Jennifer Zynn

The most popular answer to this question is this objection: It is possible that in case Fogo succeeds in its innovations in speed and the UX, all other chains would copy it? It is rather a fair question - which to be truthful is the right question to ask in any infrastructure project. Features get replicated. Code gets forked. But what indeed may be conserved?
I needed to search the architecture and ecosystem strategy of @fogo, and then I came to a conclusion that I did not want to discover: the moat is not a single feature. It is the stack, and more to the point, the sequencing of decisions which would otherwise be extremely difficult to reverse-engineer to a competitor overnight.

Among the Misconceptions that need to be rectified.
People still call Fogo fast Solana fork. This is the out of place framing. Yes, Fogo is SVM-compatible. Yes, it uses Firedancer. But calling it a fork is the same as calling a Formula 1 car an adapted sedan as they both have engines.
The unique aspects of Fogo include the vertical integration: it is an unlayered Firedancer-only client (there is no slow-client bottleneck), multi-local consensus with geographical zoning of validators, an edited group of validators, and a set of trading primitives, including batch auctions and MEV mitigation. One works to make the other strong. It is half as good to copy a half and omit the rest.
Three Layers of Defensibility That I See.
I think about moats in layers. Here's how I'd map Fogo's:
Layer 1 Architectural integration (hardest to imitate).
Competitors have the potential to fork SVM code. They can even run Firedancer. Nonetheless, to achieve the same stack - geographic consensus zones, curated co-located validators, enshrined DEX logic and no-gas Sessions it would need to be rewritten as a ground up implementation following the same design philosophy. It is a multi-year engineering contract and by that time Fogo will have put in place more iterations. This is the layer my opinion about which is the most defensible.
Network effects Liquidity, ecosystem, Layer 2.
Such is where pre-emptive execution is highly crucial. Fogo had an initial amount of 10 dApps that included Valiant DEX, liquid staking lending protocols and Brasa. The liquidity is being increased by the airdrop program of the $FOGO token. Nevertheless, in cases where liquidity is concentrated, trading pairs and user tendencies are self-enforcing and the real moat is formed. The switching costs begin to creep as soon as the traders come up with workflows relying on Fogo Sessions and the developers begin to optimize around block times of 40ms. I am tracing this coat so far because it is where momentum is changed to gravity.
Layer 3- Team capabilities and organizational DNA.
This is an underestimated stratum. The history of the Citadel Securities Doug Colkitt suggests that the people who initiated the start-up are aware of the market microstructure and what is actually needed by institutional traders. The creators of the Pyth who have worked in Douro Labs have oracle infrastructure experience. One can copy code but not other decision-making instincts at that level that were built in the construction of trading systems. The Fogo make-up is a genuine moat.

My Moat Strength Framework: The If/Then.
My evaluation of the moat is the following:
The architectural moat is being operated when second-wave builders find it convenient to use Fogo as a substitute to general-purpose chains to trade apps onto them.
The network effects layer is being formed when the liquidity retention is elevated because of reduced incentives to the incentive-sensitive component of the network →
The expertise moat is increasing when the team delivers indications of thorough familiarity with the trading field have been created - the learning curve.
Risks I am following (Positively).
Solana's convergence. Assuming that Solana deploys such functionality, the architecture moat will be narrower, although I do not believe that Fogo is less powerful due to vertical integration.
Ecosystem velocity. The moats in networks are only achievable through sustainability of the growth of builders and users. A plateau would be one of the indications.
Threat of new features implementation. Potent and multifaceted primitives are inculcated. Any major malfunction in Sessions or any batch auctions can turn the tide of trust.
Narrative competition. I will have other L1s who will sell the same claims. Demonstrable metrics and not messages are the best approaches to defend the moat of Fogo.
Practical Takeaways
In don't norms, the moats are considered feature by feature. It is the level of integration which is hard to replicate, the whole stack.
The schemas of migration of track builders. The most preferable moat signal by developers is to apply Fogo in their new projects.
Team qualification Watch team performance, not team qualification. The problem that is with institutional DNA is only that it has to be reflected on the product decisions.

@Fogo Official $FOGO #fogo

To jest jedno pytanie, na które dyskurs na poziomie Layer 1 zwraca niewielką uwagę: jakie jest doświadczenie rzeczywistego korzystania z łańcucha? Mówimy o liczbach TPS i architekturze walidatorów bez końca, jednak to niekoniecznie techniczne aspekty sprawiają, że ludzie rezygnują z nowego łańcucha, lecz tarcia. Zbyt wiele wyskakujących okienek portfela. Raziners mogą wystąpić w trakcie transakcji. Zlecenia limitowane nie są niezawodne w oparciu o potwierdzenia, które nie są utracone. Aby uniknąć kolejnej turystyki architektonicznej, przejdziemy przez to, co @Fogo Official może zrobić na poziomie użytkownika, krok po kroku.