With Fogo, the interesting part isn’t that it’s fast.
It’s that it didn’t try to invent a new machine.
Choosing the Solana Virtual Machine feels like a decision against ego. A lot of new L1s want to differentiate at the VM layer — custom execution, custom rules, something novel enough to headline. Fogo didn’t go that route. It adopted SVM, which already carries a reputation for parallel execution and throughput under pressure.
That shifts the focus.
Instead of asking “can it run?”, the question becomes “can it run consistently?” SVM environments are built for performance-heavy use cases — trading systems, on-chain games, strategies that depend on constant state updates. If Fogo leans into that properly, it isn’t competing on novelty. It’s competing on stability under load.
And stability is quieter than people expect.
High-performance chains don’t usually fail during demos. They fail during congestion. During real usage. When parallel execution collides with unpredictable demand. That’s where Fogo’s positioning becomes clearer. If you’re building something that can’t tolerate lag — or can’t tolerate fee spikes — you don’t want a chain experimenting with its runtime every quarter.
Using SVM also lowers friction for developers already comfortable with Solana’s tooling and execution patterns. That matters more than it sounds. Porting logic is easier than relearning architecture from scratch. Ecosystem gravity starts forming around familiarity, not hype.
There’s a trade-off though.
By not reinventing the VM, Fogo also inherits expectations. People know how SVM behaves under stress. They’ll measure Fogo against that benchmark, not against weaker chains. That’s a higher bar.
What I find compelling isn’t the TPS claim. It’s the restraint.
Fogo isn’t trying to redefine execution. It’s trying to run it well. That’s a different ambition. Less flashy. More operational.