gg

I have been testing the so-called Vortex, which claims to have over 90,000 TPS, on the testnet for several days. To be honest, the dazzling data can indeed impress people, but the drawbacks in practical operation are equally obvious. Compared to the established Uni V3 or mainstream DEXs on Solana, the operational logic here is indeed fast to the extreme; the CLMM concentrated liquidity model experiences almost no delay in transactions under high-frequency fluctuations. In the past, during intense volatility, I was always worried about slippage and MEV traps, but here, due to the block time being compressed to 40ms, the profit space for attackers is physically squeezed out by the speed.
But fast does not mean stable. I found that the current liquidity depth is actually rather awkward; it’s like creating a top-tier racetrack capable of running F1 cars, but only a few electric tricycles are running on it. Once I attempt to make a large capital turnaround, the drastic fluctuations in the price curve immediately wake me up—In the era of infrastructure surplus in 2026, having just an engine is not enough. Compared to Monad's steady approach that is still struggling with EVM compatibility, the path here is much wilder; it directly abandons the fantasy of compatibility with old assets and focuses entirely on matching efficiency.
Additionally, this “no-signature” interactive experience, though smooth, also makes me a bit uneasy. The Paymaster payment mechanism indeed saves the hassle of buying gas fees, but whether this highly abstracted account can withstand high-intensity stress tests in terms of underlying security logic remains a question mark. What we pursue is decentralized finance, not an efficient centralized exchange wrapped in a blockchain shell.
@Fogo Official $FOGO
{future}(FOGOUSDT)
#Fogo