Objavi
Cas Abbé
·
--
The most viable concept of Vanar is change-management of real finance.
Lots of blockchains take pride in their immutability, and they state that it is a virtue in and of itself. As a matter of fact, though, change is not the difficult part of real finance: immutability is. Regulations change every month, risk groups change limits, the regulators change wording and what was okay yesterday may no longer be the case today. Even in one firm, the policies change due to an interchange in markets, change in patterns of fraud or the opening of a new region.
The distinctive angle does not look like the standard-type fast chain rhetoric when I look at Vanar. Vanar views a blockchain as a system that can be changed safely and will not undermine trust. That is what finance requires not flawless code but an upgradeable policy with a testable record.
The inherent issue with smart contracts is that it is too final to the operations of institutions. Cryptocurrency enthusiasts have become fond of the notion that a contract cannot be altered, yet the bank-and-mortar institutions do not operate in such a way. Banks are signing policies, which are living rules and constantly updated as the living rules. The conventional smart contracts make one make an agonizing trade-off. Any real-world change needs a redeploy; upgrading is mandatory, and the users are scared of the administration keys and secret modifications. In any case, government is slipshod.
This is why the concept of dynamic contracts is important. It is not of adding features but it is of cost of compliance being less in the long run.
Contracts that are dynamic are framed by Vanar V23 as a library of templates, rather than as a festival of rewrites. V23 presents a dynamic contract-engine which operates with an library of rule-templates and parameter-specification. This allows institutions to modify the rate of pledges, the level of risk and the compliance terms without having to re-deploy the whole contract. It transforms the meaning of upgrade: a brand-new contract is not shipped to one number, but the structure remains intact, and only the approved parameters are transferred. In normal software we differiate between code and config, what is adjustable and what is running. Vanar introduces that discipline to smart contracts. This method can even cut the costs of multi-scenario adaptation (V23 write-up) by approximately 60 percent to tokenize RWA, since you do not need to re-write everything and re-build everything when you need a new rule. What matters more is the direction: consider policy change to be a first-class feature.
The most important thing about this to RWA: the rules that are associated with real-world assets never cease motion. RWA tokenization sounds easy until you enumerate the alterations that occur in practice: a lender adjusts collateral regulations when volatility increases; a jurisdiction alters what qualifies as accredited; a compliance department introduces a provision when an audit occurs; a product expands to a new area and requires new limits. In an ordinary world where contracts are immutable, every of those forms a complex fork. You face an option of redeploying and redeploying or you create a haphazard upgrade system that frightens users. A less-corrupted middle-ground is provided by Vanar in his template + parameter strategy. It considers changes as anticipated, limited and verifiable. The contract is not a rock that is not moving; it is a machine whose dials can be adjusted and everybody is aware of what dials are available.
The real world is being automated through what is known as policy as code. The further idea behind Vanar is that compliance and risk could be manifested as logic. Represent rules as structured parameters and then open up the possibilities that are not possible in a manual operation. A rule change can be rolled out everywhere rather than ten departments. Before application you can simulate with what would happen should we increase this threshold? To customize your product to various regions, you do not need to fork the whole product but create various policy sets. It is the same transition that has allowed software to be measured and repeatable in all other industries, and Vanar seeks to introduce the same shift to on-chain finance.
The missed advantage: the reduced number of redeploys implies the reduced number of attack moments. Each redeploy is a risk instant; each migration brings in bewilderment; each new contract address provides a new avenue of errors, fraudulence, and integration failures. When a protocol is able to modify rules without retracting underlying logic, then it lessens the number of times that the ecosystem goes through such precarious transitions. That does not mitigate risk- it contains it. The scoped changes are parameterized to transform, rather than a new system of contract. This is a big deal to any team building actual financial products. They desire the freedom, yet not anarchy.
Governance is no longer an ambiguous community ritual, but the rule approval layer.
A dynamic system requires some valid method of making decisions on what can be changed.
Vanar has addressed Governance Proposal 2.0 to enable the token holders to make ecosystem decisions, such as the parameters of AI models and other system-level rules.
Although nothing might be live now, at least it is a direction. When the network is interested in serving institutions, it should have the clear story that there are parameters that are altered, by whom, and how that change of parameters is documented.
In the ideal form of that, it is not drama of government. Governance is a book of rules that is signed.
Businesses reason this way: not who screamed, but what was passed, when, and by whom.
An example in point: a lending product that remains constant and rules change.
As an example, consider a lending product that is constructed on-chain.
The code establishes the product logic: the way loans are issued, the way collateral is monitored and the way the repayments occur. That code should be stable.
However, they may be modified: loan-to-value, risk level, acceptable collateral, region limits, and compliance inspections.
When using the template approach, you are able to make changes to the policy parameters and keep the product the same. The user does not need to be transferred to a new contract each time there is change in policy. Auditors will be able to trace the changes and their time. Developers will not need to rebuild integrations on a monthly basis.
This causes on-chain finance to cease as an experiment and more as an infrastructure.
Elements that make me consider this to be the adult account of Vanar.
The majority of crypto stories seek novelty. Vanar pursues in his dynamic-contract framing something more uncommon, operational maturity.
This does not mean that we do not change. It is saying “we change safely.”
That is consistent with the functioning of banks, payment networks and controlled systems. They change constantly, yet they do it in a structured manner in terms of policy changes, flow of approval and audit trails.
By continuing to develop towards this model, Vanar is in a position to market itself as a chain that can accommodate financial products that can last the long run, as opposed to seasons.
Conclusion: the chain that can adapt will continue to live in the chain that only promises.
Individuals tend to mix up immutability and trust in crypto. The belief in real systems is based on effective reliability: predictable behaviour and visible change.
V23 story by Vanar presents a conceptual notion of smart contracts into the real world: dynamic contracts are made up of stable templates and adjustable rules. Such a change would allow RWA and regulated finance to be much more realistic on-chain, as it is closer to the real world of rule development.
Assuming Vanar makes changes confined, approval-based and audits, then it is not merely a chain being built. It is creating a platform on which actual finance is accelerating without going astray.
#Vanar $VANRY @Vanar
The distinctive angle does not look like the standard-type fast chain rhetoric when I look at Vanar. Vanar views a blockchain as a system that can be changed safely and will not undermine trust. That is what finance requires not flawless code but an upgradeable policy with a testable record.
The inherent issue with smart contracts is that it is too final to the operations of institutions. Cryptocurrency enthusiasts have become fond of the notion that a contract cannot be altered, yet the bank-and-mortar institutions do not operate in such a way. Banks are signing policies, which are living rules and constantly updated as the living rules. The conventional smart contracts make one make an agonizing trade-off. Any real-world change needs a redeploy; upgrading is mandatory, and the users are scared of the administration keys and secret modifications. In any case, government is slipshod.
This is why the concept of dynamic contracts is important. It is not of adding features but it is of cost of compliance being less in the long run.
Contracts that are dynamic are framed by Vanar V23 as a library of templates, rather than as a festival of rewrites. V23 presents a dynamic contract-engine which operates with an library of rule-templates and parameter-specification. This allows institutions to modify the rate of pledges, the level of risk and the compliance terms without having to re-deploy the whole contract. It transforms the meaning of upgrade: a brand-new contract is not shipped to one number, but the structure remains intact, and only the approved parameters are transferred. In normal software we differiate between code and config, what is adjustable and what is running. Vanar introduces that discipline to smart contracts. This method can even cut the costs of multi-scenario adaptation (V23 write-up) by approximately 60 percent to tokenize RWA, since you do not need to re-write everything and re-build everything when you need a new rule. What matters more is the direction: consider policy change to be a first-class feature.
The most important thing about this to RWA: the rules that are associated with real-world assets never cease motion. RWA tokenization sounds easy until you enumerate the alterations that occur in practice: a lender adjusts collateral regulations when volatility increases; a jurisdiction alters what qualifies as accredited; a compliance department introduces a provision when an audit occurs; a product expands to a new area and requires new limits. In an ordinary world where contracts are immutable, every of those forms a complex fork. You face an option of redeploying and redeploying or you create a haphazard upgrade system that frightens users. A less-corrupted middle-ground is provided by Vanar in his template + parameter strategy. It considers changes as anticipated, limited and verifiable. The contract is not a rock that is not moving; it is a machine whose dials can be adjusted and everybody is aware of what dials are available.
The real world is being automated through what is known as policy as code. The further idea behind Vanar is that compliance and risk could be manifested as logic. Represent rules as structured parameters and then open up the possibilities that are not possible in a manual operation. A rule change can be rolled out everywhere rather than ten departments. Before application you can simulate with what would happen should we increase this threshold? To customize your product to various regions, you do not need to fork the whole product but create various policy sets. It is the same transition that has allowed software to be measured and repeatable in all other industries, and Vanar seeks to introduce the same shift to on-chain finance.
The missed advantage: the reduced number of redeploys implies the reduced number of attack moments. Each redeploy is a risk instant; each migration brings in bewilderment; each new contract address provides a new avenue of errors, fraudulence, and integration failures. When a protocol is able to modify rules without retracting underlying logic, then it lessens the number of times that the ecosystem goes through such precarious transitions. That does not mitigate risk- it contains it. The scoped changes are parameterized to transform, rather than a new system of contract. This is a big deal to any team building actual financial products. They desire the freedom, yet not anarchy.
Governance is no longer an ambiguous community ritual, but the rule approval layer.
A dynamic system requires some valid method of making decisions on what can be changed.
Vanar has addressed Governance Proposal 2.0 to enable the token holders to make ecosystem decisions, such as the parameters of AI models and other system-level rules.
Although nothing might be live now, at least it is a direction. When the network is interested in serving institutions, it should have the clear story that there are parameters that are altered, by whom, and how that change of parameters is documented.
In the ideal form of that, it is not drama of government. Governance is a book of rules that is signed.
Businesses reason this way: not who screamed, but what was passed, when, and by whom.
An example in point: a lending product that remains constant and rules change.
As an example, consider a lending product that is constructed on-chain.
The code establishes the product logic: the way loans are issued, the way collateral is monitored and the way the repayments occur. That code should be stable.
However, they may be modified: loan-to-value, risk level, acceptable collateral, region limits, and compliance inspections.
When using the template approach, you are able to make changes to the policy parameters and keep the product the same. The user does not need to be transferred to a new contract each time there is change in policy. Auditors will be able to trace the changes and their time. Developers will not need to rebuild integrations on a monthly basis.
This causes on-chain finance to cease as an experiment and more as an infrastructure.
Elements that make me consider this to be the adult account of Vanar.
The majority of crypto stories seek novelty. Vanar pursues in his dynamic-contract framing something more uncommon, operational maturity.
This does not mean that we do not change. It is saying “we change safely.”
That is consistent with the functioning of banks, payment networks and controlled systems. They change constantly, yet they do it in a structured manner in terms of policy changes, flow of approval and audit trails.
By continuing to develop towards this model, Vanar is in a position to market itself as a chain that can accommodate financial products that can last the long run, as opposed to seasons.
Conclusion: the chain that can adapt will continue to live in the chain that only promises.
Individuals tend to mix up immutability and trust in crypto. The belief in real systems is based on effective reliability: predictable behaviour and visible change.
V23 story by Vanar presents a conceptual notion of smart contracts into the real world: dynamic contracts are made up of stable templates and adjustable rules. Such a change would allow RWA and regulated finance to be much more realistic on-chain, as it is closer to the real world of rule development.
Assuming Vanar makes changes confined, approval-based and audits, then it is not merely a chain being built. It is creating a platform on which actual finance is accelerating without going astray.
#Vanar $VANRY @Vanar
Izjava o omejitvi odgovornosti: Vključuje mnenja tretjih oseb. Ni finančni nasvet. Lahko vključuje sponzorirano vsebino. Glejte Pogoje.