Many projects think that success or failure depends on how advanced the technology is and how compelling the story is, but the reality is often harsher: most projects ultimately fail due to the small issue of 'money not coming in and not going out'.
For ordinary users, whether they can buy at any time, whether withdrawals are smooth, whether transaction fees are painful, and whether deposits are stable are fundamental factors in deciding whether they will uninstall the App.
For projects like @Vanarchain that are commercially viable, to assess their quality, one must first break down their 'liquidity pipeline'.
First, look at the trading depth:
$VANRY Are the orders thick on the exchange? Is the bid-ask spread ridiculously large? If placing an order worth tens of thousands of dollars results in several points of slippage, then large institutions and partners would not dare to enter.
Insufficient depth means that no amount of ecological subsidies will help, because the hidden costs of user entry and exit are too high, and no one dares to play the long game with you.
Now let’s take a look at the stablecoin's 'capillaries':
Vanar wants to engage in high-frequency payments, and stablecoins must flow smoothly. Is cross-chain fast enough? Are there channels for fiat deposits and withdrawals? If the stablecoin channels are subpar, merchants will have to pave their own roads, and what began as a collaboration can turn into a laborious custom development.
From the outside, it seems the ecosystem is slow, but in fact, the underlying 'water pipes' are not connected.
The fee structure also hides the truth:
Fixed rates are a good thing; they make costs transparent, but they also leave real demand exposed. It’s easy to inflate transaction volumes, but where do these volumes actually come from? Are they from genuine business interactions, or are they generated through promotional subsidies and volume manipulation? A glance at the order book reveals all.
The capital flow driven by real demand is usually very uniform, while 'virtual heat' often leads to a rapid surge followed by a swift depth collapse.
Another point that people often overlook:
Chip distribution. If all the coins are held by a few major players, the price chart becomes a heartbeat monitor, and partners budget at a pace faster than the price itself. The more dispersed the chips are, the more controllable the fluctuations become, making risk boundaries clearer when developing payment products.
Therefore, to determine whether Vanar is viable, don't rely on feelings; look at these hard indicators:
Look at the order book: Is the depth sufficient? Is the price difference small? Can large orders be quickly replenished after execution?
Look on-chain: Is the inflow of stablecoins continuous? Are active addresses decentralized? Is the fee consumption coming from a variety of contracts?
If these three points hold up, it indicates that its 'financial pathway' has widened, and the ecosystem can naturally grow. If they don't hold up, the logic is simple: it's not that the technology is lacking, but rather that the financial pathways are still not established.
