Sabbir Saadat

Two More Trades At Liberty, Not Trepidation.
The construction by the blockchains took an extended long term design. All such clicks, all such confirmations, all such interactions shall be paid into a question of how much of this shall cost the user at this time which was a big one. Fees were not just numbers. They were a source of stress. The network was severed and this came at the time when the network was congested. They would be able to switch the time upon which the user input the transaction and time upon which the transaction was approved. It meant that experience could not be factored prior to the designers and developers taking a risk.
The difference point here lies in a notion of the targeting of fees charged on Vanar Chain.
Vanar Chain had a better equilibrium in fees. In this system, it tries to ensure that the costs do not run out of control due to pressure of the networks but ensure that they remain within a limit of costs which are predictable and bearable. Some slight technical change can however be made but technically it would bring transformative change in the manner the applications are designed and how human beings are sensed.
Developers retaliatory when there is the instance of unexpected invoices. They also industrialize the processes to one process to facilitate them cut down on the recurrent cost. They dispose of good confirmations in an attempt to eliminate unwarranted transactions. They simplify the processes but not necessarily towards the advantage of the user but because it is more cost effective. They are constrained in such environment when it comes to creativity. Their user experience is left to containment of costs.
Pressure is changed in the case of Vanar fee target model. By incurring the same amount of fees, but according to the expectations, the developers would have been operating under clarity as opposed to being compressed. They are able to come up with the onboarding processes that expose the new users to step-by-step. They also would be able to adopt safety checks to assist them in avoiding errors. They can enable them to show more natural interaction ways as the users did previously in traditional applications.
This is what I call UX freedom.
The problem is not with the matters of freedom of UX as it has been brought forward without the intentions. The element of choice is the aspect that should be designed on the man logic and not the cost anxiety aspect. In case the designer is convinced that the prices of a given action will not shoot in the sky, then he/she can provide the background of the knowledge with reliability and trustworthiness. The product can feel calm. The user will not worry that he/she will be able to press a button when not required to and spend more.
The other significant impact of fee targeting is a psychological hospice. The majority of blockchains threaten users away with the unpredictable gas prices and they are not ready to authenticate a transaction. Such lack of commitment exterminates the involvement. It puts people less in touch. The users are confident with Vanar Chain where the price is not in the loss. Less carefree behavior will be achieved because confidence with oneself will be applied. The end result will be an eloquent adoption behavior.
It is even long term economic positive. The businesses can plan some of the fixed charges that are integrable. When creating a game, a company can create a market or a social platform on Vanar and, in this case, a company will be able to better estimate the operating cost. They will not have to continue varying their models based on the network peaks. Investment will be achieved through aggression. Investment helps in facilitating innovation.
To my knowledge, fee targeting by Vanar and technical effectiveness is nothing alike. It is emotional stability. Blockchain can not be seen as the thing that walks on thin ice. It must be equated to the usage of any of the reliable online services. The reduction of friction is made reduced particularly in the case where the cost may be determined. The loss of friction is followed by creativity.
One of those projects is VANRY, the spearhead of which is one and the very same token, Vanar Chain, to demonstrate that infrastructure choice distinction is explicitly reliant on the user experience. One of the issues that is given consideration when the network is analyzed is the speed or throughput. Those are important. Constant pricing is also mandatory as it is what it is defining how things are being constructed in the foundation itself.
And the last, but not the least, technology is not supposed to confuse people but people should make it understand to their benefits. A humanistic thinking of Vanar Chain fee targeting is associated with an engineering design. It provides the creators with an opportunity to be creative. It gives users peace of mind. And, to my mind, one of the most successful innovations of the current blockchain infrastructure is also the correlation of the cost stability to the design freedom.
Design as soon as any fee is no longer the cause of terror forfeits its command.

@Vanarchain $VANRY #vanar

In the evolution of on-chain infrastructure, the debate between deterministic execution and probabilistic finality is no longer academic — it defines the user experience, capital efficiency, and institutional viability of modern networks.

Most legacy chains rely on probabilistic finality. A transaction is “likely” to be final after several confirmations, but not absolutely guaranteed. This design may be sufficient for low-value transfers, yet it introduces uncertainty for high-frequency trading, cross-chain settlement, and complex DeFi execution. In volatile markets, probability is not precision.

Deterministic execution changes the equation. It ensures that given the same input and state, the outcome is identical — every time. There is no ambiguity, no re-ordering surprise, no fork-based anxiety. Determinism creates predictability at the protocol layer, which cascades upward into safer smart contracts, reliable order books, and stable liquidity behavior.

This is where @Fogo Official engineering thesis becomes critical.

Fogo is not simply iterating on existing consensus assumptions — it is rethinking execution guarantees from the ground up. By aligning deterministic execution with high-performance infrastructure, Fogo aims to reduce confirmation uncertainty while preserving throughput and composability. The result is a network architecture designed for real-time financial logic, not just block production.

Why does this matter?

Because capital demands certainty. Market makers, institutions, and algorithmic systems require deterministic state transitions to manage risk effectively. Probabilistic systems introduce latency buffers and hedging overhead. Deterministic systems reduce them.

The future of on-chain order books, structured products, and AI-integrated financial primitives depends on predictable execution environments. Fogo’s model is built for that future.

Determinism is not just a technical preference — it is a foundation for scalable trust.

As $FOGO continues to shape this thesis into deployed infrastructure, the distinction between “likely final” and “provably executed” will define which chains power the next generation of markets.

#fogo

From Automated Market Makers to High-Frequency Order Books: How Fogo is Re-Engineering the DNA of DeFi.
For the past five years, Decentralized Finance (DeFi) has been dominated by a single market structure: the Automated Market Maker (AMM). While revolutionary for its time, the AMM model—used by Uniswap and others—is capital inefficient. It requires massive liquidity to prevent slippage and offers traders no control over the price at which they execute.
This is where Fogo enters the arena. Fogo is not just building a faster blockchain; it is building a distinct structural edge designed to support Central Limit Order Books (CLOBs) fully on-chain. Here is how Fogo’s architecture is changing the physics of trading.
1. The End of "Lazy Liquidity"
The primary structural flaw of traditional L1s (like Ethereum) is that they are too slow and expensive to update orders. This forces liquidity providers to deposit funds into passive pools (AMMs).
Fogo’s architecture utilizes sub-second block times and low-latency consensus, allowing market makers to actively update their quotes hundreds of times per second. This shift from "passive" to "active" liquidity means tighter spreads for traders and better capital efficiency for institutions. On Fogo, liquidity isn't just sitting there; it’s working.

2. The Return of the Limit Order
In the AMM model, you can only "swap" at the current market price. Institutional traders, however, require Limit Orders—the ability to say, "I want to buy $FOGO only if it hits $1.50."
Fogo’s high throughput allows for a fully on-chain Central Limit Order Book (CLOB). Unlike other chains where order books are off-chain (and therefore centralized), Fogo’s structural capacity processes matching engine logic directly on the validator network. This brings the user experience of a centralized exchange (CEX) like Binance to the trustless world of DeFi.

3. Atomic Composability and Speed
Speed is useless if it breaks connectivity. Some high-speed chains fracture their liquidity into different "shards" or layers. Fogo maintains a unified state.
This creates a structural edge known as Atomic Composability. A trader can execute an arbitrage strategy involving a lending protocol, a derivatives exchange, and a spot market on Fogo all in a single transaction block. Because the chain processes transactions in parallel (similar to high-performance computing), the network does not choke during high volatility events.

4. Deterministic Execution
In traditional DeFi, "front-running" (MEV) is a plague. Bots see your transaction in the waiting room (mempool) and jump ahead of you to buy it first, giving you a worse price.
Fogo’s structural design minimizes this through optimized transaction ordering. By reducing the time a transaction sits in the mempool and potentially utilizing fair-ordering protocols, Fogo ensures that the market structure is fair. It creates a trading environment where the fastest and smartest traders win, not the ones who bribe the validators the most.

Conclusion: The Infrastructure for Wall Street
Fogo is not trying to be a general-purpose computer; it is optimizing itself to be the global financial settlement layer. By enabling on-chain order books, active liquidity provision, and fair execution, Fogo bridges the gap between the $2 Trillion crypto market and the $100 Trillion traditional finance market.
The future of markets is not automated pooling; it is high-frequency, transparent, and precise. Fogo is the structure that makes that future possible.

@Fogo Official $FOGO #fogo

I found out the true hero in the infrastructure that had to be maintained in the code of a very long boring chain of public that the screen was flooded with AI projects purportedly possessing the computing power needed.

Artificial intelligence is everywhere in our time. New project is designed on a day to day basis. Both of the projects present unlimited computing power, disembarkation of models, decentralized intelligence and gigantic returns indefinitely. The websites look beautiful. The roadmaps look perfect. The marketing is loud. The promises are even louder.

But upon glancing over the shoulder I feel that I am seeing something totally different as the item being promoted about. The large computing nets are referred to in most of the so-called AI projects. They are proud of the fact that they possess thousands of GPUs and they can utilize it to train sophisticated models. They show dashboards on which they possess figures. Their discussion is concerning speed, scopes and performance. However, in the event that an individual tries to demonstrate such statements, he/she would not have anything tangible. Inadequate infrastructure. No solid technical base. Only words.

This, in my mind, is one of the crucial problems of the contemporary AI and blockchain domain. It is easy to say "AI." It is easy to say de-centralized compute. Quite on the contrary, it is much more challenging to create actual systems, where corporations can give up the information and processes.

I was so tired as I kept on scrolling the list of the promotions and announcements. Everything sounded the same. The enterprises were all of new generation. The two tokens were both game changers. But none of them felt solid.

There was something bizarre that happened in the period.

Even the hype did not make me subscribe and the repository of a public blockchain code became unfolded before me and would be considered to beiedenturnt by the majority of people. It failed to possess sizzling marketing. It was not trending every day. It was failing to give magic returns. There it was, and it was running without a noise.

I began reading the code and I began to know something very profound. This was not an effort within this chain to sell computing power that it was not selling. It was not faking to be a supercomputer. It was highlighting on reliability, state management, security and provability.

This does not look hard in the first place. Maybe even unimpressive. However, when I pondered over how the reality of how the big businesses are run is, I understood that this is what they need.

A large corporation does not need any audacious pledge. It needs stability. It should know that this information will be correct by writing of data. It must possess predictable performance. It necessitates the expansion of the amount of traffic with non-failing systems. It should possess verifiable and sound infrastructure.

These grounds were hesitating to provide me by the dull sequence of which I was reading. It has been evolved in a particular architecture. It distorted the statal changes in a very conspicuous way. It separated a clear distinction between reason and reason. It has not been over-elaborated. It also gave the option of checking.

Here I took a different turn of opinion.

The existing AI endeavors are inclined to concentrate on the primitive computer technology. The two are also engaging in tussling on the size of the GPUs they allegedly have. Nevertheless, these are not the only features of the reality of the existence of real AI systems in companies. They are preoccupied with the data management approach, authorization and reforms, documentation and appropriate stability, both in the long and short term.

This is because the best model is not practical as the infrastructure that supports it is quite poor. An organization could not dare to put its business on shaky systems.

This is how I call this chain a lifeline. One can say that it is a dull structure on the outside which can sustain a huge infrastructure on the inside. The encouragement is the fact that no one is talking but everyone is cashing on it.

This contrasts with the flashy projects of AI and the difference could be discerned. A majority of them are selling infrastructure. They talk about distributed compute and fail to exemplify how it can be scheduled. They discuss the transparency but they do not disclose the real verification tools. They are discussing of decentralization and to want to have a control.

On the other hand, the community chain which I attended was not a revolutionary one. It was simply a gesture of its feeling. Anyone could inspect it. Any individual was able to familiarize themselves with the way transactions can be conducted. Any individual could have been listening to what was happening.

Such an open receptiveness toward myself is more than any claim to open ended GPUs.

It seems to me that noise will not be a part of the future of AI infrastructure. It would be grounded on simple solid and verifiable systems. It will not be sensationalized towards the real enterprises who will see the fruits of AI in conducting their business activities. They will not want dash boards that glitter.

Another lesson that I was exposed to in this experience is attention. We are usually attracted to a glittering thing. The radiant light at all times may not necessarily be the most effective ground. The actual revolution is silent in certain cases. It has been disguised sometimes in the clean code, conscientious design and work-long engineering.

The more I read her so called boring chain the more I admired it. And it was not even trying to impress me. It was trying to do what is right. And there is all right in infrastructure.

I think that AI space should not turn out to be as misleading as it is in my case. It also does not presuppose such hyperbolical statements and open systems. It must be done with the realization that building trust is a comparatively time consuming process that should be accomplished by being dependable and honest.

There is a lot of noise on the screen and even the silent systems which count are not audible. However, the moment you learned about them you know that they are the roots of the progress as well.

It will not be the future of those who will shout in vain most about the artificial computing power. It will be among the ones that develop infrastructure on which companies can count on a regular basis.

and even that future opens some times with dull communal chain and an inquiring mind is disposed towards reading the code.

@Vanarchain $VANRY #vanar

It is a new age of the machines capable of speaking, writing, drawing and they were even able to reason. Nonetheless, despite all this smartness, there is a strange weakness of most AI systems. They forget. They forget context. They forget people. They forget yesterday. Each message or communication are likely to start at a point as though nothing serious has ever happened before. It is neither a technical disadvantage. It is a technical flaw and it determines the work of the digital systems, experience to the user, will they build up or tear down trust.

I would guess that the next new software battle will not be speed and Intelligence. It will be about memory. Its owner, its whereabouts, in whom it is joint property and shall it be maintained without misuse. Vanar Chain is one of them, and belongs to the period when memory is the infrastructure but not even a glance in this silent yet deadly battle.

The cost of clean-up and Loose Brain AI.

The existing interaction between most of the population and AI is interchangeable. You ask a question, you get answered and you continue. The devices will tend to consider you as an object which has not seen you in a long time. It forgets what will please you and what man would fain do in the long run, niceties of the surrounding, which are dear to conversations, and make them human. Such forgetfulness is typically an additional option of security or privacy though not confined to that. Memory can hardly be invented, it can hardly be locked or it can hardly be decentralized.

Memory is closely related to intelligence of man. We learn by remembering. We trust by remembering. It is the experience that makes us grow and develop. The long-term memory will make AI superficial. Useful, yes, but shallow. It can calculate, and not literally follow. It is capable of responding and it cannot see continuity.

This is what is causing the loss of the layer by memory. Otherwise, AI will be transactional. Through it, AI is relational.

The memory is an infrastructure and not a feature.

Internet has also been invented when a problem storage occurred in the memory. Databases held records. Servers kept logs. The details of the users were displayed on the platforms and the time of presence and utilization listed. The model had been effective where the web was entrenched and a sensible control was not provided to the user.

Today, that model is breaking. The meaning produced by the AI systems is time-based. Virtual worlds persist. The digital identities are cross platform. The music was creative hence lived beyond the instrument. In this environment, memory is no longer employed as a storage. It is infrastructure.

It has to be a uniform, indispensible and passive infrastructure. It does not fade away in a day. Power grids cannot always be switched on during a morning. With the same in mind, the deletion of the digital memory would be impossible in case one session has been initiated or in the case a platform would make sure to act in a different way.

But, without any screaming there is the introduction of blockchains into the discourse, only this time, blockchains are not introduced with the warning that they are a hypothetical resource but a memory rail.

Decentralized memory is important.

It has a poor and decentralized memory. It will be conditional on whether the companies will come out of their own or not, tell truth and are consumer friendly. It is gambling with death as history would testify. Platforms shut down. Policies change. Data gets repurposed. The net takes away the personal history of consumers.

There is still another vow of decentralized memory. Such information can be in the shape of absence of the actor. Ownership can be clearer. Rules of access can be open. Above all, memory could be composed. It can be read, written on by many systems and expanded without any permission of a central gatekeeper.

For AI, this is critical. The AI retrieval of memory cannot be limited to one application in a decentralized level. It is able to track a user inter-contextually. It can remember and not own. It has an ability to study without exploitation.

In this the melancholy manner of Vanar turns it.

Vanar is not an advertised memory chain that impersonates itself to be AI. In fact, it is factoring significant amounts of its communications to on-line experience, gaming and virtual worlds. There is, though, something below that. Vanar will be used to persist.

There is the demand of long-term memory in the long-term settings. The virtual worlds become not willing to start and become physical. It is noteworthy that the digital objects will lose meaning when they are lost with no meaning. The spaces that are unmuch inventive are not viable in the fact that they are unable to preserve history. Vanar architecture is less biased towards the short lived information, shallow friction interactions or environments that are expected to be live over time and are not restricted to the hype cycle.

This would render Vanar appealing in the AI front that is not necessarily making it out. World AI agents that are persistent require memory. They must be in a position to meander backwards the past, to understand the changing space and be adjusted to the communities. There accompanies this need a chain in which one of the values instilled is the value of persistence.

This is where I suppose Vanar comes into the higher battle of memory. In the contest of clanking, not, but as a flat plane.

The emotional side of memory

Memory is not just technical. It is emotional. Human beings become concerned about their backgrounds. Their creations. Their progress. It is not the case when the systems lose their memory and the users do not experience it. This is something that systems must avoid presenting false memories as this places the users on the same level as vulnerability.

The balance is delicate. Respectful memory is good. And it is upon that which thou clingest, forgetteth was. This level of the scales is extremely hard to strike when the centralized system is employed as the instincts are expected to run on the false side.

A closer match is offered with decentralised memory. The users can choose what they would be saving. They can give beselective access. They can afford to risk going out for their memory and leave their memory.

This is even more so in the case of AI coming closer. It is a subjective remembrance of an AI, which lacks a subjective memory. It is unnatural to have a personal AI, one belonging to a corporation, though. Thirdly is level memory infrastructure.

It might sound like it is a peaceful war but why is it a war?

The earliest phases when infrastructure wars occur do not involve much noise. They unfold slowly. Competing standards emerge. Silent resolutions prevail in the future. Most of the people would not have known what has transpired only to realize it too late.

It will be the competition whose existence in the world of the digital world. Are there memory cataclysmic, meager platforms in closed platforms? or will it be a popularity layer, the one of the users, and one which will be available to many of the systems?

AI speeds up such a collision as it can increase the worth of the memory. One remembered choice can have an impact on thousands of the future relations. A facility of a holding of artistic history can enlighten systems in years. Memory compounds.

Such slogans are not the way chains such as Vanar are getting this war. They are locating themselves through the construction of that supposes persistence, minimal expense interaction and settings that supposes enduring being. That is a strategic choice.

What I myself think happens.

I do not believe that the screaming chains are the prototypes that are fast and that they are the ones that are carrying the future. It is an element of the mechanisms that are able to understand time. Memory is about time. About continuity. The show of piety to the olden days.

The amnesic AI will continue to represent an even more outdated phenomenon as those sites where one can find the updated information after clicking on it are also updating. The users will require that the systems should be in a form of memory as they get advanced but in a secure and acceptable manner.

Vanar is an insightful method of arriving to this future. It is not trying to usurp memory in an offputting way, either. It is trying to host it. That difference matters.

The AI forgetful is not going to be slain at night. But, when that it is, we shall find that that was not a quality of memory. An entire segment was based on it.

@Vanarchain $VANRY #vanar