Many people talk about public chains, and their first reaction is still to look at TPS, latency, and the number of nodes. But in my opinion, these are more like numbers on a promotional page and may not represent long-term usability.
When I reorganized the design of @Fogo Official , I focused more on how resources are allocated and scheduled. Performance is not just about raising the upper limit; rather, when transactions truly flood in, whether the execution order is clear and the state updates are stable. If a chain can maintain its rhythm under sustained high-frequency calls, then that is an environment developers dare to deploy long-term.
Many projects like to emphasize explosive power but rarely discuss whether the system will distort under sustained pressure. Fogo gives me the impression of being more endurance-oriented rather than sprint-oriented. Different architectural orientations will lead to different final ecosystem qualities.
From my understanding, $FOGO is more about pricing the stability of network execution rather than simply following emotional fluctuations. Those who truly create applications care about whether the structure is stable, not just whether the data looks good.
Cycles will have ups and downs, but whether the foundation is solid will be gradually verified over time.