Bit_Rase

Looking back at previous cycles, Layer 1 valuations rarely begin with a clear financial model. They usually start with a strong narrative and only later transition toward measurable fundamentals. For Fogo Official, I expect a similar path in 2026 — but with execution speed and low latency at the center of the story.
In the early stage of a bull market, valuations are largely expectation-driven. If the market believes that on-chain trading will surge and that ultra-low-latency infrastructure can attract meaningful order flow, Fogo could earn an “execution layer premium.” At that point, it would not simply be viewed as another L1, but as infrastructure capable of competing with centralized exchange experiences. Even before on-chain data fully validates the thesis, anticipation alone could push valuations higher.
As the cycle matures, however, attention typically shifts toward concrete metrics. For Fogo, that would likely mean trading volume, liquidity depth across core dApps, real end-user transactions, and — critically — fee generation. If $FOGO demonstrates not just speed but sustainable fee revenue from consistent activity, valuation could evolve from narrative-based pricing to usage-based pricing.
Comparisons within the SVM ecosystem will also matter. If Fogo captures meaningful order flow, the market may begin valuing it as a parallel execution venue rather than merely an extension or fork of Solana. In that scenario, pricing could reflect its share of execution volume, similar to how exchanges are valued by market share.
Still, there are risks. In bull markets, hot themes often attract capital before their advantages are fully proven. If latency becomes overhyped and Fogo fails to sustain liquidity or volume, valuation could correct sharply.
Tokenomics will also play a decisive role. If the token clearly secures the network through staking, regulates fees, and captures value from network activity, investors can more easily anchor valuation to projected fee flows. If that linkage remains vague, pricing may remain largely speculative.
Another key factor is order flow control. In recent cycles, projects that coordinate or capture significant order flow have commanded premium valuations because order flow directly translates into fees. If Fogo becomes a major daily venue for on-chain execution, its valuation could closely track the scale and stickiness of that flow.
However, the broader narrative environment matters too. If the 2026 bull market is dominated by themes like AI, RWAs, or social infrastructure, execution-focused chains may receive less attention. Conversely, if on-chain trading becomes a primary driver of the cycle, Fogo could benefit from both narrative momentum and real cash flow growth.
Internal competition within the SVM landscape adds another layer of uncertainty. If multiple high-performance chains fragment liquidity, each chain’s valuation will depend on how much durable market share it retains. Fogo must demonstrate a clear, defensible advantage to avoid being perceived as just another “fast” chain.
From an investor perspective, two camps typically emerge. Early in the cycle, one group prices long-term potential and thematic dominance. Later, another group focuses on hard metrics like fees, retention, and developer activity. Early momentum may be narrative-driven, but sustainability depends on fundamentals.
It is entirely possible that Fogo experiences a sharp narrative-driven expansion followed by a correction, as many L1s have in past cycles. The key question is whether activity, developers, and user trust remain after the hype subsides. If they do, valuation could stabilize and compound more sustainably in subsequent cycles.
Ultimately, Fogo’s 2026 valuation will likely depend on three forces aligning: a compelling execution narrative, measurable and durable order flow with real fees, and market confidence in its long-term competitive positioning. There is no precise formula — but if all three converge, Fogo could be priced as a critical infrastructure layer for on-chain trading. If not, volatility across cycles is almost inevitable.
The real signal to watch may not be the peak valuation, but how much genuine activity and trust remain once the excitement fades.
#fogo @Fogo Official
$FOGO

Introduction: More Than Just Higher Import Costs
When Donald Trump announced a sweeping new import surcharge in February 2026, the global response was immediate. Financial markets began adjusting, supply chain teams searched for clarity, and trade partners started weighing their next moves. But this decision goes far beyond a typical tariff announcement. It signals a calculated shift in how executive trade authority is being used following legal limitations — and reflects a broader strategy focused on economic leverage, strengthening domestic production, and redefining America’s position in global trade.
A Legal Ruling That Changed the Playbook
The roots of this policy lie in a legal setback. Previous tariff efforts relied heavily on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). However, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that IEEPA does not give the president sweeping authority to impose tariffs for general economic purposes.
Rather than stepping back, the administration shifted its approach by turning to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — legislation passed by the United States Congress. This statute allows temporary import surcharges in cases of serious balance-of-payments concerns, although it places strict limits on both duration and scope. The move illustrates how legal constraints often reshape policy direction rather than halt it altogether.
What the Tariff Actually Changes
On February 20, 2026, the White House issued a proclamation introducing a 10 percent duty on most imported goods entering the United States. The measure officially takes effect on February 24 and is set to last 150 days unless Congress votes to extend it.
Unlike earlier tariffs that targeted specific countries or industries, this policy applies broadly across imports, effectively raising costs on a wide range of foreign goods. According to the administration, the goal is to address structural imbalances in international payments through corrective economic action.
Strategic Exemptions Highlight Priorities
While the surcharge applies widely, it is not without exceptions. Key categories such as critical minerals, energy products, passenger vehicles, aerospace goods, and informational materials like books are excluded. Products already subject to Section 232 tariffs are also exempt to avoid overlapping penalties.
These carve-outs reflect strategic intent. Protecting autos and aerospace industries helps prevent domestic manufacturing disruption, while excluding energy resources and critical minerals safeguards sectors tied to national security and economic resilience.
Closing the Low-Value Import Loophole
In addition to the tariff itself, the administration moved to tighten rules surrounding duty-free “de minimis” shipments — small parcels that previously entered the U.S. without tariffs if they fell below a certain value threshold.
By restricting this pathway, the policy expands tariff coverage to include e-commerce imports and small retail shipments. This ensures the surcharge impacts not just industrial-scale trade, but also consumer-level goods moving through online marketplaces.
Economic Ripple Effects
Tariffs rarely stay at the border. Retailers importing finished products must now decide whether to absorb the added costs or pass them on to consumers. Manufacturers that depend on foreign components will face higher input expenses, potentially squeezing margins or forcing supplier renegotiations.
Some firms may respond by reshoring production or diversifying sourcing strategies — but such transitions require time and investment. In the near term, consumers are likely to feel price pressure in sectors heavily tied to global supply chains.
Global Reactions and the Risk of Retaliation
International trade doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Major exporting countries are already considering their responses, including possible countermeasures through frameworks overseen by the World Trade Organization.
Even if retaliation is not immediate, diplomatic pressure and trade negotiations are expected to intensify. Some partners may push for exemptions, while others could implement targeted tariffs of their own.
What Happens Next
Because Section 122 caps the measure at 150 days without congressional approval, lawmakers must decide whether to extend, revise, or let it expire. Additional legal scrutiny is also likely, particularly regarding whether the balance-of-payments justification meets statutory requirements.
The earlier Supreme Court ruling made one thing clear: executive authority over trade policy has limits — and future legal challenges could determine how durable this strategy truly is.
A New Phase in Trade Policy
Trump’s latest tariffs are not just about raising import costs. They represent a legally recalibrated effort to exert influence over supply chains and economic behavior within judicial boundaries.
Whether this remains a temporary intervention or becomes the foundation for longer-term policy will depend on congressional action, court decisions, and international reaction. What’s certain is that U.S. trade policy has entered a more assertive — and contested — phase.
#TrumpNewTariffs