I keep coming back to one question: what will it feel like the first time one AI pays another AI on its own? Not a test. Not a demo. A real transaction with real value, executed without a human pressing “confirm.”
Bots already control a huge share of crypto activity. Many estimates suggest algorithmic trading makes up over 60% of total exchange volume. Machines are making most of the decisions. But when it comes to payments, they still depend on human-owned wallets, API keys, and centralized systems. The strategy may be automated, but the money layer still isn’t fully theirs.
That’s the gap VanarChain appears to be targeting. On the surface, it looks like another smart contract network with validators and gas fees. Underneath, it’s experimenting with infrastructure for persistent AI identity and programmable payments. In practical terms, that means an AI agent could hold value, run logic, and settle transactions without needing human approval each time.
Now imagine an autonomous agent executing 1,000 microtransactions a day, even if each one is worth a fraction of a cent. That only works if the network offers predictable finality and extremely low costs. Otherwise, the model collapses. Early performance claims point to sub-second confirmations and optimized storage for agent memory. Speed matters, but continuity matters just as much. An AI that forgets between transactions isn’t truly autonomous.
There are real risks, of course. If an agent makes a costly mistake, who is responsible? Who holds the private keys? Governance doesn’t sit outside the system anymore. It becomes part of the payment rail itself.
If this direction proves viable, the real competition may not be chains fighting for users. It may be chains competing for machines. And machines don’t care about branding or narratives. They care about infrastructure that works—quietly, reliably, and at scale.
