I hear “tokenomics performance without compromise,” and I ask myself what FOGO is trading away to keep performance, because I’ve watched too many chains get fast on subsidies, then slow down when the economics lose rhythm.
The issue is that FOGO isn’t only optimizing software, it’s optimizing physical distance too, multi local consensus splits validators into co located zones to push latency down toward hardware limits, a standardized client based on Firedancer is meant to avoid the out of sync multi client story, but the trade off is higher operational thresholds and a validator set that can shrink. When the operator set shrinks, transaction ordering power and operational decision making naturally concentrate, even if the original intent was to narrow the window for bot.
I look at the allocation data, a 10 billion total supply, 63.74% genesis supply locked and released over four years, 2 percent target annual inflation to fund security, which means when real volume is still thin, the burden of “paying for performance” leans on emissions and the unlock schedule.
The upside is clear, if fees rise with resource consumption and burn becomes meaningful once real demand shows up, $FOGO can move from subsidized speed to speed paid for by on chain revenue.
What net fee metrics and burn rate would you need to see, to believe the cost of performance is actually declining over time.