permission model that can be put in a single sentence: “This app can do only this, only this long.
The developer angle: Sessions as a norm, not a one-off gimmick.
A lot of the crypto good UX exists in the ad hoc patterns. There is a single team that constructs a custom relayer. One of them develops a custom signer. The other one forms a hacky session system. The outcome is fragmentation, thus the user is not able to develop intuition as each app works differently.
Fogo Sessions is a provided open-source standard of app sessions, including SDKs and sample repositories to assist constructors in adhering to a standardized format.
That is a totally different approach: instead of hoping every app to come up with good UX, give an ecosystem primitive that promotes consistency.

Monotony is underestimated; it is the way the users create trust. Once each app has its strange approval story, individuals fall to the conclusion of thinking the worst.

What is the relevance of Sessions even when you are not concerned with trading?

Best stable applications: In the case of outside trading, the user does not get the impression of working with explosives.

Think of repeat activities, such as subscriptions, payroll-like payments, regular treasury operations, automated plans, alerts and triggers that cause minor activities. And in all these streams, the same thing is always to struggle with, that friction, and general approvals are terrifying.

The third door is session-based UX, which provides recurring, scoped behavior without making users into robots who click popups.

#fogo @Fogo Official
$FOGO

The majority of them discuss AI-native blockchains as something of just memory (data) and reasoning (logic). That is fact, but not the whole picture. And in case AI agents will transfer money, open positions, collect rewards, or do business without human supervision, the chain also requires something uninspiring but essential, namely identity rails which are resistant to bots, scammery, and human errors.

That is the silent issue of Web3 nowadays. As the adoption increases, you do not merely have more users but more fake users. Airdrop farms. Referral abuse. Marketplace wash activity. "One person, fifty wallets." And once the AI agents come into the picture, the attack surface is again widened: bots that appear to be agents, agents that become deceived, and bots that can be used in large numbers.
Therefore, it is not that Vanar should be interested in answering the question: can it do AI? It is: will AI-driven finance be honest enough to be of any real-world use?
The importance of bots in agent arrival case.
In applications that are operated by humans, friction tends to reduce the pace of fraud. People get tired. People make mistakes. People hesitate. Agents don't. You just leave a loophole that is profitable to a bot and the bot will pound it 50,000 times before lunch.
This is why agent rails require two characteristics simultaneously; low friction by users, and high friction by fake users. When you only make the best as fast and cheap, you end up creating the ideal playground to be used by robots. Optimizing on strict identity checks only transforms the product into a KYC form.
The ecosystem in Vanar has been shifting towards a third course; evidence of uniqueness and usability upgrades, which minimize the number of human errors, without compelling every experience to become show passport to continue.
Biomapper on Vanar: made unique without making all things KYC

The use of Humanode Biomapper c1 SDK on Vanar is one of the most tangible ones I have been exposed to. Humanode defines Biomapper as a privacy-saving, biometric-based Sybil-resistance mechanism that can be embedded into dApps--they are supposed to ensure that a user is a unique human being, and no KYC is required.
What is important to builders is, this is not merely a blog release, it also comes with a real integration guide and SDK flow, which demonstrates how a dApp can call to determine whether this wallet is linked to a unique human proof. inside Solidity.
This is important to the direction Vanar will take, as it goes directly to the type of apps Vanar continues to be drawn to: marketplaces, PayFi, the real world flows, where bots not only are disruptive of metrics but are incentive thieves and trust corruptors. Humanode goes as far as to present the use case to Vanar builders explicitly: ensuring bots are not involved in financial flows, facilitating equal access, and ensuring the ability to access tokenized assets without any form of KYC.
The name layer issue: AI Pseudonym payment is unsafe to a 0x... string.

Something more practicable, now, we will discuss. In case I require your wallet address you will send me a long hex string. When my AI agent wishes to pay your AI agent, it will encounter the same thing, except that agents will pay your AI agent more and much more quickly, and in vast amounts. That is not a UX issue, that is a risk issue.
Since errors in this case are not oops typo. They're "money gone."
This is why I believe human readable names to be a serious infrastructure primitive in the agent age. This has been orchestrated by Vanar using MetaMask Snaps the extension system that MetaMask markets in order to add new wallets.
As well as there is a given Snap available which is linked to coNFT domain name resolution that allows users to send tokens in the form of readable domain names instead of addresses of considerable length. And announcements made by Vanar community suggest the usability of human-readable names of the format of .vanar through ConftApp + MetaMask Snaps (such as george.vanar).
The marketing aside, the implication of infrastructure is high, once you are matching agents and payments, you desire identity that is simple to retrieve, difficult to imitate, and easy to counterfeit. Names help humans. They also contribute to the safe routing of value by the agents.
The way this fits into the larger real-life story of Vanar.
Many chains claim to be real-world adopted. They usually mean by this that they want partnerships. However, there exists an ugly condition in the real world adoption: systems need to be able to deal with abuse gracefully.
You can have fair gaming rewards, but you cannot do it without Sybil resistance. To trust PayFi rails, you have to have bot resistance. In order to make tokenized commerce useful, you must have identity and uniqueness assertions that do not ruin UX.
That is why I perceive the Biomapper integration + name-based wallet routing as not just the nice add-ons. It is the lack of plumbing on the AI-agent direction. In its absence, the autonomous finance becomes the autonomous exploitation. Along with it, that at least provides a plausible route to: one person = one participant, and no payments based on copy-paste chance.
An example of a useful mental model: Vanar is not merely creating AI, it is creating guardrails.

I believe that the best bet by Vanar is not attempting to win on the category of hype (fastest, cheapest, most partnerships). The further bet is the construction of guardrails that would render the use of AI believable:
Names minimize transmission of errors.
Uniqueness demonstrations decrease bot armies.
Extensibility through Snaps allows bridging the gap between Web2 UX and Web3 settlement.
And in the case of a chain with an objective of agents + commerce, they are not optional. They are what make a demo look and act like a long-lasting system.
Unless AI agents really become economic actors, we will be deciding by the chains on the basis of TPS less and on one basis only. Can you trust what happens when no-one is looking? One of the more serious answers I have encountered developing is the direction on identity-and-uniqueness, by Vanar.
#Vanar @Vanarchain
$VANRY