Holaitsak47

I’ll admit it: for a long time, “decentralized storage” lived in the same mental folder as cool idea, messy reality. It always sounded powerful on paper — censorship resistance, no single point of failure, ownership — but in real use it often turned into slow retrieval, awkward tooling, and the constant feeling that you’re babysitting your data instead of trusting the system.
That’s why @Walrus 🦭/acc caught my attention in a different way. Not because it promised some flashy new narrative, but because it seems to approach storage like infrastructure, not like a museum.
And that one shift changes everything.
The Quiet Problem Most People Skip: Storage Isn’t the Goal — Availability Is
A lot of Web3 conversations still treat storage like a checkbox:
“Is the data stored?” ✅
“Is it decentralized?” ✅
“Is it permanent?” ✅
But the real-world question is way more annoying and way more important:
Can I reliably access it when my app needs it, under real load, without begging gateways or pinning services to cooperate?
This is where many systems get exposed. They can “store” data, but availability and retrieval can become the hidden tax — slow responses, flaky access paths, or UX that turns mainstream users away the moment something feels fragile.
Walrus feels like it’s built with that reality in mind. It’s less about romanticizing permanence and more about engineering reliable redundancy + predictable access.
Why “Permanent Storage” Isn’t Always the Win People Think It Is
Permanent storage has an obvious emotional appeal: pay once, store forever, never worry again.
But in practice, a lot of real-world data doesn’t need to exist forever. Some data needs to be:
• updated,
• rotated,
• expired,
• replaced,
• archived with policy,
• or removed for compliance reasons.
So the “everything must be permanent” model can feel less like freedom and more like a rigid constraint with expensive tradeoffs.
Walrus, from the way it’s positioned, feels more aligned with how modern systems actually behave: data is alive, and storage should support lifecycle, not fight it.
What Walrus Gets Right: It Feels Like a Data Network, Not a File Graveyard
When I think about why Walrus stands out (at least conceptually), it comes down to one vibe:
Walrus behaves like a distribution layer.
Not just “put file here.”
More like: “make this data resilient, redundant, and reachable — without me manually duct-taping the system together.”
That matters because most Web3 apps aren’t storing files for fun. They’re storing:
• game assets,
• media content,
• AI datasets,
• app state,
• records,
• proofs,
• user-generated content,
• and big unstructured blobs that chains were never meant to hold directly.
If storage becomes fragile, everything above it becomes fragile too.
Walrus feels like it’s trying to be the boring, dependable layer you stop thinking about — and that’s literally the highest compliment you can give infrastructure.
The Storage Stack Comparison I Keep Coming Back To
1) IPFS (great concept, messy reality at scale)
IPFS is powerful, but most normal users don’t realize how quickly the experience can degrade when:
• pinning is inconsistent,
• retrieval depends on who’s hosting,
• gateways become bottlenecks,
• and “the data exists” doesn’t mean “the data loads now.”
It often ends up feeling like you’re building your own reliability layer on top.
2) Filecoin (serious ambition, retrieval is the pain point people feel)
Filecoin’s model can be impressive, but in day-to-day product thinking, retrieval friction is where you lose mainstream adoption. If users click and wait… they don’t care about the architecture. They just leave.
3) Permanent storage networks (strong for archives, not always ideal for apps)
Permanent models are cool for historical records and “never delete this” use-cases. But for dynamic apps and evolving datasets, the upfront economics and rigidity can feel misaligned.
4) Walrus (what it seems to prioritize)
Walrus looks like it’s betting that Web3 needs:
• affordable redundancy
• practical availability
• retrieval that doesn’t feel like a gamble
• and storage that can support real applications instead of just “proof of storage.”
That’s a very different philosophy — and to me it’s the more realistic one.
The Part People Underestimate: “Unstructured Data” Is the New Default
One reason I think Walrus is getting attention is simple: the world is producing more unstructured data than ever:
• video,
• images,
• audio,
• AI training files,
• logs,
• sensor streams,
• documents,
• datasets that grow constantly.
Blockchains are not built to carry that weight. But Web3 apps keep trying to pretend they can.
So the winners won’t be the chains that shout “we can store anything on-chain.”
The winners will be the systems that say:
“Let’s store it efficiently off-chain, but make availability verifiable and app-friendly.”
That’s the lane Walrus feels like it’s targeting.
Where WAL (the token) Starts to Feel Like More Than a Ticker
I always try to keep myself honest with tokens: if the token’s only purpose is “number go up,” it eventually gets exposed.
What makes $WAL interesting in theory is the clean linkage to real activity:
users need resources to store and retrieve, operators are incentivized to provide reliability,the network needs economic pressure to discourage spam,and long-term participation needs rewards that don’t collapse the system.
When that loop is real, the token becomes less about vibes and more about coordination.
I’m not saying that guarantees anything — it doesn’t. But it’s the right kind of design target: token utility tied to actual infrastructure usage, not just hype cycles.
The Honest Part: “Solvable Problems” Matter More Than “Perfect Systems”
I actually like when a protocol has rough edges that feel real — because it means you’re looking at engineering problems, not magic.
If there are moments under heavy load where the experience degrades, or feedback loops feel delayed, that doesn’t automatically scare me. What scares me is when a system looks perfect in demos but has structural flaws that can’t be fixed without changing the entire design.
Walrus feels like it’s dealing with the kind of issues that distributed systems always deal with:
• network conditions,
• load variance,
• performance tuning,
• client-side UX refinement,
• reliability under stress.
Those are hard problems, but they’re the right problems.
Why This Narrative Is Practical (and Why That’s Rare in Crypto)
The strongest thing Walrus has going for it, in my opinion, is that it’s not selling a fantasy. It’s selling a missing piece of the stack.
Web3 doesn’t collapse because smart contracts are impossible.
Web3 collapses when apps feel unreliable.
And reliability, at scale, is a data problem as much as it is a chain problem.
So when I hear “Walrus is a fresh take on decentralized storage,” I translate it into something simpler:
Walrus is trying to make data feel dependable enough that builders stop avoiding it.
If it succeeds, it won’t be because people are excited about storage.
It’ll be because apps quietly start working better.
Final Take: Walrus Isn’t Loud — and That Might Be the Point
I don’t look at Walrus as “the next shiny thing.” I look at it like plumbing.
If the plumbing is good, nobody talks about it. If the plumbing fails, everything above it becomes chaos.
Walrus is aiming to make decentralized storage feel less like a science experiment and more like an invisible utility — the kind that creators, AI builders, game studios, and serious apps can rely on without constantly worrying about links breaking, gateways throttling, or access turning into a lottery.
And if that’s the direction it keeps pushing, then WAL becomes a bet on infrastructure that people actually use — not just infrastructure people tweet about.
#Walrus

I’m going to admit something: every time a blockchain says “zero-fee transfers,” my brain instantly goes into skeptic mode. Not because I hate good UX — I love it — but because finance doesn’t forgive fuzzy economics. If something is “free,” then someone is paying… or the system is quietly borrowing time until the subsidy runs out.
@Plasma is one of those projects that forces this question in a real way, because it isn’t casually saying “cheap.” It’s leaning into the idea that stablecoin movement should feel like sending a message: you don’t need to buy a separate gas token, you don’t need to understand blockspace auctions, you don’t need to learn crypto just to move digital dollars.
So I tried to look at Plasma less like a hype chain and more like a payments business wearing blockchain clothes. And once you do that, the sustainability question becomes easier to answer — not with one magical revenue switch, but with a stack of “who pays” options that payments networks have used forever.
The First Truth: “Free” Usually Means “Abstracted,” Not “No Cost”
Plasma’s pitch isn’t that computation has no cost. It’s that the user shouldn’t have to care about the cost.
That distinction matters.
If you’ve ever onboarded a normal person into stablecoins, you already know the pain: they want to send USDT, but they first need ETH (or TRX, or something else) just to pay gas. That’s not a feature — it’s a conversion tax on usability. Most people don’t drop off because they hate stablecoins. They drop off because the process feels like solving a puzzle before you’re allowed to send money.
Plasma’s direction is basically: stop making the user do the puzzle.
What The Paymaster Changes (And Why It’s Bigger Than “Convenience”)
Here’s the part I think people underestimate: a paymaster doesn’t just reduce friction — it changes who the customer is.
With paymasters / account abstraction style flows, you can have:
Apps sponsoring fees (they pre-fund usage like a business expense) Fees deducted in the asset the user actually holds (like taking a tiny slice of USDT during the send)Hybrid models (free up to a limit, paid beyond that, or paid for priority)
That means the chain can move from “end users paying gas” to businesses designing a payments experience.
And that’s exactly how the real world works: When you swipe a card, you don’t “pay a network fee token.” Merchants pay interchange, processors take their cut, banks settle behind the scenes — and the user just experiences a clean payment.
Plasma is trying to bring that same invisibility to stablecoins.
Okay, But If Users Pay Zero… Who Pays Validators?
This is the part that makes everyone nervous, and honestly, it’s fair.
If you remove user fees, you still need to pay for:
validator operations network security infrastructure growth spam protection long-term reliability
In early phases, many networks rely on some mix of emissions + treasury + ecosystem incentives to bootstrap security and adoption. That’s not automatically “bad.” It’s just a runway. The real question is whether Plasma can convert that runway into something durable before the market gets tired.
So the sustainable models basically fall into a few buckets.
Model 1: Apps Pay for Their Users (The “Merchant Pays Fees” Reality)
This is the cleanest long-term story, in my opinion.
If Plasma becomes the “stablecoin settlement pipe” for:
• wallets
• remittance apps
• payroll tools
• card issuers
• merchant checkout systems
• on/offramp products
…then those businesses can treat gas sponsorship as a customer acquisition cost or an operating expense.
And the logic is simple: If sponsoring $0.02–$0.10 per transaction helps an app process real payment volume, that cost is tiny compared to what the app earns through:
• FX spread
• subscription plans
• payment processing fees
• settlement services
• card interchange partnerships
• compliance tooling fees
So Plasma doesn’t need every user to pay gas. It needs real businesses to adopt stablecoin rails and build fee models around the rail.
That’s not crypto fantasy — it’s literally how payments scale.
Model 2: “Free for Transfers” Doesn’t Mean “Free for Everything”
A lot of people mix up “stablecoin transfers can be sponsored” with “the entire chain has no fees.”
In practice, the most reasonable approach is:
• keep the simple, high-frequency action (like sending a stablecoin) extremely low-friction
• while still charging for other execution-heavy things (complex smart contract interactions, advanced DeFi actions, specialized settlement, etc.)
So you get the best of both:
• mainstream UX for payments
• economic sustainability for heavier usage
That also naturally filters spam: it’s easy to sponsor useful flows, but expensive to sponsor nonsense at scale.
Model 3: Tiered Sponsorship (Free Feels Free… Until You’re a Power User)
This is how “free” platforms survive in Web2, and it maps surprisingly well onto stablecoin rails.
You can imagine:
• free daily/weekly quota for normal users
• sponsored transactions for approved apps
• paid lanes for high throughput businesses
• premium services for institutions that need guarantees (SLA-style reliability, compliance tooling, priority settlement windows)
So Plasma can preserve the “wow, this is free” moment for onboarding… without promising that every transaction for every user forever is a charity service.
Model 4: Value-Added Revenue Around The Rail (The Quiet Money)
If Plasma is serious about being stablecoin infrastructure, the biggest revenue isn’t necessarily “gas fees.”
It’s everything around stablecoin settlement that the market already pays for:
• On/off ramps (fees and spreads)
• Card issuance + spending layers
• Compliance and risk tooling
• Liquidity routing
• Treasury / business settlement tooling
• Cross-border payout services
In other words, Plasma can treat the base transfer like the “free shipping” strategy: You don’t profit on the shipping — you profit on the ecosystem the shipping enables.
The Honest Risk: Subsidies Can Look Like Product-Market Fit Until They Don’t
I’m not going to pretend there’s zero risk here.
If “free transfers” are funded mainly by treasury/incentives for too long, you can get a fake signal:
• activity grows because it’s subsidized
• users don’t develop willingness to pay
• builders don’t build real business models
• emissions become the only thing holding security together
That’s the failure mode.
The win condition is different:
sponsored transfers become a tool businesses choose to usethe ecosystem builds real monetization on top validators are secured by a mix of emissions (early) and sustainable economic activity (later) the chain stays boring and reliable — because payments need boring
My Takeaway: Plasma Isn’t Trying to “Be Free.” It’s Trying to Make Stablecoins Feel Normal.
When I stop reading Plasma like a crypto narrative and start reading it like payments infrastructure, the whole thing makes more sense.
The paymaster idea is basically Plasma saying:
“We’re done making end users learn gas mechanics. Apps can sponsor. Fees can be abstracted. Stablecoins should move like money, not like a crypto ritual.”
If they execute, the moat isn’t TPS screenshots. The moat is habit: People keep using rails that feel invisible.
And that’s why the paymaster matters. Not because it’s cute UX. Because it’s the difference between stablecoins being a niche tool for crypto people…
and stablecoins being something your cousin uses without even realizing it’s crypto.
#Plasma $XPL

I used to treat decentralized storage like a checkbox feature. Like… “cool, we can store files somewhere that isn’t AWS.” But the more I watched how real Web3 apps behave in the wild (games, AI datasets, social content, identity systems), the more I realized storage is the wrong word for the real problem.
The real problem is trust under stress.
Not “can I upload a file once?”
But: can I still fetch it when nodes go offline, when the network is messy, when traffic spikes, when operators rotate, when the app becomes popular, when the incentive era changes? That’s where most “decentralized storage” narratives quietly break.
@Walrus 🦭/acc is interesting to me because it feels like it’s built for that reality — not for a demo.
The Shift That Actually Matters: From “Keep a Copy” to “Prove Availability”
Most storage systems talk like copying data is the same thing as having it available. It isn’t.
You can have data “stored” on a network and still fail to retrieve it when you need it most — and if your product is a game, a social app, or anything that feels consumer-grade, that failure doesn’t look like a technical footnote. It looks like the app is broken.
Walrus treats availability like a first-class design goal. Meaning: the network’s job isn’t just to hold data, but to make data retrievable with predictable reliability, even when conditions aren’t perfect.
That’s a very different ambition than “we’re decentralized.”
Why Walrus Feels “Infrastructure-ish”: Repair Is Not a Side Quest
Here’s the thing most people don’t talk about: churn.
Nodes come and go. Machines fail. Operators quit. Networks change. And when churn happens, the expensive part isn’t the initial upload — it’s the constant “repair” work required to keep blobs healthy.
A lot of systems become quietly uneconomical here. They either over-replicate (wasteful but safe) or they erasure-code (cheaper) but pay a hidden tax during repair because rebuilding can become heavy.
Walrus leans into a recovery-first mindset: repair shouldn’t feel like a disaster recovery event; it should feel like routine maintenance that doesn’t explode costs every time a few nodes disappear. That’s the kind of boring, unsexy engineering that turns a protocol into something builders can actually depend on.
Programmable Data: The Part That Makes It Feel “New Cycle” Not “Old Storage”
What really pulled me in is the idea that on Walrus, data doesn’t have to be a dead blob sitting somewhere. It can be treated like an asset with rules.
I’m talking about data that can have:
access logic usage conditions lifecycle control “who can decrypt and when” constraints app-level automation hooks
And the big difference is: this isn’t enforced by a centralized backend or a “trust me bro” server. It’s enforced through on-chain logic and verifiable infrastructure behavior.
So instead of “here’s an IPFS hash, hope it stays alive,” it becomes more like: here is the object, here are the rules, here is the proof it’s being served correctly.
That’s a completely different mental model.
The Most Underrated Feature: Data Expiry That You Can Prove
This is one of those details that sounds small until you imagine real-world use.
In Web2, data expiry is messy. Things “expire” in theory, but in practice they often just sit in silent backups, forgotten buckets, old databases, or random archives. That’s how compliance nightmares happen.
Walrus flips the framing: expiry is not a bug — it’s part of an auditable lifecycle.
The idea that you can prove:
data existed during a defined window data expired data is no longer supposed to be retrievable
…that’s huge for privacy laws, clean datasets, corporate retention policies, regulated apps, and even just basic hygiene in a world where “everything lives forever” is becoming a liability.
It’s a subtle feature, but it’s one of those “this was designed by adults” signals.
Where $WAL Starts to Make Sense (Beyond Just “Pay for Storage”)
I don’t like when tokens exist only because a protocol needs a token. With Walrus, $WAL feels more like a coordination currency for an actual resource market:
users pay for storage + availability guarantees operators earn for doing the real work (serving + maintaining reliability) the network can use incentives/penalties to keep behavior honest governance becomes meaningful because parameters affect real costs and real reliability
And that matters, because infrastructure tokens only hold up long-term when they map to real usage. If Walrus becomes the place where apps store serious data — not just “NFT thumbnails,” but AI datasets, identity credentials, game assets, app states — then WAL demand becomes tied to something that doesn’t vanish when the timeline gets bored.
Why I Think Walrus Might Be “Quietly Mandatory” Later
The future Web3 apps people actually want to use will be:
media-heavy data-heavy AI-assisted consumer-scale cross-chain always-on
And those apps can’t survive on fragile links and duct-taped storage layers.
If Walrus keeps building like this — focusing on availability, repair economics, programmable data, and lifecycle auditing — it won’t need to scream for attention. Builders will quietly adopt it because it removes headaches they’re tired of carrying.
And honestly, that’s the strongest kind of narrative in crypto: the one that becomes boring because it works.
#Walrus

I’ll admit it: when people talk about @Dusk , most of the attention goes to “privacy + compliance” in finance. And yes, that matters. But the part that keeps pulling me back isn’t a trading feature or a DeFi gimmick — it’s identity. Because once you start thinking about regulated finance, RWAs, private settlement, and permissioned access… you realize the real bottleneck isn’t speed. It’s proof.
Not “trust me bro” proof. Not “I sent my documents once, so I’m good forever” proof. I mean the kind of proof that can be verified again and again, without turning every app into a data-leaking mess.
And that’s where Citadel quietly changes the conversation.
Citadel: A Self-Sovereign ID System Built for Selective Disclosure
Citadel is Dusk’s self-sovereign identity (SSI) system built using zero-knowledge proofs, designed so users can control what they reveal and when they reveal it — without dumping their full identity into every app they touch. In Dusk’s own documentation, Citadel is framed as a ZK-proofs-based SSI management system where identities are stored privately using the Dusk blockchain.
The vibe here is very different from the “upload your ID, hope the platform protects it” approach. Citadel aims to make identity feel more like a credential you can prove, not a file you have to hand over.
The “License” Model: Prove Eligibility Without Becoming a Data Honeypot
What I find most practical is the way Citadel structures identity around licenses and verification, instead of raw document sharing.
Citadel involves three roles: the User, a License Provider, and a Service Provider. The user requests a license on-chain, the license provider issues it, and later the user proves they own a valid license using a zero-knowledge proof when requesting a service. The service provider verifies what it needs to verify — without needing the user’s whole identity exposed everywhere.
That’s the “selective disclosure” feel in real terms:
You prove you’re eligible (KYC/AML passed, accredited, resident in a jurisdiction, etc.)You don’t turn your personal data into someone else’s permanent database risk You don’t repeat the same full submission to every single platform like it’s 2015
Why This Matters for Real Markets, Not Just Crypto Apps
This is the part a lot of crypto people underestimate: regulated finance doesn’t scale on public exposure. Institutions can’t operate with every relationship, balance, and transfer broadcast to the whole world. But they also can’t operate inside black boxes that auditors can’t reason about.
Identity is the bridge.
If $DUSK can make identity checks:
repeatable, privacy-preserving, and verifiable at the moment of action,
then tokenized securities, compliant DeFi rails, and on-chain settlement stop being “conceptually cool” and start feeling operationally realistic.
And the best part? This kind of identity layer doesn’t just serve finance. It serves any app that needs permissioning without surveillance — enterprise tools, gated communities, B2B workflows, even creator platforms where access rights actually matter.
Why the EUDI Wallet Direction Makes This Even More Relevant
Europe is moving toward the European Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI Wallet) under the updated eIDAS framework, with a big emphasis on verifiable credentials and controlled disclosure — basically pushing the idea that identity should be cleaner, more user-controlled, and less leaky by design.
That’s why I don’t see Citadel as a side feature. I see it as Dusk leaning into the same direction the real world is heading: credentials, proofs, and minimal disclosure — not “hand over everything and pray.”
Where $DUSK Fits: Security, Usage, and the Long Game
When you view Dusk through the identity lens, the token story becomes clearer too. If the network is actually being used for regulated interactions — identity proofs, credential checks, private settlement logic — then $DUSK isn’t just “another L1 token.” It becomes the coordination fuel for a chain doing something most networks only describe in marketing decks.
To me, this is the real bet: Not whether Dusk trends tomorrow, but whether Dusk becomes the place where institutions can finally say:
“We can prove what we need to prove… without exposing what we don’t.”
And if Citadel becomes a genuine adoption layer — where apps authenticate users without hoarding their data — then Dusk stops being a niche privacy chain and starts looking like infrastructure that regulated markets can actually live on.
#Dusk

I’ll admit it — I’ve seen enough “AI + blockchain” pitches to become numb to them. Most chains slap AI into a dashboard, call it innovation, and hope the narrative does the rest. What made me look at Vanar differently is that it’s trying to make intelligence feel native — not as a feature… but as a workflow. And when you frame it like that, $VANRY stops looking like a hype token and starts looking like the fuel for a very specific kind of on-chain behavior.
The Real Problem Vanar Is Trying to Solve
Web3 apps still break in the same boring places: context gets lost, data lives off-chain, and “proof” becomes a bunch of links and hashes nobody checks until something goes wrong. Vanar’s idea feels simple but ambitious: if apps are going to feel mainstream, they need a chain that can store meaning, keep context, and support automation — especially for AI-driven products, PayFi flows, and tokenized real-world assets.
Most L1s are optimized for “apps” as a category. Vanar is optimizing for applications that remember — the kind that can keep track of users, documents, permissions, and history without everything collapsing into off-chain chaos.
Neutron: When Storage Becomes Memory (Not Just “Data”)
Neutron is the part of the stack that keeps coming up for a reason. The way Vanar frames it is not “put files on-chain,” but turn information into usable, searchable, compressible context — those “Seeds” that apps (and agents) can pull from without relying on fragile external databases.
What I like here is the direction: Neutron isn’t only about saving content, it’s about indexing + understanding + keeping it synced. Even the integration roadmap points at real workflows (email, drives, team tools, docs) — not just crypto-native stuff. That’s the difference between a chain that’s trying to impress crypto people and a chain that’s trying to quietly fit into how work actually happens.
Kayon: Reasoning That Can Be Audited (That’s the Point)
Then there’s Kayon — the “reasoning” layer. And for me, the key word isn’t reasoning… it’s explainable. Because the moment you want enterprise adoption, compliance automation, or anything touching real-world finance, you don’t just need answers — you need answers you can justify.
If Neutron is memory, Kayon is the layer that turns memory into decisions and workflows. That’s where “AI-native” stops being a tagline and starts being a product direction. And it also explains why Vanar keeps hinting at the next layers (Axon and Flows): the roadmap reads like automation first, packaged vertical apps second.
EVM Compatibility: The Boring Choice That Usually Wins
One thing I’ll always respect: when a chain doesn’t force builders to relearn everything. Vanar being EVM-compatible means devs can ship with familiar tooling, and that removes a massive mental barrier.
And it’s not vague either — Vanar Mainnet is already listed with Chain ID 2040, with a public RPC and explorer access, so this isn’t just “coming soon” energy. It’s connect-and-build energy.
“Real Tools” Is Where the Momentum Becomes Believable
A lot of ecosystems talk about tooling like it’s optional. Vanar’s site literally puts the tooling in your face: Hub, staking, explorer, academy, and the product pages for Neutron/Kayon. That matters because ecosystems don’t grow from whitepapers — they grow from repetition.
Builders need a place to ship. Users need a place to explore. Communities need a place to learn. Vanar is trying to provide that full loop instead of hoping someone else fills the gaps later.
So Where Does VANRY Fit in a Non-Hype Way?
This is the part I keep circling back to: does usage actually create demand? With Vanar, the cleanest thesis is:
If people use the chain, $VANRY is needed for network activity.If Neutron becomes a real memory layer teams rely on, VANRY demand becomes habitual. If Kayon powers automation and compliance-like workflows, usage becomes sticky, not seasonal.
That’s the difference between “token demand because marketing” and “token demand because workflows.” One is loud. The other is durable.
The Honest Take: Upside and the Risk
The upside is pretty clear: if Neutron + Kayon become everyday infrastructure for AI-driven apps (especially in consumer and enterprise lanes), Vanar could become the kind of chain people use without even thinking about it.
The risk is also obvious: the stack can’t stay a story. If the “intelligence layers” don’t turn into daily utility, the market will treat it like another narrative cycle.
But if @Vanarchain keeps shipping at a product rhythm — and keeps making the chain feel like a normal tool instead of a crypto ritual — then $VANRY has a real chance of becoming usage-driven, not hype-driven.
#Vanar