Cex Trd

Hello anh em hôm nay mình chia sẻ cho anh em một dự án khá tiềm năng trên binance là Fogo Network

Hãy cùng mình tìm hiểu bên dưới nhé

1 Dự án Fogo Chain là gì?

Fogo là một blockchain Layer-1 hiệu suất cao được xây dựng trên Solana Virtual Machine (SVM)

Mục tiêu của Fogo là thu hẹp khoảng cách giữa tài chính truyền thống (TradFi) và DeFi trên blockchain, bằng cách tạo ra một nền tảng có Fogo Chain sử dụng Firedancer, từ đó đạt được tốc độ và băng thông tối đa trong khi vẫn duy trì được độ trễ ở mức thấp.

2. ĐIỂM NỔI BẬT CỦA DỰ ÁN FOGO NHƯ THẾ NÀO ?

Phần lớn các blockchain khi ra mắt đều cần thời gian để hoàn thiện hệ sinh thái. Ứng dụng và thanh khoản thường được triển khai dần trong các tháng sau khi mainnet hoạt động
Fogo được ra mắt cùng với một hệ sinh thái đã sẵn sàng để sử dụng. Mainnet vận hành với block time 40ms, cho phép xác nhận nhanh và hỗ trợ các cơ hội tạo lợi nhuận ngay từ ngày đầu.

Người dùng có thể bắt đầu khám phá và tham gia hệ sinh thái Fogo ngay khi mạng lưới mở công khai.

3 .CÁC MỐC THỜI GIAN VÀ THÔNG TIN CHÍNH
Mainnet và TGE của Fogo chính thức diễn ra vào ngày 13/01/2026.
Snapshot đã hoàn tất, dựa trên dữ liệu từ Flames Program, NFT Fogo Fishers, Portal Bridge, hoạt động LP trên Valiant, hành vi chuyển USDC và các tiêu chí liên quan, làm cơ sở cho việc phân phối token.
Kế hoạch private sale 20 triệu USD trước đây đã được hủy bỏ. Thay vào đó, Fogo điều chỉnh cấu trúc phân phối token theo hướng ưu tiên cộng đồng và ổn định dài hạn, bao gồm tăng phân bổ cho cộng đồng, đốt 2% tổng cung và khóa hơn 50% tổng cung token trong một khoảng thời gian nhất định, nhằm hạn chế áp lực bán sau TGE và hỗ trợ phát triển bền vững.

4 Tokenomics của FOGO
Ký hiệu token: $FOGO
Tổng cung: 1 tỷ đồngVốn hóa lưu thông: khoảng 223 triệu USD (xếp hạng khoảng 200)Lượng lưu thông: khoảng 3,75 tỷ đồng (một phần đã được mở khóa)

VỊ TRÍ CỦA CÂU CHUYỆN CỦA DỰ ÁN FOGO
$FOGO hướng đến nhóm người dùng giao dịch tần suất cao, người tham gia DeFi chuyên nghiệp, tổ chức và các trường hợp sử dụng nhạy cảm với độ trễ. Dự án cạnh tranh trực tiếp với Solana và các L1 dựa trên SVM như Sonic, Eclipse và SOON.
Lợi thế cốt lõi của Fogo nằm ở kiến trúc Pure Firedancer kết hợp với cơ chế đồng thuận đa địa phương hóa, cho phép xử lý giao dịch ở cấp khu vực trước khi xác nhận toàn cầu, từ đó giảm đáng kể độ trễ địa lý.
Điểm nhấn chiến lược của Fogo là khả năng thu hút các dòng sử dụng onchain ở cấp tổ chức, bao gồm giao dịch tần suất cao, thanh toán thời gian thực và các ứng dụng stablecoin ở quy mô lớn.
ĐÁNH GIÁ BẢN THÂN VỀ DỰ ÁN

Theo mình đây là một trong những dự án khá tiềm năng mà anh em nên follow trong giai đoạn biến động của thị trường sắp tới còn nhiều dự án tiềm năng hơn nữa anh e.

Lately I’ve been noticing more and more buzz around @Fogo Official , and honestly it doesn’t feel like random hype. $FOGO seems to be building its presence step by step, especially as more users join conversations and start engaging with the ecosystem. It’s positioning itself as a performance-focused Layer-1, and what stands out is how the community activity keeps growing naturally instead of appearing all at once.

In early crypto projects, steady participation usually matters more than short hype waves. The ongoing discussions and interactions around #fogo show that people aren’t just checking it out — they’re sticking around and paying attention. That kind of consistent interest can be a strong foundation if development and community growth continue together.

Projects that reward contributors and keep their users involved often build lasting loyalty, and that’s the direction $FOGO seems to be moving toward. If this momentum keeps building, @Fogo Official has a real chance to evolve from an emerging project into a name more people across the crypto space start recognizing.

$VANRY in a way that holds up beyond a good week on the chart, I keep returning to a single question that feels almost boring but never stops being useful, what exactly forces someone to obtain VANRY, what keeps them holding it instead of cycling it instantly, and what mechanism turns all that activity into value that the token actually captures rather than value that quietly leaks into other places.

Vanar is clear about the base layer role, VANRY is the native token used for transaction fees and smart contract operations, and it is also tied to staking through a delegated proof of stake model where holders can stake and validators receive rewards for securing the network, which immediately tells you that VANRY has at least two separate jobs inside the system, one job is to be spent for blockspace and execution, and the other job is to be committed for security and ongoing participation.

From there, the real work is mapping the loop, because a token can have utility and still fail to capture value if the design lets usage scale while demand stays thin, and the most honest way to map it is to follow the token step by step from demand creation to where that value ends up.

It starts with simple usage, because every time someone interacts with an application that settles activity on Vanar, whether that interaction is moving an asset, triggering a contract, updating an onchain state, or doing anything that the chain actually has to process, the system needs gas, and the system prices that gas in VANRY, which means the act of using the network creates a baseline and recurring need for VANRY that is not dependent on mood or narrative, it is dependent on whether people are doing things that cost computation and settlement.

That baseline is necessary, but it is rarely sufficient, because consumer facing ecosystems often choose to hide complexity, and if Vanar wants everyday users to arrive through gaming, metaverse style experiences, and brand activations without friction, it is reasonable to expect that many applications will sponsor fees or bundle costs so the user does not think about gas, and that is exactly where the VANRY loop either becomes strong or starts leaking, because the question becomes who is the recurring buyer of VANRY when activity grows, the individual user who buys a little and spends a little, or the app operator who buys in bulk and manages inventory like an operating expense.

If the recurring buyer is the user base, demand tends to be broad, persistent, and less coordinated, which is usually healthier for a token that aims to be widely held and steadily used, but if the recurring buyer is a small set of operators, demand can still be real and even large, yet it becomes concentrated and more price sensitive, because operators will optimize their purchasing, hedge their exposure, or shift activity patterns when costs rise, and that can soften the link between rising usage and rising token demand, even while the network is objectively busier.

Now add the second job of VANRY, which is security and long horizon participation, because Vanar describes staking opportunities for holders and incentives that support a delegated proof of stake security model, where validators and their supporters earn rewards in VANRY, and this creates a holding channel that can pull supply out of circulation and turn the token into something closer to productive capital than a simple spending unit.

The holding channel is where the token economy gets a little more delicate, because staking is not automatically positive for value capture unless the source of rewards is healthy, since rewards paid primarily from inflation can create steady sell pressure if validators and stakers sell to fund operations, and rewards paid from real usage, meaning fees and revenue linked flows, tend to create a more balanced cycle where security is funded by activity rather than by dilution, and while VANRY has the roles needed for staking and validator incentives, the winning version of this story is the version where usage grows enough that the network gradually relies less on emissions to sustain security and more on organic economic activity.

This is also where Vanar’s broader positioning matters, because the project presents itself not only as a base chain but as an AI infrastructure stack for Web3 applications, which is a subtle but important shift in how token demand can be structured, since a pure L1 usually captures value mainly through blockspace demand, but a stacked infrastructure narrative creates room for paid services and higher layer products that can be priced in a way that produces recurring revenue flows rather than only fees, and if those paid services route through VANRY, the token starts capturing value through multiple channels instead of one.

The clearest example of an attempt to route product usage back into token capture is the buybacks and burns framework described by the project, because it explicitly ties paid subscriptions to conversion into VANRY and then to buy events, which is the kind of mechanism that is designed to close a common leak in modern ecosystems where products generate revenue but the token never sees it, and when this sort of mechanism is consistent and observable it can turn non fee revenue into sustained token demand and supply reduction, whereas if it is occasional or discretionary it behaves more like a campaign than a structural loop.

Once you have these pieces, you can separate VANRY demand into three layers that tell you different things about sustainability.

The first layer is usage demand, which is the spend layer, and it is the most honest layer because it is forced by activity, since gas fees are paid in VANRY and smart contract operations consume VANRY, so if the network becomes genuinely busy for reasons that repeat daily, usage demand becomes boring in the best way, meaning it keeps showing up even when market attention goes elsewhere.

The second layer is holding demand, which comes from staking and validator participation, and it matters because it reduces liquid supply and creates a cohort of participants who benefit from network health over time, but it can also become a source of leakage if reward driven participation overwhelms real activity, because a large stream of rewards that are immediately sold forces the ecosystem to constantly manufacture new demand just to stay in place, and that is a tougher game than many people admit.

The third layer is speculative demand, which is the expectation layer, and it will always exist around a project that is building ambitious infrastructure and describing additional layers and products, but speculation only becomes an advantage when it bridges into real usage and real value routing, because the moment speculation runs far ahead of usage for too long, volatility increases and the system becomes harder for builders to rely on, and at that point the token starts behaving more like a sentiment instrument than a utility asset.

Now bring it back to the value flow question, what happens when activity scales.

At the base level, scaling activity means more transactions, more contract calls, and more fees paid in VANRY, and that is the simplest value channel, because it either forces more buyers to show up in the token market or forces operators to replenish inventory more often, and at the security level, scaling activity tends to increase the value secured on the chain, which increases the rational demand for staking and for validator participation, because the network needs to pay for stronger security and participants are incentivized to commit capital where the opportunity is stable.

If the higher layer product revenue loop is executed consistently, scaling activity can also increase the frequency or size of conversion flows that route back into VANRY through buy events and burns, which is the part that converts product usage into direct token capture rather than leaving value sitting outside the token economy.

Where leakage can still occur is predictable, and it is worth saying plainly, because you do not fix leaks by ignoring them.

Leakage can happen when user experience design pushes all gas responsibility to sponsors and the sponsor demand becomes centralized and optimized rather than broad and organic, leakage can happen when premium products are paid in ways that do not reliably convert into VANRY, leakage can happen when emissions dominate the reward structure and recipients sell continuously, and leakage can happen when most attention and liquidity sits in places that are disconnected from onchain usage, because then the token price reacts more to trading flows than to the actual health of the ecosystem.

With that in mind, the conditions for VANRY to win become clear and they do not need marketing language.

Sustained product usage has to exist in a way that looks like habit rather than campaign, VANRY has to be required for that usage either directly through users paying fees or indirectly through operators buying VANRY as a recurring cost that scales with activity, the value routing mechanisms that convert paid usage into token demand and supply reduction have to be consistent rather than occasional, staking and validator participation has to scale with the value secured without creating sell pressure that permanently overwhelms organic demand, and the builder pipeline has to keep shipping applications that generate daily actions rather than only prototypes that spike once and disappear.

On the question of what happened in the last 24 hours, I do not see a fresh official blog item surfaced through the projects public blog index or press section that clearly indicates a new announcement within that window, and in that context the most grounded interpretation is that the current focus remains on building out the stack and reinforcing the token loop around fees, staking, and the described revenue conversion mechanism, while the ecosystem continues pushing its product surfaces and developer pathways rather than announcing a new headline every day.

If you want a simple framework that you can reuse daily without getting pulled into noise, the three questions stay the same, and they work precisely because they are repetitive and slightly annoying.

VANRY is truly required for that growth rather than abstracted away in a way that limits open market demand, and you ask whether the value created by that usage is being captured by the token through fees, committed supply, and consistent conversion mechanisms, or whether it is leaking into emissions, external payment rails, or operator controlled fee sponsorship that reduces organic demand.

#Vanar @Vanarchain $VANRY

{spot}(VANRYUSDT)

Fogo the most valuable part of choosing SVM is not the headline metric people repeat, it is the starting position it creates. A new Layer 1 normally begins with an empty execution environment, unfamiliar developer assumptions, and a long slow climb toward real usage. Fogo is taking a different route by building its Layer 1 around a production proven execution engine that already shaped how serious builders think about performance, state layout, concurrency, and composability. That choice does not guarantee adoption, but it meaningfully changes the early probabilities, because it reduces the cost of the first wave of real deployments in a way most chains simply cannot.

SVM means something concrete when you stop treating it like a buzzword. It is a way of executing programs that pushes builders toward parallelism and performance discipline, because the runtime rewards designs that avoid contention and punishes designs that fight the system. Over time, this creates a developer culture that is less focused on making something merely work and more focused on making something hold up under load. When Fogo adopts SVM as its execution layer, it is effectively importing that culture, that tooling familiarity, and that performance minded approach to application architecture, while still leaving itself room to differentiate where it actually matters for long term reliability, which is the base layer design choices that determine how the chain behaves during spikes, how predictable latency remains, and how stable transaction inclusion becomes when demand turns chaotic.

The hidden advantage begins with the cold start problem that kills most new Layer 1s quietly. Builders hesitate because there are no users, users hesitate because there are no apps, liquidity hesitates because there is no volume, and volume stays thin because liquidity is shallow. It is a loop that feeds on itself and makes even well engineered networks feel empty for longer than people expect. Fogo’s SVM foundation can compress that loop because it lowers friction for builders who already understand the execution paradigm and already know the patterns that work in high throughput environments. Even if code needs adjustment and even if deployments require careful testing, the biggest reuse is not copy pasted contracts, it is developer instincts and architectural muscle memory, and that is exactly what helps a chain move from the first serious applications to the first real usage without wasting months on relearning the basics.

Reuse is real, but it is not magical, and the honest view is what makes the thesis stronger. What transfers cleanly is the mental model of building for concurrency, the habit of designing around state access, the expectation that latency and throughput are product features, and the workflow discipline that comes from operating in an environment where performance claims are tested constantly. What does not transfer automatically is the hardest part, which is liquidity and network effects, because liquidity does not migrate just because a bridge exists and users do not move just because an app is deployed. Trust is earned again, market depth is built again, and the subtle risks of a new base layer context still require audits, operational hardening, and careful attention to edge cases, because even small differences in networking behavior, fee dynamics, or validator performance can change how an application behaves under stress.

Where the SVM on an L1 idea becomes more than theory is in composability and app density, because dense ecosystems do not just look busy, they behave differently in ways traders and builders can feel. When many high throughput applications share the same execution environment, the system starts producing second order effects that compound. More venues and more instruments create more routing options, more routing options tighten spreads, tighter spreads pull in more volume, higher volume attracts more liquidity providers, and deeper liquidity makes execution quality feel reliable rather than fragile. Builders benefit because their product can plug into an existing flow of activity instead of living in isolation, and traders benefit because markets become more efficient as the number of paths between assets, venues, and strategies increases. This is how an ecosystem begins to feel like a place where serious activity belongs rather than a place where everything is waiting for something else to happen.

The question that always comes next is the right one, because anyone paying attention will ask it. If it is SVM, is it just another clone. The grounded answer is that an execution environment is only one layer of the system, and two networks can share the same execution engine while behaving very differently in practice, especially when demand spikes and the network is forced to show its real character. The base layer decisions determine whether performance remains consistent when reality arrives, because consensus behavior, validator incentives, networking model, and congestion handling are the parts that decide whether the chain stays usable or becomes erratic under pressure. If the engine is the same, the chassis is where differentiation lives, and the chain that gets the chassis choices right is the chain that keeps users during the moments that actually matter.

A simple mental model helps keep this clear without turning it into a technical lecture. Solana gave the world a powerful engine, and Fogo is building a new vehicle around that engine with different chassis choices. The engine influences developer ergonomics and the performance profile of applications, while the chassis determines stability, predictability, and how the network behaves when everyone shows up at once. This is why the SVM decision is not only a compatibility story, because compatibility is the first layer of the advantage, but time compression is the deeper layer, and the ability to reach a usable ecosystem faster is what changes the trajectory of an L1 more than small differences in advertised speed.

In the last day, nothing about Fogo suggests a sudden pivot into loud announcements or headline chasing, and that absence is not automatically negative, because it often means the project is in the phase where the work is practical and structural rather than performative. The most plausible current focus looks like the kind of development that makes a chain feel real to builders, meaning improving the parts that users touch even when they do not notice them, such as onboarding friction, reliability of the core experience, and the consistency of performance as usage scales. When a network is trying to prove itself, the most meaningful progress is usually the progress that reduces failure modes and makes the system steadier under real conditions, because that is what allows applications and liquidity to stay rather than appear briefly and leave.

The punchline that stays useful is simple and worth repeating in plain language. SVM on an L1 is not only about running familiar programs, it is about compressing the time it takes to go from zero to a usable ecosystem by importing a working execution paradigm and a mature builder mindset, while still allowing the chain to differentiate at the foundational layers that decide reliability and cost. That is the hidden advantage most traders and builders still miss, because they are trained to focus on speed and fees first, while ecosystem formation is the thing that actually determines whether a chain becomes a place where people build and trade for years.

If I were watching Fogo closely from here, I would care less about how good it looks in a demo and more about how it behaves when it is forced to carry real weight, because that is the moment when the SVM on an L1 thesis either becomes undeniable or starts to look thin. I would watch for whether builders treat it as a serious deployment environment rather than a temporary experiment, whether the experience around it feels stable enough for users to trust it, whether liquidity pathways become deep enough to make execution feel clean, and whether the chain can keep performance consistent during real stress rather than only in calm conditions. When those pieces begin to align, the advantage stops being a theory and becomes a lived reality onchain, and that is when an L1 stops being a narrative and starts behaving like an ecosystem.

#fogo @Fogo Official $FOGO

{spot}(FOGOUSDT)