Trump Drops Shock Retirement Bombshell — But Leaves Crypto Out
President Donald Trump just unveiled a headline-grabbing retirement proposal: a federal-style savings plan for 54 million Americans without a 401(k) — with up to $1,000 a year in government matching funds.
The pitch? Portable accounts. Federal backing. Bigger safety net.
The twist? Congress would have to approve the funding, and income limits could mirror the existing Secure 2.0 Act, meaning many low-income workers may still struggle to qualify or contribute enough to benefit.
And despite Trump’s pro-crypto reputation… $TRUMP $BTC
Not a single mention of Bitcoin.
Meanwhile, states like North Carolina, Florida, and Michigan are actively debating Bitcoin ETF exposure in public pensions — and some funds already hold shares of MicroStrategy, famous for its massive BTC treasury.
Mira Network is building a decentralized trust layer designed to make AI outputs verifiable instead of relying on blind faith.
Confidence ≠ correctness.
Mira tackles this by breaking AI responses into smaller, testable claims. Each claim is then reviewed by independent verifiers and validated through blockchain-based consensus. The goal is to reduce bias, limit errors, and create accountability — especially in high-stakes sectors like finance and healthcare.
Instead of treating AI answers as final, Mira turns them into claims that must be proven.
Bitcoin News: BTC Jumps 3% to $65K Amid Fresh “10 A.M. Dump” Talk Linked to Jane Street
Source: Binance (Verified Account) Bitcoin climbed nearly 3% on Tuesday to trade around $65,000, breaking a weeks-long pattern of early U.S. session weakness. The move came as renewed social media speculation suggested that trading activity tied to Jane Street may have been influencing the so-called “10 a.m. dump.” Bitcoin Defies the Early U.S. Sell-Off Trend In recent weeks, traders have highlighted a recurring pattern: Bitcoin often surrendered overnight gains during the first hour of U.S. equity trading, between 9:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. ET. Since early November, BTC has reportedly fallen in more than 60% of those sessions, at times sliding as much as 3% shortly after the opening bell. On Dec. 4, for instance, Bitcoin dropped 2.1% within minutes of the S&P 500 opening flat. Tuesday broke that pattern. Instead of fading, Bitcoin surged close to 3%, hovering near $65,000 and helping lift the broader crypto market’s total capitalization by roughly 2.7% over 24 hours. Social Media Speculation Targets Jane Street The rally coincided with fresh online claims involving Jane Street, a major quantitative trading firm active across global markets. Investor Mike Alfred posted on X that, citing an unnamed internal source, the firm had ordered an “immediate cessation” of alleged manipulative Bitcoin trading and shut down a “10 a.m. algo.” He added that his source believed “BTC probably goes up now.” Neither Jane Street nor Alfred provided evidence to substantiate the claims, and no independent confirmation of such a strategy has surfaced. Reportedly, requests for comment went unanswered at the time of publication. Legal Scrutiny Tied to TerraUSD Collapse The renewed speculation also arrives as Jane Street faces legal scrutiny connected to the 2022 collapse of Terraform Labs and its TerraUSD (UST) stablecoin, along with its sister token Luna — an implosion that erased roughly $40 billion in market value. On Feb. 23, a bankruptcy administrator for Terraform Labs filed an 83-page complaint alleging insider trading and market manipulation by Jane Street Group, co-founder Robert Granieri, and two employees prior to UST’s collapse. Jane Street has denied the allegations, describing them as baseless. Market Structure May Explain 10 A.M. Volatility Despite viral narratives, analysts note that heightened volatility around 10 a.m. ET is not unusual. The period follows the 9:30 a.m. U.S. equity open, when liquidity increases and cross-asset desks rebalance positions. Bitcoin’s strong correlation with traditional markets means equity-driven flows often spill over into crypto. Several major U.S. economic releases, including consumer confidence data, are also typically published at 10 a.m., frequently triggering rapid repositioning across asset classes. Although Bitcoin trades 24/7, liquidity rotates between Asia, Europe, and the U.S., and the transition into heavier American participation can amplify normal order-book adjustments. Macro and Technical Factors Support the Bounce Beyond speculation, broader macro alignment appears to have supported the rebound. Over the past 24 hours, Bitcoin showed roughly a 95% correlation with the S&P 500, according to CoinMarketCap data. From a technical perspective, BTC recently entered oversold territory, with its relative strength index (RSI) near 30 — a level often associated with short-term relief rallies. Analysts say key levels to watch include: Support: Holding above $64,000Resistance: Breaking above $66,535 (near the 7-day simple moving average) Failure to reclaim that resistance could leave Bitcoin vulnerable to a renewed test of the $60,000 support zone. Narrative vs. Market Mechanics While the “10 a.m. dump” theory has captured traders’ attention, more conventional explanations — including macro correlations, liquidity shifts, and technical positioning — offer a grounded view of recent price action. For now, Bitcoin’s rebound appears more closely tied to oversold conditions and broader market alignment than to any confirmed shift in institutional trading behavior. Whether the early-session sell-off pattern is truly broken — or simply paused — remains an open question. #JaneStreet10AMDump $BTC #BTC
Mira Network: Because “Sounds Right” Isn’t the Same as “Is Right”
We’ve all had that moment with AI.
It delivers a beautiful, confident answer… and something feels slightly off. Not obviously wrong. Just off. You double-check it — and yes, one piece is incorrect. Not malicious. Not dramatic. Just confidently inaccurate.
Now imagine that same scenario in high-stakes contexts:
Financial research Legal drafting Medical summaries Autonomous systems making decisions Suddenly, “almost right” isn’t acceptable.
That’s where Mira Network makes sense to me.
Think of Mira Like Strict Teachers Grading One Paper
Normally, when you ask AI something, one model writes the essay and hands it to you. You either trust it — or you don’t.
Mira restructures that process.
Instead of a single model generating an answer and walking away, the response is broken into smaller claims — the actual statements inside the text. Those claims are then sent to independent models for verification.
Not:
“Do you like this answer?”
But:
“Is this specific statement correct?”
When enough independent validators agree, the system produces a cryptographic proof — essentially a receipt that says:
These parts were checked. These passed. These did not.
It feels less like chatting with a bot and more like receiving a reviewed document.
And that emotional difference matters.
Why This Approach Feels Practical
The biggest problem with AI isn’t intelligence.
It’s accountability.
Today, AI outputs vanish into thin air. There’s no structured trail explaining what was verified, what was assumed, and what remains uncertain.
Mira attempts to make that invisible layer visible.
Instead of trusting a single company or model, the system relies on:
Independent validators Economic incentives Staked value at risk Transparent consensus It’s not about believing the loudest model. It’s about trusting the mechanism that checks it.
Fogo Network Is Gradually Becoming Fully Optimized
One thing I’ve begun to notice while working around Fogo is that the network feels less transitional over time. Early on, many of its structural decisions looked directional—strong signals of where its performance architecture was heading. But as more components settle into place, that direction is starting to resemble convergence. Fogo increasingly feels like a network approaching its optimized state. In most blockchain systems, optimization remains partial. You’ll see a strong execution model paired with inconsistent networking conditions, or efficient consensus layered over heterogeneous validator environments. Performance exists, but it’s fragmented. Trade-offs remain visible because the system isn’t aligned end to end. Fogo’s trajectory feels different. Its co-located validator clusters compress latency variance. Multi-local zones structure coordination. Execution environments align around deterministic timing assumptions. As these pieces begin interacting more tightly, the network stops behaving like a stack of isolated optimizations and starts behaving like a cohesive performance surface. That shift is subtle—but significant. Instead of layers compensating for one another—networking smoothing execution gaps, consensus absorbing latency drift—the layers begin reinforcing each other. As alignment improves, fewer corrective mechanisms are required. Less buffering. Fewer safety margins. A more direct translation from architectural intent to runtime behavior. From a builder’s perspective, this is what optimization feels like in practice. Assumptions hold more consistently. Timing behaves predictably. Performance expectations require less defensive modeling. The environment itself begins to carry guarantees that applications would otherwise need to simulate or approximate. It also reframes what maturity looks like. Optimization here isn’t just about higher throughput or lower latency metrics. It’s about the gradual removal of structural inefficiencies—the seams where layers once misaligned or compensated for variability. As those seams fade, the architecture looks less provisional and more resolved. Fogo isn’t simply getting faster. It’s becoming internally coherent. And when a system’s layers align around the same performance envelope, optimization stops being an objective—and starts becoming an intrinsic property of the network itself. @Fogo Official $FOGO #fogo
I see MEV as the hidden tax most users don’t notice until it directly affects them. Validators or bots can reorder, include, or exclude transactions in ways that benefit them—your swap gets sandwiched, your entry price slips, or you simply pay more than expected.
Why does this matter for Fogo users? Because Fogo is purpose-built for latency-sensitive DeFi—think orderbooks and liquidations—where microseconds translate into real financial outcomes. In that environment, small timing advantages aren’t theoretical; they’re monetizable.
What stands out to me is that Fogo doesn’t just treat this as a technical issue. Its architecture explicitly discusses “network quality control,” including the ability to remove validators associated with harmful MEV extraction. That’s a behavioral constraint layered on top of code—something that can be observed and evaluated over time.
FOGO eksperimentē ar atšķirīgu politisku modeli blokķēdēm
Lielākā daļa cilvēku skatās uz FOGO un redz ātrumu. Citi pamanīja validētāju zonas vai izmaksu efektivitāti. Bet jo vairāk es lasu tās pamatdokuments un mehānismus, jo vairāk domāju, ka FOGO mēģina kaut ko dziļāku — ne tikai snieguma inovāciju, bet arī atbildības un pārvaldības atšķirīgu modeli. FOGO pamatā piespiež jautājumu, ko daudzi ķēdes izvairās:
Kur beidzas protokola atbildība un sākas lietotāja atbildība? Tas nav tikai filozofisks. Tas veido juridisko ietvaru, operatīvo dizainu un galu galā ekonomisko uzvedību.
FOGO’s Quiet Economic Experiment: What Happens When Emissions Step Back
Lately, I’ve been looking at FOGO from a different angle. Not the usual speed narrative — everyone already knows the chain is engineered for low latency. What really caught my attention is how its token economics are designed to evolve over time. It doesn’t look like a system built to rely indefinitely on inflation to keep validators satisfied. Instead, it feels like FOGO is gradually steering the network toward a model where real activity pays the bills. And that’s a much harder path. Most chains launch with heavy emissions and hope usage eventually catches up. FOGO’s approach appears more tapered. Emissions start higher to bootstrap participation, but the long-term trajectory points toward fee-driven security. In simple terms, validators increasingly earn from what the network actually does — not just from newly issued tokens. That shift matters more than many realize. Why the Emission Curve Tells a Bigger Story When evaluating validator economics, one key question stands out: what happens when incentives normalize? High early rewards can attract operators quickly. Sustainability only becomes visible when those rewards compress. FOGO’s declining emissions suggest the team understands this inflection point. If network usage grows, validators transition toward fee income, and the system begins to resemble a self-sustaining marketplace. If activity fails to scale, rewards tighten naturally. That creates an unusually transparent feedback loop between adoption and security. From my perspective, that dynamic is both the strength and the risk. The Fee-Based Security Bet What FOGO seems to be testing resembles mature financial infrastructure more than typical crypto design. Instead of relying on a permanent subsidy, long-term security depends on meaningful throughput — trading volume, execution demand, real economic flows. If the chain becomes a venue people consistently use, validator revenue becomes organic. But there’s no avoiding the other side of that equation. If activity remains thin, declining emissions could expose weak demand quickly. Token design like this forces the ecosystem to grow into its infrastructure. There’s less room to hide behind inflation. That discipline stands out in a landscape where perpetual emissions have often masked structural weaknesses. What I’m Watching Going Forward Personally, I’m less focused on headline TPS and more interested in whether FOGO can generate sticky usage — particularly from trading flows that benefit from its low-latency architecture. In this model, usage isn’t optional. It’s structurally required. If fee generation begins to meaningfully support validators over time, the tokenomics could look increasingly resilient. If not, the gap between design and demand will likely show up in validator incentives and market pricing. Right now, I see FOGO running a live sustainability experiment in public. The engineering is ambitious. The emissions curve is tightening intentionally. The open question is whether ecosystem activity scales fast enough to match that design. That’s what I’ll be watching closely. @Fogo Official #fogo $FOGO
I’ve been digging into Fogo for a while, and honestly, this one feels different. It’s not loud. It’s not flashy. It’s just focused. Fogo is built for one thing: speed and clean execution. No grand claims about “killing” every other chain — just a clear attempt to fix where blockchains usually break down when real activity hits. The core problem is simple: most chains slow down when serious traders show up. Latency spikes, execution degrades, and users pay the price. Fogo is trying to address that by building on the Solana VM and running Firedancer — high-performance validator tech designed for serious throughput. The goal is straightforward: fast settlement, efficient reads, and predictable behavior even under heavy market conditions. What stands out to me is that Fogo doesn’t feel retail-hype driven. It feels built around real market structure — order books, perpetuals, real-time auctions — the kinds of systems that actually require speed. Anyone who has traded during volatility knows how painful execution delays can be. That’s the friction Fogo is targeting. $FOGO is the network’s fuel — used for fees, staking, and securing the chain. But what’s more interesting is the supply structure. A significant portion of the genesis supply is locked on long cliffs, reducing short-term sell pressure. There’s also a suggested fixed validator cut, which signals a focus on sustainability rather than chaotic fee dynamics. It doesn’t feel random — it feels engineered. The team background matters too. The people involved aren’t anonymous developers experimenting in real time. There’s deep experience in trading infrastructure and crypto systems here, and you can feel that mindset in the design choices: stability over hype, predictability over speed theatrics. From a market perspective, @Fogo Official had a strong debut with quick listings. Price action has been volatile — as expected for a new asset — but liquidity has been steadily improving. More importantly, builders are showing interest. Solana compatibility lowers deployment friction significantly, which could accelerate ecosystem growth. Where could Fogo really shine? High-frequency DeFi, advanced on-chain trading platforms, real-time settlement systems — even institutional-grade execution environments. If crypto wants to compete with traditional markets, infrastructure like this becomes necessary. The roadmap appears focused: strengthen infrastructure, onboard serious applications, improve tooling, and execute consistently. No overpromising — just shipping. That discipline is rare. Long-term potential depends on adoption. But the foundation feels solid. If traders and builders start prioritizing execution quality over narratives, Fogo could quietly grow into something meaningful — not a meme, not a moonshot, but core infrastructure that people only notice once it’s essential. That’s my honest take. Fogo isn’t loud — it’s serious. And sometimes, those are the networks that last. #fogo
📈 The community’s been grinding, volume’s holding up even in choppy markets, and the whole “trade without compromised energy” mantra actually feels real 💯
If you’re into DeFi, that feels like modern finance rather than clunky legacy chains; $FOGO it's worth keeping on your radar. Not shilling — just observing — it has the ingredients to quietly become a serious hub for on-chain order books, perps, real-time auctions, and more.
If you’re feeling it too, drop an “I am bullish on Fogo.”
Client Efficiency on Fogo Emerges From Economics, Not Enforcement
In many distributed systems, standardization is achieved through formal rules—approved implementations, mandated software, or protocol-level constraints. Blockchain networks face a similar tension: how do you preserve client diversity while still converging on high performance? Fogo takes a different approach. Validators are free to run different client implementations. The protocol does not enforce a single canonical client or restrict software choice. Yet in practice, performance converges toward the most efficient implementation. The driver isn’t governance—it’s economics. Within Fogo’s co-located, low-latency environment, small efficiency gaps translate directly into validator outcomes. Execution speed, networking behavior, and scheduling precision measurably affect block participation and reward capture. A slightly slower client doesn’t just benchmark lower—it earns less over time. And that difference compounds. Validators naturally migrate toward implementations that keep pace with consensus timing. Less efficient clients remain viable in theory, but they are economically disadvantaged in practice. The result is performance convergence without formal mandates—while still preserving the possibility of client competition. That balance matters. It demonstrates that optimization pressure can emerge organically from incentive alignment rather than protocol enforcement. Fogo doesn’t dictate which client must dominate; it creates conditions where efficiency becomes the rational choice. Over time, convergence happens not by rule, but by economic reality. @Fogo Official $FOGO #fogo
Es redzu Fogo klientu optimizācijas tēzi mazāk kā stingru noteikumu grāmatu un vairāk kā stimulu dizaina formu.
Manuprāt, tas ir viens no Fogo asākajiem stratēģiskajiem izvēlēm. Drīzāk nekā pieņemt, ka katra validētāja konfigurācija nodrošinās vienlīdzīgu veiktspēju, Fogo apzināti optimizē validētāja līmenī—kurojot dalību un paļaujoties uz sociālā līmeņa īstenošanu, lai novērstu uzvedību, kas pasliktina tīkla kvalitāti. Tā arhitektūras materiāli to skaidri ietver: uzturēt veiktspējas standartus, ierobežot kaitīgas MEV shēmas un novērst nepietiekami jaudīgu operatoru ietekmi uz ķēdes palēnināšanu.
Šī atšķirība ir svarīga, jo klientu veiktspēja nav tikai programmatūras inženierijas izaicinājums. Pat ātrākais klients nenodrošinās augstas veiktspējas tīklu, ja stimuli atlīdzina latentuma veicināšanas stratēģijas vai tolerē vāju infrastruktūru. Fogo modelis efektīvi saka: saskaņojiet validētāja dalību un ekonomiku ar izpildes kvalitāti vispirms, un tad ļaujiet optimizētajam klientam demonstrēt savu priekšrocību.
Protams, tas ievieš pārvaldības kompromisus. Kad īstenošana un kurācija kļūst par dizaina daļu, caurspīdīgums un likumība nav blakus jautājumi—tie ir pamata produkta iezīmes.
Interesanti, vai tu to redzi tāpat, vai arī domā, ka pārvaldības riski pārsniedz veiktspējas ieguvumus?
What stands out to me about Fogo is how it rethinks the fee experience.
On most SVM chains, you need Solana’s native token (SOL) in your wallet just to submit a transaction — even if all your capital is sitting in other SPL assets. That friction is small, but constant.
Fogo removes that requirement.
Through its proposed fee-payer unsigned transaction type and an on-chain fee payment program, a transaction can originate from an account holding zero SOL. The fee logic is separated from the signer, allowing payment in an SPL token, while validators still receive proper compensation.
From a user’s perspective, this is a real shift:
You don’t need to acquire a native gas token first.
You can pay fees in the asset you already hold.
Execution feels seamless instead of fragmented.
It’s a subtle architectural change, but a meaningful UX evolution.
Fees stop being chain-native — and start feeling asset-native.
Institutional traders don’t chase hype — they price risk.
After watching exchanges implode and protocols unravel over the past few years, firms managing billions aren’t impressed by marketing. They care about infrastructure. The real questions are simple: Is there deep, reliable liquidity?Does execution behave predictably under stress?When volatility spikes, does the system hold — or freeze? Look at Bitcoin. Institutions focus on uptime and security history. With Ethereum, they analyze validator distribution, smart contract risk, and fee stability. Speed is nice — stability is mandatory. That’s where FOGO makes its pitch. FOGO emphasizes market microstructure: lower latency, tighter spreads, cleaner execution. For institutional desks, microseconds aren’t cosmetic — they reduce slippage and improve capital efficiency. Deterministic execution with low variance isn’t a buzzword; it’s what attracts serious market makers and high-frequency strategies. But positioning isn’t proof. Institutions won’t allocate capital because of a polished whitepaper. They’ll test performance during drawdowns, liquidity shocks, and chaotic tape — not during calm, green weeks. They’ll monitor validator resilience, failure rates, execution consistency, and liquidity depth before moving meaningful size. So does FOGO deliver? That answer won’t come from narratives. It will come from: Uptime metricsLiquidity behavior during volatilityExecution variance under loadValidator performance in stressed conditions If those metrics hold up when markets panic, FOGO earns credibility. Not when everything’s smooth — when everything’s breaking. $FOGO #fogo @fogo
📈 The community’s been grinding hard. Volume is holding up even in choppy markets, and that whole “trade without compromised energy” vibe? It’s real 💯
If you’re into DeFi that actually feels like modern finance — not clunky legacy chains — $FOGO should be on your radar. Not shilling, just saying: this could quietly become a serious venue for on-chain order books, perps, real-time auctions, and more.