Zhenya Manukyan

Since the main-net went live, I’ve been looking at @@Fogo Official a bit differently from most new chains that appear every cycle. With $FOGO , the angle isn’t just “faster” or “cheaper.” The project is clearly leaning into a specific idea: that on-chain trading infrastructure still hasn’t caught up to how people actually want to trade. #fogo
Most blockchains optimise for general use — apps, tokens, NFTs, everything. FOGO seems to be approaching the problem from the opposite direction: start with execution speed and latency for trading, then expand outward. That’s a subtle but important shift. It suggests the chain isn’t trying to be everything at once, but rather to dominate a narrow, high-value use case first.
What also stands out post-launch is how early the ecosystem still feels. There’s activity, discussion, experimentation — but not saturation. That phase is easy to overlook because it doesn’t produce headlines yet. But historically, this is when the real shape of a network forms: who builds, who trades, who stays. The identity of $FOGO will likely be decided more in this period than during any later growth spike.
I also think timing is playing a role. On-chain derivatives and faster DeFi rails are becoming relevant again, and infrastructure that reduces execution friction suddenly matters more. If that trend continues, chains designed specifically around trading performance rather than general throughput could start to differentiate themselves. That’s the strategic window @Fogo Official seems to be aiming at.
None of this guarantees success, obviously. New Layer-1s live or die on actual usage, not architecture diagrams. Real traders, real volume, real applications — that’s the only validation that counts. $FOGO still has to prove it can attract and retain that activity against very strong competition.
But watching FOGO right now feels less like following a launched product and more like observing a system still being assembled. The architecture is there, the direction is clear, but the outcome is open. And in crypto, that construction phase — before narratives harden and positions get crowded — is usually the most revealing moment to pay attention to.
For now, FOGO sits exactly in that early zone: not proven, not saturated, but actively forming. And those are often the networks that end up defining the next cycle rather than chasing it.
#fogo #Fogo

Recent disclosures from the so-called “Epstein files” have reignited debate around Bitcoin’s early development, after newly released emails revealed that Jeffrey Epstein sought contact with several prominent Bitcoin developers and financially supported MIT’s Digital Currency Initiative (DCI).
The documents show that Epstein donated a total of $850,000 to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology between 2002 and 2017, with $525,000 directed to the MIT Media Lab’s Digital Currency Initiative — a research hub that became home to several Bitcoin Core developers after the Bitcoin Foundation collapsed in 2015.
Attempts at Access, Not Authority
The emails reveal Epstein’s interest in Bitcoin and its developers, including outreach to figures such as Jeremy Rubin, Gavin Andresen, and Amir Taaki. While some developers exchanged limited professional correspondence, others declined meetings or eventually cut off communication altogether.
Crucially, the records contain no evidence that Epstein influenced Bitcoin’s protocol, governance, or monetary policy. Bitcoin development remained open-source, peer-reviewed, and consensus-driven throughout the period in question.
MIT’s Role in Bitcoin Research
When the Bitcoin Foundation ran out of funding, MIT’s DCI became a temporary institutional home for several Bitcoin Core contributors. Emails show MIT leadership moving quickly to provide financial stability for developers — a move widely seen at the time as protecting Bitcoin’s independence rather than centralising it.
Even within the released correspondence, Epstein himself acknowledged the sensitivity of involvement, noting ethical concerns and the reputational risks tied to his public profile.
Developers Responded Differently
Jeremy Rubin acknowledged professional engagement and welcomed transparency from the email releases.Gavin Andresen declined meeting requests and later disengaged from Bitcoin development altogether.Amir Taaki stated he cut contact after learning more about Epstein’s background.Other developers named had no documented direct contact with Epstein.
The article emphasises that appearing in the files does not imply misconduct — a distinction repeated throughout the reporting.
What This Does — and Does Not — Mean for Bitcoin
The revelations highlight a recurring reality in Bitcoin’s history: powerful individuals have repeatedly attempted to influence its direction. What stands out is not their success, but their failure.
Bitcoin’s architecture deliberately limits individual control. Funding sources change, personalities exit, and institutions rise and fall — yet the protocol continues operating independently.
Rather than exposing a hidden vulnerability, the Epstein files underline a core truth: Bitcoin has consistently resisted capture, even by wealthy and well-connected actors.
Conclusion
The Epstein files add historical context, not a smoking gun. They reveal curiosity, attempted influence, and institutional funding — but not control, conspiracy, or secret ownership.
Bitcoin was designed to survive exactly this kind of pressure.
$BTC
#bitcoin #Binance #crypto #BTC #trading

For more than a decade, Bitcoin’s anonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, has remained silent. That silence has fueled endless speculation — and bold claims. One of the loudest comes from Dan Peña, who insists he knows Satoshi’s real identity and says that a single revelation would send Bitcoin straight to zero.
It’s a dramatic statement. But does it hold up?
Bitcoin Is Not a Personality Cult
Bitcoin does not operate on trust in a founder. It runs on math, code, and economic incentives. Unlike traditional companies, there is no CEO, no board, and no central authority whose reputation props up the system.
Even if Satoshi were revealed tomorrow — whether as an academic, a government employee, or a group of developers — the Bitcoin network would continue producing blocks every ten minutes, just as it always has.
The Myth of the “Founder Risk”
In traditional markets, founder scandals matter because leadership controls operations. Bitcoin has no such dependency. Satoshi disappeared in 2011, and Bitcoin has since survived:
Multiple market crashesNation-state bansExchange failures worth billionsInternal civil wars over protocol changes
A system that thrives without its creator is, by definition, resilient.
What Actually Moves Markets
Markets don’t collapse over identities. They collapse over liquidity shocks, leverage, and broken incentives. The only Satoshi-related event that could realistically spook markets would be the sudden movement of Satoshi’s untouched Bitcoin holdings — not the name behind them.
Even then, it would likely trigger volatility, not annihilation.
Why the Claim Persists
Claims like Peña’s thrive because Bitcoin is still widely misunderstood. Fear-based narratives are easier to sell than technical explanations. Saying “Bitcoin will go to zero” is attention-grabbing. Proving it is another matter entirely.
Conclusion
Bitcoin’s strength lies precisely in what critics fear: it does not require belief in any individual. Satoshi’s silence is not a vulnerability — it’s proof that the system no longer needs its creator.
Bitcoin doesn’t survive because of a secret.
It survives because it works.
$BTC
#BTC #bitcoin #Binance #crypto #DigitalAssets

Tiền luôn là một phản ánh của tiến bộ nhân loại. Khi các xã hội phát triển, các công cụ họ sử dụng để lưu trữ giá trị, tạo điều kiện cho thương mại và đo lường sự giàu có cũng phát triển. Mỗi giai đoạn phát triển tiền tệ xuất hiện để giải quyết những hạn chế của giai đoạn trước đó, thúc đẩy nền văn minh hướng tới hiệu quả, sự tin cậy và khả năng mở rộng lớn hơn.
Trong những ngày đầu của thương mại, trao đổi hàng hóa chiếm ưu thế trong giao dịch kinh tế. Mặc dù đơn giản, nhưng trao đổi hàng hóa là không hiệu quả—nó cần sự trùng hợp của nhu cầu và không cung cấp cách nào đáng tin cậy để lưu trữ giá trị. Các kim loại quý, đặc biệt là vàng và bạc, đã xuất hiện như một giải pháp. Chúng khan hiếm, bền, có thể chia tách và được đánh giá cao trên toàn cầu. Trong hàng nghìn năm, những kim loại này đã hình thành xương sống của thương mại toàn cầu và bảo tồn sự giàu có.

Jerome Powell nói rằng vàng không liên quan đến chính sách tiền tệ và rằng Fed không “bị cuốn lên” bởi giá tài sản.
Nhưng vàng là một kim loại tiền tệ.
Khi Alan Greenspan là Chủ tịch Fed, ông nói rằng vàng là chỉ số quan trọng nhất mà ông theo dõi. Ngay cả khi không có tiêu chuẩn vàng, ông đã sử dụng vàng để đánh giá xem chính sách có quá lỏng lẻo hay quá chặt chẽ. Giá vàng tăng có nghĩa là lãi suất quá thấp. Giá vàng giảm có nghĩa là chính sách quá chặt chẽ.
Hôm nay, giá vàng trên $4890 — cao hơn 10 lần so với thời kỳ của Greenspan. Đó là thị trường đang hét lên rằng chính sách tiền tệ đã quá lỏng lẻo trong quá lâu.