I keep seeing people say a transaction on Fogo is “confirmed,” and then, a moment later, someone else points at a wallet or explorer that still shows it as pending. I want it to be binary, but fast chains don’t really cooperate. They give you a moving picture, and different tools freeze different frames. The key is that “confirmation” isn’t one thing. In Solana-style systems, many people use commitment levels—processed, confirmed, finalized—that reflect increasing confidence about which history the network will stick with. Anza’s documentation lays it out plainly: processed means a node has received a block containing your transaction, confirmed adds the requirement that 66%+ of stake has voted for that block, and finalized generally means 31+ confirmed blocks have been built on top. Fogo’s litepaper describes the same shape: a block is considered confirmed once 66%+ of stake has voted on the majority fork, and finalized once it reaches maximum lockout, commonly represented as 31+ confirmed blocks built atop it. Once I accept that ladder, the “why do confirmations differ?” question gets less mysterious. First, there’s timing. Messages move with delay, and the litepaper is blunt that different parts of the network learn about state updates at different times; temporary disagreement is normal, not a weird edge case. Fogo tries to shrink that gap with a zone-based approach, where validators in an active zone operate in close physical proximity and the zone can rotate over time to avoid putting all consensus in one jurisdiction. Even so, most wallets and RPC servers are observers elsewhere, so they’ll be a little late. That lag is usually tiny. Second, apps choose what they call “good enough.” For a casual transfer, “processed” or “confirmed” might be fine. For something that can’t tolerate reversal, you wait for “finalized.” Solana’s RPC docs even recommend lower commitment to report progress and higher commitment to reduce rollback risk, which tells you these levels are meant to be chosen. This has become a hotter topic lately because more on-chain activity is latency-sensitive—people want the feedback loop to feel immediate, not like a settlement system that takes its time. Finally, the plumbing can add its own confusion. Some RPC methods only check a node’s recent status cache unless you tell them to search transaction history, so “I can’t find it” can sometimes mean “you’re asking the wrong depth.” Explorers may show a numeric confirmation count while wallets collapse everything into a single label, and that mismatch alone can look like disagreement. And in the background, fork choice is still doing its job: a block can be seen, then deprioritized, which is exactly why “processed” exists as a lower-confidence state. What surprises me is how often the confusion comes from mixing levels. If you submit with one commitment assumption and then poll with another, you can manufacture a discrepancy. When I treat confirmation as a sliding scale—fast signal first, stronger guarantee shortly after—the differing numbers start to feel informative instead of alarming.
@Fogo Official #Fogo #fogo $FOGO
