Bond514
17 Following
4.2K+ Followers
184 Liked
1 Shared
All
Live
See original
Falcon Finance is doing something that has been overlooked: transforming 'system stability' from a defensive strategy into an offensive capability
Brothers, I recently observed Falcon Finance and suddenly realized a particularly counterintuitive phenomenon:
It is not about 'preventing risks,' but 'utilizing risks.'
It does not treat system stability as a barrier, but as a weapon.
This is completely contrary to most DeFi projects.
Traditional protocols are 'security first, expansion relies on luck';
Falcon's logic is rather that 'strong structure makes expansion inevitable.'
If you try to apply traditional stablecoin models to it, you will never understand.
In today's article, I will comprehensively analyze Falcon from the perspective of 'stability as an offensive capability.'
It is not about 'preventing risks,' but 'utilizing risks.'
It does not treat system stability as a barrier, but as a weapon.
This is completely contrary to most DeFi projects.
Traditional protocols are 'security first, expansion relies on luck';
Falcon's logic is rather that 'strong structure makes expansion inevitable.'
If you try to apply traditional stablecoin models to it, you will never understand.
In today's article, I will comprehensively analyze Falcon from the perspective of 'stability as an offensive capability.'
See original
Kite: Brothers, in today's article, I want to push the logic to a future structure that many people have not yet realized —
AI is not here to rely on the chain; rather, the chain will become AI's 'survival dependency.' And the first chain that AI truly relies on is Kite.
It sounds a bit counterintuitive, but if you think about it calmly:
Today's chain is the infrastructure for humanity;
The future chain is the infrastructure for AI.
The infrastructure for AI and the infrastructure for humanity are essentially not the same species' needs.
What humanity needs is:
Convenient
Cheap
High performance
Interactive
What AI needs is:
Explainability
Verifiability
Predictability
Sustainable execution security
Controllable risk boundaries
Structured feedback
It sounds a bit counterintuitive, but if you think about it calmly:
Today's chain is the infrastructure for humanity;
The future chain is the infrastructure for AI.
The infrastructure for AI and the infrastructure for humanity are essentially not the same species' needs.
What humanity needs is:
Convenient
Cheap
High performance
Interactive
What AI needs is:
Explainability
Verifiability
Predictability
Sustainable execution security
Controllable risk boundaries
Structured feedback
See original
Lorenzo Protocol: Transforming BTC from a 'static asset' into a 'financial component that can be scheduled in layers'
Brothers, I've been closely following Lorenzo lately, and I have a particularly obvious feeling—
In the past, our understanding of BTC was too simplistic, viewing it merely as a form of 'value reserve that can only be held.'
However, Lorenzo has deconstructed the functionality of BTC into a whole new dimension:
It is neither lending nor leverage, but rather treating BTC itself as a 'financial component that can be scheduled in a multi-threaded manner.'
This is not a functional product, but rather a change in the understanding of asset structure.
Let's start from the very basic design.
Lorenzo is not adding 'returns' to BTC.
It is about adding structure to BTC.
In the past, our understanding of BTC was too simplistic, viewing it merely as a form of 'value reserve that can only be held.'
However, Lorenzo has deconstructed the functionality of BTC into a whole new dimension:
It is neither lending nor leverage, but rather treating BTC itself as a 'financial component that can be scheduled in a multi-threaded manner.'
This is not a functional product, but rather a change in the understanding of asset structure.
Let's start from the very basic design.
Lorenzo is not adding 'returns' to BTC.
It is about adding structure to BTC.
See original
Yield Guild Games: Players' 'behavior consistency' is becoming a core asset, which can measure your real value better than reputation and level.
In most blockchain game systems, players' value is often recorded in a fragmented way: one task, one feedback, one participation history.
But these single-point records cannot determine whether a player is a 'reliable long-term value source'.
YGG is reshaping this standard - it has begun to treat players' 'behavior consistency' as a core asset.
What is behavior consistency?
It's not about how much you do, but whether your 'long-term way of working' is stable, predictable, and trustworthy.
This is the ability that the project party values the most and is also the hardest to disguise.
First type of consistency: consistency in participation rhythm
But these single-point records cannot determine whether a player is a 'reliable long-term value source'.
YGG is reshaping this standard - it has begun to treat players' 'behavior consistency' as a core asset.
What is behavior consistency?
It's not about how much you do, but whether your 'long-term way of working' is stable, predictable, and trustworthy.
This is the ability that the project party values the most and is also the hardest to disguise.
First type of consistency: consistency in participation rhythm
See original
Recently, I've discovered something: the airdrop circle is really accelerating its reshuffling.
Many studios have disbanded, and those relying on Alpha are struggling to hold on.
But in my view, this is not the end; it's the beginning of a re-layering.
The airdrop track has not disappeared; it has only shifted from "batch interaction" to "deep participation."
In the past, you could just click casually, but now it’s truly about patience, strategy, and time management.
This year, many people have managed to profit from major players like Sign, Newton, and Sahara.
In projects without tokens, there are still potential stocks.
As long as there are people launching chains and raising funds, there will definitely be people who can make money.
Gaining tokens is always a gamble with the project parties.
Only those with a steady mindset can last long.
My own principle is very simple:
If I can do it at zero cost, I’ll go all in;
If a deposit is required, I’ll spread it out in small amounts;
With limited energy, I’ll only deeply engage with 2-3 main accounts.
If you feel like there are "no projects to engage with," then you should spend time nurturing your accounts:
Twitter, DC, wallets—these are the thresholds for all future tasks.
Currently, projects prefer "real users" and "contributing individuals," not dozens of zombie accounts.
Also, don’t be fooled into starting with hundreds of accounts or large equipment from the get-go.
For personal engagement, 3-5 accounts are sufficient;
If you really want to start a studio, that’s a different approach altogether.
Although I was also hit by Monad and Camp this year, overall, my returns still outperformed my physical store.
This is also why I continue to delve deeper.
If you want to work in this field, please think clearly first:
Boring, slow, tiring, counterproductive, and unknown are all very normal.
But those who persist are never many.
Finally, here are a few projects I’m following (DYOR):
Polymarket, Abstract, Infinex, MetaMask Points, OpenSea, Farcaster, Backpack, Lighter, Kalshi, edgeX, Zama, Brevis, Nexus, Warden…
It's true that the gains have decreased, but you can still engage; it’s just that the rhythm of the track has changed.
Many studios have disbanded, and those relying on Alpha are struggling to hold on.
But in my view, this is not the end; it's the beginning of a re-layering.
The airdrop track has not disappeared; it has only shifted from "batch interaction" to "deep participation."
In the past, you could just click casually, but now it’s truly about patience, strategy, and time management.
This year, many people have managed to profit from major players like Sign, Newton, and Sahara.
In projects without tokens, there are still potential stocks.
As long as there are people launching chains and raising funds, there will definitely be people who can make money.
Gaining tokens is always a gamble with the project parties.
Only those with a steady mindset can last long.
My own principle is very simple:
If I can do it at zero cost, I’ll go all in;
If a deposit is required, I’ll spread it out in small amounts;
With limited energy, I’ll only deeply engage with 2-3 main accounts.
If you feel like there are "no projects to engage with," then you should spend time nurturing your accounts:
Twitter, DC, wallets—these are the thresholds for all future tasks.
Currently, projects prefer "real users" and "contributing individuals," not dozens of zombie accounts.
Also, don’t be fooled into starting with hundreds of accounts or large equipment from the get-go.
For personal engagement, 3-5 accounts are sufficient;
If you really want to start a studio, that’s a different approach altogether.
Although I was also hit by Monad and Camp this year, overall, my returns still outperformed my physical store.
This is also why I continue to delve deeper.
If you want to work in this field, please think clearly first:
Boring, slow, tiring, counterproductive, and unknown are all very normal.
But those who persist are never many.
Finally, here are a few projects I’m following (DYOR):
Polymarket, Abstract, Infinex, MetaMask Points, OpenSea, Farcaster, Backpack, Lighter, Kalshi, edgeX, Zama, Brevis, Nexus, Warden…
It's true that the gains have decreased, but you can still engage; it’s just that the rhythm of the track has changed.
See original
Injective: Brothers, what this chain is doing now is no longer about 'building the market', but about 'pulling the evolutionary speed of the entire on-chain financial ecosystem to its own rhythm'
Brothers, let's change our perspective on this article.
It's not about how strong Injective is,
Rather, it forces the entire industry's evolutionary speed to adapt to its rhythm.
The rhythm of most chains in the crypto circle is:
The narrative has arrived, it's fast;
The narrative is gone, it's slow;
When the hotspot comes, it explodes;
If the chain itself is not good, it will stall.
But Injective completely does not follow this rhythm.
Its rhythm does not follow the market,
Instead, the market follows its rhythm.
This is the most terrifying kind of 'time control' in the entire public chain industry.
Keep breaking it down, and you'll understand why Injective is becoming more and more like the 'central hub of on-chain finance.'
It's not about how strong Injective is,
Rather, it forces the entire industry's evolutionary speed to adapt to its rhythm.
The rhythm of most chains in the crypto circle is:
The narrative has arrived, it's fast;
The narrative is gone, it's slow;
When the hotspot comes, it explodes;
If the chain itself is not good, it will stall.
But Injective completely does not follow this rhythm.
Its rhythm does not follow the market,
Instead, the market follows its rhythm.
This is the most terrifying kind of 'time control' in the entire public chain industry.
Keep breaking it down, and you'll understand why Injective is becoming more and more like the 'central hub of on-chain finance.'
See original
The true ambition of Falcon Finance is to redefine how 'assets become power'.
Brothers, I recently revisited Falcon Finance, and one intuition is becoming increasingly clear:
This project is not about collateral, nor about stablecoins; it is about—giving assets 'power'.
It's not the power of price, nor the power of liquidity, but the power of structure:
The kind of power that supports supply, drives returns, expands credit, and allows the system to run on its own.
If you look at all the designs of Falcon from this perspective, you will find that all its actions suddenly make sense.
In this article, I will specifically talk about this matter.
This project is not about collateral, nor about stablecoins; it is about—giving assets 'power'.
It's not the power of price, nor the power of liquidity, but the power of structure:
The kind of power that supports supply, drives returns, expands credit, and allows the system to run on its own.
If you look at all the designs of Falcon from this perspective, you will find that all its actions suddenly make sense.
In this article, I will specifically talk about this matter.
See original
Kite: Brothers, in this article today, I want to push the logic to a 'future perspective'—
Kite is not building a toolkit for AI; it is creating ecological conditions for AI and blockchain to coexist peacefully.
In other words:
If 90% of future transactions on the chain are completed by AI, will the chain be overwhelmed, ruined, or dragged down by AI?
Yes.
Absolutely.
Now the question arises:
Who will guarantee that there will not be 'systemic conflicts' between AI and the chain?
Who will guarantee that the growth of AI will not push the chain to the brink of uncontrollable chaos?
Who will guarantee that the efficiency of AI will not breach the security boundaries of the chain?
Who will guarantee that the economic behavior of AI will not pull the market into an unstable state?
In other words:
If 90% of future transactions on the chain are completed by AI, will the chain be overwhelmed, ruined, or dragged down by AI?
Yes.
Absolutely.
Now the question arises:
Who will guarantee that there will not be 'systemic conflicts' between AI and the chain?
Who will guarantee that the growth of AI will not push the chain to the brink of uncontrollable chaos?
Who will guarantee that the efficiency of AI will not breach the security boundaries of the chain?
Who will guarantee that the economic behavior of AI will not pull the market into an unstable state?
See original
Lorenzo Protocol: Transforming BTC from 'Single Yield Asset' to 'Multi-Dimensional Asset Cluster'
Brothers, I have noticed a phenomenon: the more heavily invested in BTC the old players are, the more likely they are to fall into a cognitive trap—thinking that BTC is in a cycle of 'rise—hold—rise—continue to hold.'
This logic is not wrong, but it is too inefficient.
By treating such a highly volatile asset in only one way, you are essentially wasting its structural value.
The emergence of the Lorenzo Protocol is to break this 'one-dimensional asset' into a 'multi-dimensional asset cluster.'
If the previous BTC was a heavy metal, then Lorenzo is melting it down and casting it into multiple independently functioning components, allowing it to create value simultaneously in different places.
This logic is not wrong, but it is too inefficient.
By treating such a highly volatile asset in only one way, you are essentially wasting its structural value.
The emergence of the Lorenzo Protocol is to break this 'one-dimensional asset' into a 'multi-dimensional asset cluster.'
If the previous BTC was a heavy metal, then Lorenzo is melting it down and casting it into multiple independently functioning components, allowing it to create value simultaneously in different places.
See original
Yield Guild Games: Brothers, player 'value density' is becoming the new standard, which can determine how far you can go in the future more than doing tasks or being active.
Brothers, in the past, the way the blockchain gaming industry evaluated players was very simple:
How many tasks you have completed, how many projects you have participated in, how many activities you have finished.
This standard is useful, but too rough and does not reflect the true abilities and value of players.
YGG is now pushing the entire industry's evaluation system to a deeper level——
It's not about quantity, but about 'value density'.
What is value density?
How high is the value density you create in the same amount of time?
It's not about how much you do, but how much 'effective value' you can generate from doing something.
This will become the core standard for the future of the blockchain gaming industry.
How many tasks you have completed, how many projects you have participated in, how many activities you have finished.
This standard is useful, but too rough and does not reflect the true abilities and value of players.
YGG is now pushing the entire industry's evaluation system to a deeper level——
It's not about quantity, but about 'value density'.
What is value density?
How high is the value density you create in the same amount of time?
It's not about how much you do, but how much 'effective value' you can generate from doing something.
This will become the core standard for the future of the blockchain gaming industry.
See original
Injective: Brothers, we must admit one thing here - this chain has evolved from 'defining market rules' to 'defining the direction of market evolution'
Brothers, we have written so many articles about Injective, have you noticed a phenomenon:
The perspective of each article is becoming higher and higher,
But Injective's own pattern is also becoming larger and larger.
The strength of this chain is not because it has many functions, assets, or markets,
But because of its evolutionary method, it is a strong force that 'drives the entire industry to evolve together'.
In today's article, we discuss the fifth stage capability of Injective:
It has upgraded from 'setting rules' to 'deciding which direction the future on-chain market will evolve'.
It's not about following trends,
It shapes trends.
The perspective of each article is becoming higher and higher,
But Injective's own pattern is also becoming larger and larger.
The strength of this chain is not because it has many functions, assets, or markets,
But because of its evolutionary method, it is a strong force that 'drives the entire industry to evolve together'.
In today's article, we discuss the fifth stage capability of Injective:
It has upgraded from 'setting rules' to 'deciding which direction the future on-chain market will evolve'.
It's not about following trends,
It shapes trends.
See original
The core of Falcon Finance is not to create stablecoins but to rewrite 'how on-chain assets turn into credit'
Brothers, while recently revisiting Falcon Finance, I suddenly realized a question I hadn't understood before:
Many projects are working on stablecoins, collateral, and yields, but why has there never been a protocol on-chain that truly takes on the role of a 'credit generation system'?
It wasn't until I understood the structure of Falcon that I realized—
It is not creating stablecoins; it is creating a 'mechanism for generating on-chain credit'.
If you grasp this angle, everything makes sense: why Falcon is designed this way, why it dares to take such big risks, and why the growth curve is so strange.
Many projects are working on stablecoins, collateral, and yields, but why has there never been a protocol on-chain that truly takes on the role of a 'credit generation system'?
It wasn't until I understood the structure of Falcon that I realized—
It is not creating stablecoins; it is creating a 'mechanism for generating on-chain credit'.
If you grasp this angle, everything makes sense: why Falcon is designed this way, why it dares to take such big risks, and why the growth curve is so strange.
See original
Kite: Brothers, today I want to shift the direction to a more 'counterintuitive' perspective, but the more I research, the more I am convinced — the true goal of Kite is not to let AI run on the chain, but to evolve the chain itself into a system that can be 'tamed by AI'.
It sounds a bit crazy, but if you think about it carefully:
Over the past decade, the chain has been about adapting to the rules of the chain;
In the next decade, the chain must learn to let AI adapt to it, but more importantly, it must adapt itself to AI.
And Kite is the only L1 I see currently that is clearly working on the bidirectional evolution of 'AI adaptable chain' and 'chain adaptable to AI.'
Brothers, this design thinking is not the conventional route for L1; it is laying out a fundamental change for the future in advance:
The chain is no longer a passive execution environment, but a system that can interact, negotiate, constrain, and provide feedback with AI.
Over the past decade, the chain has been about adapting to the rules of the chain;
In the next decade, the chain must learn to let AI adapt to it, but more importantly, it must adapt itself to AI.
And Kite is the only L1 I see currently that is clearly working on the bidirectional evolution of 'AI adaptable chain' and 'chain adaptable to AI.'
Brothers, this design thinking is not the conventional route for L1; it is laying out a fundamental change for the future in advance:
The chain is no longer a passive execution environment, but a system that can interact, negotiate, constrain, and provide feedback with AI.
See original
Lorenzo Protocol: Making BTC's 'Value Density' Tradable
Brothers, to be honest, my previous understanding of BTC was very simple: hold it, put it on-chain, cross-chain, or borrow some U. The gameplay wasn't complicated, but it wasn't surprising either. It wasn't until I studied Lorenzo that I realized for the first time — the value density of BTC can be 'traded in parts.' It's not leverage, it's not synthetic, but rather separating returns, liquidity, principal, and duration, turning BTC into a movable structure instead of just numbers sitting in a wallet.
To understand the charm of Lorenzo, you have to start with a very basic question:
To understand the charm of Lorenzo, you have to start with a very basic question:
See original
Yield Guild Games: Brothers, the 'layered sedimentation structure' of player value is taking shape, and this is the first time a value ladder has truly appeared in the blockchain gaming industry
Brothers, during this time I have been looking at the player network structure of YGG, and the more I analyze it, the more I find a key change: player value is no longer linear, but is starting to show 'layered sedimentation'.
What does it mean?
It's not about how much you contribute, but about moving forward on a certain line;
Rather, the more you contribute, the deeper your value will sink into the layers; the deeper it sinks, the harder it is to replace, and the more it can influence the entire ecosystem.
This is the first time in the history of blockchain games that such a value structure has appeared.
First layer of sedimentation: basic contribution layer
This layer is the initial value formed after players join the ecosystem:
What does it mean?
It's not about how much you contribute, but about moving forward on a certain line;
Rather, the more you contribute, the deeper your value will sink into the layers; the deeper it sinks, the harder it is to replace, and the more it can influence the entire ecosystem.
This is the first time in the history of blockchain games that such a value structure has appeared.
First layer of sedimentation: basic contribution layer
This layer is the initial value formed after players join the ecosystem:
See original
Injective: Brothers, the real growth curve of this chain is not the price, but how it has turned 'the on-chain market itself' into its own home.
Brothers, let's continue.
This article's perspective is harsher and closer to what is truly happening with Injective now.
The vast majority of chains grow by relying on ecology, hotspots, narratives, subsidies, user migration, or being supported by a large project.
But Injective is not like that.
its growth method is to abstract, deconstruct, and rewrite 'how on-chain markets operate' step by step, forcing the entire industry to run according to its way.
In other words:
Injective is not doing the market,
Injective is 'turning the market into its own structure.'
This article's perspective is harsher and closer to what is truly happening with Injective now.
The vast majority of chains grow by relying on ecology, hotspots, narratives, subsidies, user migration, or being supported by a large project.
But Injective is not like that.
its growth method is to abstract, deconstruct, and rewrite 'how on-chain markets operate' step by step, forcing the entire industry to run according to its way.
In other words:
Injective is not doing the market,
Injective is 'turning the market into its own structure.'
See original
Users from mainland China must not use mexc‼️
Now I must make this very clear and serious: do not use the Matcha exchange anymore, especially if you have been using it for a while as an old user.
If you still have a balance in your account, please withdraw it all immediately, without hesitation.
The reason is simple — as soon as the platform identifies that you are from China, your account will be locked immediately, and your funds will be sent into a black hole with no appeal channel.
This is not a rumor, nor is it to scare you; this is something that is happening to me, and I have complete screenshots.
Don’t be hopeful, don’t wait for the “account abnormality” email; by the time that comes, it will be too late.
#BinanceBlockchainWeek #加密市场回调
Now I must make this very clear and serious: do not use the Matcha exchange anymore, especially if you have been using it for a while as an old user.
If you still have a balance in your account, please withdraw it all immediately, without hesitation.
The reason is simple — as soon as the platform identifies that you are from China, your account will be locked immediately, and your funds will be sent into a black hole with no appeal channel.
This is not a rumor, nor is it to scare you; this is something that is happening to me, and I have complete screenshots.
Don’t be hopeful, don’t wait for the “account abnormality” email; by the time that comes, it will be too late.
#BinanceBlockchainWeek #加密市场回调
See original
Lorenzo Protocol: Allowing BTC to Have a 'Multithreaded Life' on the Chain
Brothers, I have always felt that Bitcoin's presence on the chain is somewhat contradictory: it has high value and strong consensus, but the things you can actually do with it have always been few. It's not that no one has tried, but most BTC ecosystem projects are either over-designed or just stay at the level of 'bridging back and forth'. There are few projects that truly make BTC a 'multithreaded asset', and Lorenzo Protocol is one of the few that makes me feel like 'this thing is really doing system-level construction'.
Let's start from the most fundamental place. The core idea of Lorenzo is to decompose the use of BTC into three layers: collateral security layer, profit splitting layer, and circulation layer. These three layers are not simply superimposed, but rather penetrate each other, transforming an originally static BTC into a set of 'disassemblable, transferable, and combinable' asset structures.
Let's start from the most fundamental place. The core idea of Lorenzo is to decompose the use of BTC into three layers: collateral security layer, profit splitting layer, and circulation layer. These three layers are not simply superimposed, but rather penetrate each other, transforming an originally static BTC into a set of 'disassemblable, transferable, and combinable' asset structures.
See original
Yield Guild Games: Brothers, the cross-game player economy belt is taking shape, and this is the first time an organized value map has appeared in the blockchain gaming industry.
Brothers, if player credit, player level, player pricing, and player liquidity are the micro-level value constructions, then the entire industry is being pushed by YGG towards a macro structure — the player economy belt.
The logic of the player economy belt is very simple:
Player value is no longer confined to a single game, but forms a long-distance, high-density, and continuously flowing value corridor across games, regions, and ecosystems.
This is similar to the 'industrial belt' in the real world, except that the production factors here are not land, not capital, but players.
The logic of the player economy belt is very simple:
Player value is no longer confined to a single game, but forms a long-distance, high-density, and continuously flowing value corridor across games, regions, and ecosystems.
This is similar to the 'industrial belt' in the real world, except that the production factors here are not land, not capital, but players.
See original
In the system of Falcon Finance, there is a main line that others do not understand: it is turning 'collateral' into a tradable capability.
Brothers, after watching some projects for a long time, you suddenly realize:
What it does is not just those superficial tasks, but rather a main line that quietly drives things behind the scenes.
Falcon Finance is such a project for me.
On the surface, it appears to be doing collateral, stablecoins, and strategies, but at its core, it is transforming 'collateral capability' into a tradable, scalable, and reusable system asset.
Does it sound abstract?
Brothers, don't worry, I'll explain this matter thoroughly from a concrete perspective, one by one.
1. Traditional stablecoin protocols trade in 'dollars', while Falcon trades in 'collateral capability'.
What it does is not just those superficial tasks, but rather a main line that quietly drives things behind the scenes.
Falcon Finance is such a project for me.
On the surface, it appears to be doing collateral, stablecoins, and strategies, but at its core, it is transforming 'collateral capability' into a tradable, scalable, and reusable system asset.
Does it sound abstract?
Brothers, don't worry, I'll explain this matter thoroughly from a concrete perspective, one by one.
1. Traditional stablecoin protocols trade in 'dollars', while Falcon trades in 'collateral capability'.
Login to explore more contents
Explore the latest crypto news
⚡️ Be a part of the latests discussions in crypto
💬 Interact with your favorite creators
👍 Enjoy content that interests you
Email / Phone number
Trending Topics
BTCVSGOLD
1.3M views
11,247 Discussing
CZ’s move was cold, calculated dominance.
He walks onstage, pulls out a physical 100g gold bar, and casually holds it up in front of Peter Schiff—the ultimate gold bug—then says he can send the Bitcoin equivalent ($BTC worth exactly that much gold) to anyone in the world in seconds, for pennies, while Schiff is stuck clutching a heavy, illiquid brick that costs fortunes to move or store securely.
It’s not just a flex; it’s a visual execution. Gold ($PAXG included) needs vaults, assays, armed guards, and trust. Bitcoin needs a 12-word seed. CZ turned Schiff’s sacred totem into a prop that proved his own point in real time.
Masterclass in asymmetric warfare: one manlet gold bar vs. digital bearer asset. Message received.
#BinanceBlockchainWeek #BTCVSGOLD
Ghost Writer
2 Likes
1.5k views
BinanceBlockchainWeek
21.9M views
42,042 Discussing
BTC86kJPShock
5.4M views
36,457 Discussing
