Saauroon

The majority of the Layer-1 blockchain-related discussions reiterate the concepts of TPS, block time, and charts. I believe that this is an incorrect point of view on the part of Fogo. The more I look into it the more it is becoming apparent that Fogo is actually a market-structure project wrapped in a Layer-1.
What I am trying to say is this; speed is not the objective of Fogo. It is intended to ensure that on-chain trading is more equitable and clean by transforming trade matching. That is an ambition that is not merely professing to have low latency, but is like the way that real exchanges work: first, execution; second, marketing.

The thesis: the quality of the market is better than the speed of the raw
You have long enough been trading to understand that it does not help you to be fast to avoid bad fills. Even using fast blocks, latency games, reordering, and even toxic order flow will eat you. Simply put, the construction of a high-speed chain may continue to make a market a tax.
That worldview is evident through Fogo messaging publicly. They talk about the taxes levied on traders: Friction tax, bot tax, speed tax and toxic flow. The words used are audacious, yet the underlying message is uncompromising the actual danger is not slow confirmations, it is unjust competition that takes advantage.
That is why the greatest interest to me of Fogo is not the chain itself but what it facilitates at the market layer.
Ambient and the big swing: Dual flow Batch Auctions.
The most notable one is Ambient Finance, an everlasting DEX on Fogo that is going to execute Dual Flow Batch Auctions (DFBA).
On-chain trading nowadays is likely to be in two worlds. The former is AMMs: simple and easy, but not necessarily effective in the case of fast market changes. The second one is continuous order books (CLOBs): they have smaller spreads and improved price discovery, but they are susceptible to latency games and MEV, since the first to see and trade tends to win.

DFBA is a mere combination of the merits of both worlds and elimination of the most vile flaw: the speed-based extraction. Ambient claims that DFBA combines CLOB accuracy with fairness through batching orders and clearing out the block at the end of the block, at an oracle-based price.
It is the oracle-bound marketplace that actually initiates the change of market-structure.
Why change bundling affects trading psychology.
Everyone in a continuous market is a race. The quickest users can push other users slower, jump queues, and take advantage of them. Through this reason, common traders tend to believe that they are trading with ghosts.
In the batch auction, the game changes. Orders are stacked up throughout the block and all clear at the end. According to Ambient, in contrast to continuous matching, DFBA aggregates orders and clears at block end, at a single clearing price on each side with the help of an oracle such as Pyth.
The moral of the story: the batching shifts competition on speed to price. When everybody clears simultaneously, you cannot win by being a millisecond faster, you have to quote better.

This, therefore, makes DFBA a legitimate call towards justness, rather than just another low-charge DEX.
The detail of the so-called dual flow is more important than one may assume.
Another suggestion made by Ambient is to split the orders into the maker and taker flows at the stage of batch accumulation.
Some omit this point, yet it is important since it separates the liquidity provision and consumption flows and the auction solves them to restrict reordering games.
The aim: smaller spreads and the snipers will not be advantaged.
That is quite a change to the typically DeFi story of increased leverage, increased points, and increased hype. It is a plea of integrity in the market.
Promised in crypto markets most underestimated is price improvement.
The writings of DFBA point out that price-improvement opportunities can be provided by batches. Ambient provides a simple example: when you place a buy order and the market falls, the competitors can revise the quotes atomically so that you can get a better price without the market racing.
That is a case that is prevalent in mature markets but uncommon on-chain.
Numerous DeFi casinos just claim to offer small slippage. DFBA tries to provide real fairness in the market movement.
Given that the ecosystem of Fogo can provide such on a regular basis, it is an upscale addition compared to another 10x headline TPS.
How DFBA attempts to reduce MEV without faking MEV disappears.
Most of the projects purport to eradicate MEV, and this sounds like a fairy tale. I find it appealing that DFBA aims at changing the process which facilitates front-running.
According to Ambient, front-running in the case of an unpredictable oracle final auction price is extremely hard and post-quiet-period.
Not a promise, that is mechanism design, when the clearing price is not predictable by an order placed by a bot, then the bot loses its advantage.
It will not eradicate all the MEV, but it is capable of restraining the most dangerous type of it, namely speed-based reordering which is detrimental to ordinary traders.
The solver model: Service based competition.
The description of the participants of auction is another indicator of maturity provided by Ambient. They mean external solvers and market makers providing competitive bids in the manner of solver models such as CoW Swap but made part of the batch process.
This is interesting in that it would make liquidity a competitive layer which would help in enhancing user execution, and not a mere pool.
In simple terms: the system challenges professionals to compete in the case of a better fill. It is an institutional concept as it coincides with the aspiration of Fogo of market-grade trading.
Market quality also includes resilience.
This is another angle that is not given due consideration by most hype threads, what happens when the oracle is stressed?
The DFBA write-up does not evade that. According to it, in case of oracle lag, the system can add delay to the auction. In case the oracle stops completely, oracle-pegged liquidity is switched off, and makers revert to offering fixed prices.
That is important since it demonstrates an effort of graceful degradation and not all breaks.
In actual finance the systems do not get bonus points on perfect days. They are respected because of their way of conducting themselves on bad days.

The underlying design in this story as to why Fogo will matter.
Although my angle is on market structure, it should not be ignored that the chain is important since the mechanism must be realistic.
Ambient specifically states that DFBA may be fully deployed in smart contracts on the SVM of Fogo, where compute costs are minimal and no changes are needed to the consensus-layer.
That is a significant line: it implies that Fogo can now run such market mechanisms in high frequency without making each block a costly, slack event. DFBA auctions every block only works when the execution is efficient.
So yes—speed matters. In this story, it is not speed, but speed that enables it.
My lesson: Fogo is not creating the road and only the rules of trading
In one sentence, to say that Fogo is different, I would say the following: It is attempting to correct on-chain trading at the rules layer.
Most chains sell throughput. The ecosystem at Fogo is in the process of experimenting with a market structure that makes speed advantage less, uses competition that pushes towards price, and allows price improvement, all without leaving anything off the block or hidden.
Neither is that a guarantee of success. Market design is hard. But it is actually a new direction as opposed to the vicious cycle of new L1, same DEX, same MEV pain.
There are some chances that Fogo will not be another fast SVM chain in case DFBA-style execution gains momentum. It will be remembered as a chain that contributed to transitioning the on-chain markets away in the past of the fastest but the best priced. And to merchants, that is what makes the difference between a casino and a place.
@FOGO $FOGO #fogo

Le Moment où la Crypto Mûrit
La crypto a toujours évolué rapidement, mais la vitesse seule n'a jamais été la véritable victoire. Pendant des années, nous avons célébré les chiffres TPS, les tableaux de bord flashy et les promesses marketing dramatiques. Pourtant, lorsque les marchés sont devenus volatils, la vérité est apparue. La congestion a augmenté. Les liquidations ont pris du retard. Les livres de commandes se sont comportés de manière imprévisible. Les traders ont payé des taxes invisibles. Que se passerait-il si la véritable évolution de la blockchain ne concernait pas la vitesse, mais la structure ? Que se passerait-il si l'avenir appartenait aux chaînes qui se comportent comme des lieux de trading professionnels plutôt que comme des terrains de jeux expérimentaux ? C'est là que Fogo entre dans le récit, non pas comme une autre affirmation de « haut débit », mais comme une thèse axée sur la performance conçue pour la finance en temps réel.

When you mention SVM L1, most individuals are going to immediately classify Fogo alongside any other high-throughput chain: high TPS claims, trader marketing. However, the worth of Fogo is not in the slogan, but the design decisions that seem more of a blueprint of a trading venue than a conventional crypto roadmap.
Fogo merely poses a direct question: does on-chain finance want to play with professional markets, then why do we care less about geography, network jitter and slow clients? In actual trading those things prevail. The architecture of Fogo appreciates that and develops around it.
The new narrative isn’t “speed.” It’s coordination: synchronizing time, place, client performance, and validator behavior in such a way that on-chain markets behave like real markets, rather than the noisy experiments they are commonly thought to be.
The thesis: latency is a system issue in order to implement real-time finance.
Latency is frequently a want at Crypto. It is a structural constraint Fogo considers it the same way exchanges do.

When you require on-chain order book, real time auctions, accurate liquidation time and reduced MEV-mining, you cannot just optimize the execution engine. You have to make the pipeline as optimum as possible: the clocks, propagation, consensus messaging and who is allowed to make blocks. This is the clear positioning of Fogo on the high throughput and low latency application including order books, and liquidations with precision.
That is the change of mindset: Fogo does not build a chain and hopes markets will behave, he makes a chain market-behaving in form at the first stage.
Solana foundation, but with an interpretation of performance-first.
Fogo is placed on the architecture of Solana rather than re inventing everything. It carries with it some fundamental functionality: Proof of History to synchronous time, Tower BFT to fast finality, Turbine to block propagation, SVM to execution and deterministic rotation of the leader.
That is significant since the problem the fast chains tend to have is mundane: clocks drift, propagation is a nightmare, a leader hand-over is not stable. Fogo is betting on it by beginning with an architecture that is proven it can afford to concentrate on the real thing: optimizing the system to be low-latency marketable.
The point isn’t “we’re Solana.” It means that we retain what has already served, and re-optimise that which prevents real-time finance the sense of cleanliness.
The most radical choice: a single client as opposed to a quilt of clients
This is the choice that most chains will not publicize: Fogo will choose one canonical validator client as based on Firedancer, as opposed to many equally valid clients.
Theoretically speaking, client diversity limits some of the risks. Practically, it makes performance a bargain with slowest implementation. The ceiling of the chain reduces in case one half of the network is using a slow client. Fogo refers to this as a bottleneck in the diversity of the client and believes that performance is constrained by the slowest client.
The action of So Fogo is straightforward, get the operations standardised on the quickest route and turn a slow client into a financial burden since lost blocks are lost revenue.
This style is reflective of exchanges. Trades do not have five matching matching engines since diversity is a nice idea. They operate the most successful one since milliseconds make the difference.
Even Fogo gives a detailed plan of a gradual implementation: begin with Frankendancer, a combination strategy, and switch to pure Firedancer as the development progresses. That depicts a realistic migration route, rather than an idealistic theory system.
Multi-local consensus: accepting geography, and purposefully employing it.
Multi-local consensus is the most peculiar concept of architecture found in Fogo. It is a zone model in which the validators are located in a close physical proximity to drive latency to the hardware limits.
That’s not a small detail. Validators are synchronised instead of being haphazardly distributed. Inter-machine latency may be very small in one data centre. That allows making consensus messaging quicker, so block time can be reduced. The reduction in block times minimizes the gaming window in the markets.

But Fogo doesn’t stop there. It introduces dynamic zone rotation, whereby the zone is able to rotate between epochs, and which is accomplished through on-chain voting, with a majority in advance reaching an agreement on upcoming locations.
This more detailed story reveals how Fogo attempts to reap the advantages of co-location without actually being bound to a single jurisdiction or territory. The docs expressly put zone rotation in the perspective of the need to maintain the advantages of decentralisation such as the benefits of jurisdictional diversity and regional robustness.
In other words: co-locate to win milliseconds, rotate to evade capture.
That’s not a normal L1 story. It is a story of how do we operate global market infrastructure.
Cultured curators: performance as a membership characteristic, not aspiration.
The other non-generic action is the curated validator set. Although it can be inferred that a minor percentage of under-provisioned or under-performing validators can hold a network to physical performance constraints, Fogo claims to counter this by relying on curation to keep performance constant.
This is a controversial event in crypto culture since permissionless is being seen as a religion. However, when you want to be market-grade in your performance, you must face an ugly truth: when anybody can join with incompetent hardware and wartsied operations, the entire system inherits those incompetencies.
The docs of Fogo explain that the system has two conditions, namely stake thresholds to guarantee economic security and validator approval to guarantee operational capability. That is simply to say: it is true that decentralization is important, but not to the extent of making the chain a slow moving social experiment.
Of particular interest is that this explicitly refers to social layer enforcement of the behavior which is difficult to directly encode in protocol rules such as the expelling of grossly underperforming nodes and even the kicking out of malicious practice of MEV.
That is an adult confession: not all the most difficult issues in market infrastructure are technical, but behavioral. And even the governance that can be acts as the means of protecting the system.Why this is important to the traders and not engineers alone.
As a trader, you are concerned with three things above buzzwords: consistency, predictability and fairness.Consistency signifies the same behavior of chain under load.Predictability This is the behavior of an order not affecting its character because the network has become noisy.Fairness implies that you do not always pay some unknown tax to bots and privileged flow.
The literal definition of the same is presented by the Fogo site: the friction tax, the bot tax, the speed tax, and the calls out the toxic flow that kills profits. That is marketing talk, alright, but it makes sense with the architectural decisions: co-locating to reduce the size of the latency window, a prototypical high-performance client to eliminate slow-client drag, and carefully tested validators to minimize operational degradation.
That is, the tech story is equivalent to the trading story. That coherence is rare.The macro concept: Fogo is not merely creating a chain but rather an infrastructure of the market.When you remove the branding, Fogo is selling a particular vision of the world:
A blockchain that is meant to accommodate real-time markets should not be an attempt to create a public bulletin board and more of a coordinated mechanism.It requires that it has a powerful worldwatch, velocity of spread and predictable conduct of leaders.
It requires customers who already are performance-oriented, instead of being divided into a lowest common denominator collection.It must have a credible attitude to geography, as information flows in the world with physical restrictions.
It must have validator standards that will safeguard the user experience, not the ideology.
It is possible to disagree with the elements of that worldview. But you can’t call it generic. It is a unified thesis, and it has one victim, to make on-chain trading to be less about crypto trading and more about trading.
Should Fogo win, it will not be a story on TPS winning. The victory will be that designers cease to design around chain weakness. They will construct order books, auctions, liquidation engines and market primitives which feel too weak on most chains. And users will experience the difference in the single way that counts in markets, execution that is clean.
@FOGO $FOGO #fogo