VANRY Migration: Why Sept. 10 Cutoff Beats Binance's Oct. 17 Date

Of those, Bitvavo matters most to German-speaking readers, because that provider serves German customers directly. Anyone holding VANRY there will find the authoritative information in the venue's own announcement and should read it before moving anything.

What is missing from this list is worth noting. English-language coverage on August 10 reported that KuCoin would handle the migration automatically. KuCoin was not on the project's official list on August 17. We have not been able to resolve that discrepancy and therefore present it for what it is: a media statement without a counterpart in the project's own listing. Rely only on an announcement from your own venue.

The portal itself states the general rule with restraint: each exchange communicates its own approach, some handle the migration directly, others require users to withdraw and swap themselves. There is therefore no blanket statement covering all venues.

One warning appears in the portal in particularly plain terms, and it is aimed at exactly the holder who wants to save time: tokens must not be sent into the swap directly from an exchange. The route runs through your own wallet first.

The reason lies in the delivery. The new VANRY go to the same address on Base from which the old ones were locked. A deposit address at an exchange, however, belongs to the exchange and not to the user, and on Base it is not necessarily the same one or present at all. Lock from inside an exchange account and you are naming a destination you have no access to.

In practice that means a wallet of your own that can represent Base, and the certainty that you can access that wallet on Base as well. Which type of custody comes into question and where the differences lie is set out in our comparison of software wallets . The project adds that it never asks for a private key and that links from comments, direct messages or forwarded screenshots should not be used. With migrations on a fixed deadline that is no boilerplate, because time pressure is exactly the condition in which fake portals work.

The project publishes the contract addresses in the portal. On Ethereum and Polygon the old VANRY carries the same address, namely 0x8de5b80a0c1b02fe4976851d030b36122dbb8624. On VanarChain, VANRY was the network currency and therefore has no token contract. The new VANRY on Base sits at 0x07848a7b542a9cd856122c6c4ab9ec87c44f8b63.

These details are not decoration. After a migration with a fixed deadline, copycat tokens carrying the same name and the same ticker appear as a matter of routine. The contract is the one feature that cannot be faked, and it belongs checked in your own wallet before the first trade.

The swap is one for one; the supply structures of the two tokens are not. We retrieved the public data records for both contracts ourselves on August 17, 2026 at around 03:53 UTC, each with HTTP code 200. This analysis was carried out by cryptoticker.io on August 17, 2026.

The record for the old token shows a total supply of 2,377,565,576 VANRY against a maximum supply of 2.4 billion. The record for the new token on Base gives a total and simultaneously maximum supply of 10,000,000,000 VANRY, of which 3,800,000,000 are in circulation. From those two figures it follows arithmetically that 6.2 billion tokens, and therefore 62 percent of the new maximum supply, are not yet in circulation.

For a holder whose balance does not change in the swap, that means a shift in share. Measured against the respective total supply, their share falls to around 23.8 percent of its previous value, so to roughly a quarter. This is a division, not a statement about price: what the market makes of it is not contained in these figures, and we derive neither an expectation nor a recommendation from them.

A further observation from the same retrieval concerns the state of the data. The entry for the old token is now carried by the data provider with the suffix "OLD", shows a circulating supply of zero and no market capitalisation. Six days after the window opened, the data providers are therefore already treating the old contract as superseded, while it continues to run on chain and remains transferable. A holder checking their balance against a price page may already be looking at the new token while the old one still sits in their wallet.

What we cannot derive from this retrieval: how many holders have already migrated, how the 3.8 billion tokens in circulation split between swapped balances and other allocations, and on what schedule the remaining 6.2 billion will be released. The portal gives no figure on this that we could have checked.

The project describes the state after September 10 with restraint and in part as still open. It is on record that the old contracts on Ethereum, Polygon and VanarChain no longer represent the active VANRY economy and are to be decommissioned once the window closes. Full contract details and any final measures are to be announced beforehand through the project's official channels.

Two technical points from the same FAQ belong here, because they are often confused. The old contracts contain a function that allows transfers to be halted at contract level. A function that would allow individual balances to be locked, frozen, clawed back or altered does not exist, according to the project. The team therefore cannot take an individual holder's balance away, but it can halt the contract as a whole.

In practice that means the old token does not vanish from your wallet on September 10. It loses its connection. Whether and when it can still be moved after that hangs on a decision the project has not yet taken.

The German tax authorities treat the exchange of one cryptocurrency for another as a disposal of one asset and an acquisition of the other. Within the one-year holding period under Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act, a gain from it is taxable above the annual exemption threshold of 1,000 euros.

Whether a migration of the same token onto a new contract at a one-to-one ratio falls under that principle is not thereby answered. We are not aware of an explicit statement from the tax authorities on this specific process, and we assert none here that does not exist. Both readings are conceivable: the process as a tax-neutral continuation of the same asset, or as an exchange with the usual consequences for the holding period and the acquisition date. The difference decides whether your holding period continues or starts afresh.

In practice that yields one recommendation which is right either way: record the process in full. That includes the date and time of the lock transaction, the amount, the source chain, the transaction hashes on both sides and the original acquisition date of the old tokens. Anyone having to piece those details together later may no longer find them if the old contract has been halted. The tax assessment itself belongs in the hands of a tax adviser.

Three things remain open, and they stand here rather than disappearing into a footnote.

First, we did not trigger a swap ourselves. All details of the process come from the project's own description, not from an attempt of our own. Whether delivery actually happens within the four hours stated is therefore something we cannot confirm.

Second, the Binance announcement is blocked to automated requests; the page answered us with a rejection message rather than content. A reader reaches it normally in a browser. We confirmed its content through search results from several mutually independent trade publications and link to it in the usual way.

Third, for the venues outside the official list we obtained no confirmation of our own. Which exchange handles the migration can also change at short notice; the list in the portal is a snapshot from August 17, 2026.

(As of August 17, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)