OroCryptoTrends
Verificēts autors
@OroCryptoTrends | Binance KOL
Top crypto insights: real-time news, market analysis, Web3, DeFi, NFTs & trend updates. Stay ahead with fast, reliable signals.
Atvērts tirdzniecības darījums
Tirgo bieži
2.9 gadi
3.1K+ Seko
47.8K+ Sekotāji
48.0K+ Patika
8.3K+ Kopīgots
Publikācijas
Portfelis
Visi
Cenu piedāvājumi
Video
Tiešraides
PINNED
$BTC BTC tikko iekļāvās 81.6K zonā un šī kustība izskatās gandrīz pārāk tīra.
Tu vari to skaidri redzēt — stabila kāpšana, nekādi reāli pullbacki, tad spēcīgs uzsitiens augšā ar pieaugošu apjomu.
Tas parasti piesaista vēlu longus.
Ko es šeit vēroju, ir 80.9K–81K zona.
Ja šis breakout ir īsts, cena vajadzētu turēties virs tā un turpināt augt.
Ja tā nokrīt atpakaļ… tas sāk izskatīties vairāk kā likviditātes uzņemšana nekā turpinājums.
Jūtos spēcīgi, to nenoliegsim — bet arī tāda veida kustība, kas pārbauda cilvēkus, kuri to vajā.
Es esmu redzējis šādu struktūru pārtraukt abos virzienos, tāpēc es nesteidzos ar ieejām šeit.
Tu vari to skaidri redzēt — stabila kāpšana, nekādi reāli pullbacki, tad spēcīgs uzsitiens augšā ar pieaugošu apjomu.
Tas parasti piesaista vēlu longus.
Ko es šeit vēroju, ir 80.9K–81K zona.
Ja šis breakout ir īsts, cena vajadzētu turēties virs tā un turpināt augt.
Ja tā nokrīt atpakaļ… tas sāk izskatīties vairāk kā likviditātes uzņemšana nekā turpinājums.
Jūtos spēcīgi, to nenoliegsim — bet arī tāda veida kustība, kas pārbauda cilvēkus, kuri to vajā.
Es esmu redzējis šādu struktūru pārtraukt abos virzienos, tāpēc es nesteidzos ar ieejām šeit.
Skatīt tulkojumu
I keep thinking about OpenLedger and this idea of raw data turning into something liquid on an AI chain. It sounds clean on paper, but in practice it feels more like a behavioral loop than a product.
People submit data, label things, maybe fine-tune signals, and in return they get rewarded. But what’s actually being optimized here isn’t just “data quality”… it’s participation velocity. The faster the system learns what data is valuable, the faster users learn what kind of data gets paid.
So inputs are pretty simple: attention, datasets, fragmented human activity. Processing is where it gets interesting — models, curation layers, pricing mechanisms trying to assign weight to something inherently messy. Outputs are tokens, access rights, maybe downstream model utility. And then those outputs feed back into the next wave of contributors.
The tension I keep circling is reward emissions vs retention of meaningful contributors. If incentives are too high, you get noise and synthetic data flooding in. If they tighten, participation slows and liquidity of data dries up. Either way, equilibrium feels temporary.
At some point, the system stops distinguishing between data generation and data fabrication, and reward signals begin optimizing for plausibility rather than truth.
This is what happens when data markets start behaving like liquidity engines instead of verification systems.
And in the background, AI systems just keep demanding more raw material, indifferent to where it comes from, as long as it’s usable.
I’m not even sure if this ends up being a data marketplace or just a reflex engine for attention chasing yield… or something in between.
What exactly is being optimized here — data, or the behavior of producing data?
#OpenLedger @OpenLedger $OPEN
People submit data, label things, maybe fine-tune signals, and in return they get rewarded. But what’s actually being optimized here isn’t just “data quality”… it’s participation velocity. The faster the system learns what data is valuable, the faster users learn what kind of data gets paid.
So inputs are pretty simple: attention, datasets, fragmented human activity. Processing is where it gets interesting — models, curation layers, pricing mechanisms trying to assign weight to something inherently messy. Outputs are tokens, access rights, maybe downstream model utility. And then those outputs feed back into the next wave of contributors.
The tension I keep circling is reward emissions vs retention of meaningful contributors. If incentives are too high, you get noise and synthetic data flooding in. If they tighten, participation slows and liquidity of data dries up. Either way, equilibrium feels temporary.
At some point, the system stops distinguishing between data generation and data fabrication, and reward signals begin optimizing for plausibility rather than truth.
This is what happens when data markets start behaving like liquidity engines instead of verification systems.
And in the background, AI systems just keep demanding more raw material, indifferent to where it comes from, as long as it’s usable.
I’m not even sure if this ends up being a data marketplace or just a reflex engine for attention chasing yield… or something in between.
What exactly is being optimized here — data, or the behavior of producing data?
#OpenLedger @OpenLedger $OPEN
Skatīt tulkojumu
The more I look at AI agents, the less they feel like applications—and the more they feel like behavior wired into a financial loop that never really settles.
Agents get deployed, users interact, models respond, and data gets routed back into the network—where attention and usage are immediately converted into rewards and rankings that feed the next cycle.
So the system becomes a loop: attention → usage → reward → ranking → distribution → new agent behavior.
This sits at the intersection of AI infrastructure and crypto incentive systems like @OpenLedger , where usage itself becomes a priced signal.
What changes everything is the feedback loop. Developers stop just building agents; they start tuning them around what gets called, what gets retained, and what stays active long enough to matter in distribution.
Output stops being intelligence and becomes feedback that reshapes what gets built next.
The constraint that keeps coming up is emissions versus retention. Too much emission, and participation spikes then collapses into noise. Too little, and the system never reaches activation density.
The system only stabilizes inside a very narrow operating band—outside it, it either burns participation into noise or collapses from insufficient feedback to sustain the loop.
Too little, and nothing boots at all. Liquidity has to move in sync with that rhythm, or agents decay into inactive endpoints that no longer route usage.
At the same time, narrative cycles rotate faster than infrastructure can adapt, so competition shifts from technical performance to attention capture speed.
So agents aren’t just competing technically—they’re competing for attention windows that shrink every cycle.
Which raises a harder question: is the system optimizing for useful intelligence, or just for repeatable interaction patterns that resemble demand?
At that point, performance stops being a property of the agent—and becomes a property of the measurement system itself.
#OpenLedger $OPEN
Agents get deployed, users interact, models respond, and data gets routed back into the network—where attention and usage are immediately converted into rewards and rankings that feed the next cycle.
So the system becomes a loop: attention → usage → reward → ranking → distribution → new agent behavior.
This sits at the intersection of AI infrastructure and crypto incentive systems like @OpenLedger , where usage itself becomes a priced signal.
What changes everything is the feedback loop. Developers stop just building agents; they start tuning them around what gets called, what gets retained, and what stays active long enough to matter in distribution.
Output stops being intelligence and becomes feedback that reshapes what gets built next.
The constraint that keeps coming up is emissions versus retention. Too much emission, and participation spikes then collapses into noise. Too little, and the system never reaches activation density.
The system only stabilizes inside a very narrow operating band—outside it, it either burns participation into noise or collapses from insufficient feedback to sustain the loop.
Too little, and nothing boots at all. Liquidity has to move in sync with that rhythm, or agents decay into inactive endpoints that no longer route usage.
At the same time, narrative cycles rotate faster than infrastructure can adapt, so competition shifts from technical performance to attention capture speed.
So agents aren’t just competing technically—they’re competing for attention windows that shrink every cycle.
Which raises a harder question: is the system optimizing for useful intelligence, or just for repeatable interaction patterns that resemble demand?
At that point, performance stops being a property of the agent—and becomes a property of the measurement system itself.
#OpenLedger $OPEN
Skatīt tulkojumu
The part of @OpenLedger I keep thinking about isn’t even the “AI blockchain” framing. It’s the way they’re trying to turn datasets, models, and even agent outputs into on-chain economic primitives instead of just infrastructure.
Most AI projects talk about compute.
OpenLedger is weirdly focused on attribution.
Like… if an AI model trains on your dataset, or an agent routes through your model, the protocol wants that usage tracked and rewarded at the network layer. Almost closer to a royalty system than a traditional chain.
Maybe I’m wrong, but that changes the incentive structure more than people realize.
Most AI x crypto projects still price compute as the scarce resource, but OpenLedger seems to be betting attribution becomes scarcer than compute itself.
Feels like the market is slowly shifting from “AI compute narratives” toward ownership + attribution layers because everyone already understands compute is becoming commoditized.
Because now the question isn’t just “can you build the best model?” It’s “can you create a liquidity market around intelligence itself?”
Which sounds ambitious until you realize DeFi already did something similar with idle capital.
Or actually, maybe that comparison breaks down.
Capital is at least measurable.
Data quality is subjective, models degrade, and agents can generate synthetic feedback loops that look valuable until they suddenly don’t. I saw something kind of similar in 2022, or maybe early 2023, when protocols started financializing attention metrics and everyone assumed the numbers meant demand.
Still, the attribution layer in #OpenLedger feels important. Especially if AI moves toward smaller specialized models instead of a few giant closed systems.
But lowkey the whole design depends on one uncomfortable assumption: that contribution can be measured cleanly enough to reward fairly.…that’s $OPEN .
And historically… crypto gets weird when measurement becomes the product itself.
Most AI projects talk about compute.
OpenLedger is weirdly focused on attribution.
Like… if an AI model trains on your dataset, or an agent routes through your model, the protocol wants that usage tracked and rewarded at the network layer. Almost closer to a royalty system than a traditional chain.
Maybe I’m wrong, but that changes the incentive structure more than people realize.
Most AI x crypto projects still price compute as the scarce resource, but OpenLedger seems to be betting attribution becomes scarcer than compute itself.
Feels like the market is slowly shifting from “AI compute narratives” toward ownership + attribution layers because everyone already understands compute is becoming commoditized.
Because now the question isn’t just “can you build the best model?” It’s “can you create a liquidity market around intelligence itself?”
Which sounds ambitious until you realize DeFi already did something similar with idle capital.
Or actually, maybe that comparison breaks down.
Capital is at least measurable.
Data quality is subjective, models degrade, and agents can generate synthetic feedback loops that look valuable until they suddenly don’t. I saw something kind of similar in 2022, or maybe early 2023, when protocols started financializing attention metrics and everyone assumed the numbers meant demand.
Still, the attribution layer in #OpenLedger feels important. Especially if AI moves toward smaller specialized models instead of a few giant closed systems.
But lowkey the whole design depends on one uncomfortable assumption: that contribution can be measured cleanly enough to reward fairly.…that’s $OPEN .
And historically… crypto gets weird when measurement becomes the product itself.
Skatīt tulkojumu
$PHAROS Binance Wallet’s $200K PROS campaign looks like a liquidity event — but the timing feels more like a stress test for attention itself.
$200,000 in rewards has been attached to Pharos (PROS) trading via Binance Alpha and Wallet Keyless, according to Binance’s official announcement.
At first glance, it reads like standard exchange-driven volume stimulation. But these campaigns usually don’t work because of “interest” — they work because they temporarily compress attention into a single trading window.
The system is simple: incentives pull users in → liquidity spikes → price discovery accelerates → early participants rotate out.
What’s less obvious is the constraint underneath it: reward velocity vs retention. If participation decays faster than liquidity inflow, the entire structure turns into a short volatility burst instead of sustained demand.
This is part of a larger Binance Alpha pattern — low-friction trading environments paired with temporary incentive scaffolding. It’s not really about PROS; it’s about whether attention can be rented efficiently at scale.
For African users on mobile-first Binance access, these windows often amplify arbitrage behavior across P2P spreads and short-cycle trades, especially when participation is uneven across regions.
The risk is that incentives don’t create demand — they only reprice timing. Once the reward curve flattens, volume often collapses faster than it built.
The real test is simple: does PROS hold trading activity after the reward density drops, or does it revert to baseline liquidity almost immediately?
Feels less like a growth mechanism… and more like a controlled liquidity pulse. Not sure yet which one it actually becomes.
#CryptoNews
$200,000 in rewards has been attached to Pharos (PROS) trading via Binance Alpha and Wallet Keyless, according to Binance’s official announcement.
At first glance, it reads like standard exchange-driven volume stimulation. But these campaigns usually don’t work because of “interest” — they work because they temporarily compress attention into a single trading window.
The system is simple: incentives pull users in → liquidity spikes → price discovery accelerates → early participants rotate out.
What’s less obvious is the constraint underneath it: reward velocity vs retention. If participation decays faster than liquidity inflow, the entire structure turns into a short volatility burst instead of sustained demand.
This is part of a larger Binance Alpha pattern — low-friction trading environments paired with temporary incentive scaffolding. It’s not really about PROS; it’s about whether attention can be rented efficiently at scale.
For African users on mobile-first Binance access, these windows often amplify arbitrage behavior across P2P spreads and short-cycle trades, especially when participation is uneven across regions.
The risk is that incentives don’t create demand — they only reprice timing. Once the reward curve flattens, volume often collapses faster than it built.
The real test is simple: does PROS hold trading activity after the reward density drops, or does it revert to baseline liquidity almost immediately?
Feels less like a growth mechanism… and more like a controlled liquidity pulse. Not sure yet which one it actually becomes.
#CryptoNews
Skatīt tulkojumu
OpenLedger Might Be Solving a Problem AI Never Planned For
At first this just looked like another “AI + blockchain fixes ownership” narrative.
But the behavior around these lawsuits feels different now.
OpenAI, Google, all of them are getting pushed toward the same uncomfortable question:
not whether the models work —
whether anyone can still trace what went into them after the model already absorbed it.
That changes the loop entirely.
Data goes in → model improves → revenue scales → contributors disappear.
And I think that’s the part breaking.
OpenLedger feels less like a data marketplace to me and more like an attempt to keep attribution alive after training happens.
Not just storing datasets on-chain, but forcing provenance to remain visible while the system compounds around it.
Which is interesting because most AI systems were implicitly designed around the assumption that attribution would dissolve as models scaled.
The system only works while attribution remains economically tied to model value.
If model value compounds faster than contributor rewards, provenance becomes ceremonial instead of financial.
Feels like the market is slowly rotating from “who has the biggest model” toward “who can survive regulation without rewriting the whole stack.”
Maybe that’s why these provenance narratives suddenly matter now instead of last year.
Infrastructure that reduces regulatory uncertainty may start absorbing more value than infrastructure that only improves raw model performance.
I don’t know.
The structure makes sense under pressure… but I can’t tell whether on-chain attribution actually scales once the incentives get messy.
What happens to attribution when AI value compounds faster than it can be paid back?
#OpenLedger $OPEN @OpenLedger
At first this just looked like another “AI + blockchain fixes ownership” narrative.
But the behavior around these lawsuits feels different now.
OpenAI, Google, all of them are getting pushed toward the same uncomfortable question:
not whether the models work —
whether anyone can still trace what went into them after the model already absorbed it.
That changes the loop entirely.
Data goes in → model improves → revenue scales → contributors disappear.
And I think that’s the part breaking.
OpenLedger feels less like a data marketplace to me and more like an attempt to keep attribution alive after training happens.
Not just storing datasets on-chain, but forcing provenance to remain visible while the system compounds around it.
Which is interesting because most AI systems were implicitly designed around the assumption that attribution would dissolve as models scaled.
The system only works while attribution remains economically tied to model value.
If model value compounds faster than contributor rewards, provenance becomes ceremonial instead of financial.
Feels like the market is slowly rotating from “who has the biggest model” toward “who can survive regulation without rewriting the whole stack.”
Maybe that’s why these provenance narratives suddenly matter now instead of last year.
Infrastructure that reduces regulatory uncertainty may start absorbing more value than infrastructure that only improves raw model performance.
I don’t know.
The structure makes sense under pressure… but I can’t tell whether on-chain attribution actually scales once the incentives get messy.
What happens to attribution when AI value compounds faster than it can be paid back?
#OpenLedger $OPEN @OpenLedger
Skatīt tulkojumu
Attribution Changes Everything in AI Data Markets—And We’re Not Ready for It
We used to assume AI got better because it saw more data.
That assumption quietly breaks once attribution enters the picture.
A year ago the assumption was simple: bigger datasets → better models. That framing felt stable enough that nobody really questioned it.
Now the conversation is drifting somewhere more uncomfortable—attribution. Not just where data comes from, but whether individual contributions can still be traced after the model has already absorbed and transformed them into something new.
That’s what caught my attention with OpenLedger’s Proof of Attribution approach.
The interesting part isn’t the payout layer itself. It’s the attempt to reconstruct influence inside a system that is explicitly designed to erase clean boundaries between inputs.
From what I understand, they combine influence-function approximations with token-level attribution methods to estimate which data sources shaped a given output. In a way, it resembles recommendation systems from earlier Web2 platforms—except the signal isn’t clicks or engagement, it’s inferred causal contribution inside a model.
And this is where it gets messy.
The real tension isn’t whether attribution works in theory. Once attribution determines payout, it stops measuring influence and starts producing it.
That’s the part that feels fragile.
OpenLedger reframes data less like static training fuel and more like an economic primitive tied directly to inference.
If that framing takes hold, AI data markets may stop resembling licensing systems entirely and start looking more like dynamic reward networks.
But I keep wondering whether attribution systems like this can remain stable once participants stop contributing data and start optimizing for influence itself.
@OpenLedger $OPEN #OpenLedger
We used to assume AI got better because it saw more data.
That assumption quietly breaks once attribution enters the picture.
A year ago the assumption was simple: bigger datasets → better models. That framing felt stable enough that nobody really questioned it.
Now the conversation is drifting somewhere more uncomfortable—attribution. Not just where data comes from, but whether individual contributions can still be traced after the model has already absorbed and transformed them into something new.
That’s what caught my attention with OpenLedger’s Proof of Attribution approach.
The interesting part isn’t the payout layer itself. It’s the attempt to reconstruct influence inside a system that is explicitly designed to erase clean boundaries between inputs.
From what I understand, they combine influence-function approximations with token-level attribution methods to estimate which data sources shaped a given output. In a way, it resembles recommendation systems from earlier Web2 platforms—except the signal isn’t clicks or engagement, it’s inferred causal contribution inside a model.
And this is where it gets messy.
The real tension isn’t whether attribution works in theory. Once attribution determines payout, it stops measuring influence and starts producing it.
That’s the part that feels fragile.
OpenLedger reframes data less like static training fuel and more like an economic primitive tied directly to inference.
If that framing takes hold, AI data markets may stop resembling licensing systems entirely and start looking more like dynamic reward networks.
But I keep wondering whether attribution systems like this can remain stable once participants stop contributing data and start optimizing for influence itself.
@OpenLedger $OPEN #OpenLedger
$BTC US CPI tikko ieradās 3.8% — siltāks nekā gaidīts.
Un, godīgi sakot, pats skaitlis nav lielākā stāsta daļa.
Reālā problēma ir pozicionēšana.
Tirgus pavadīja nedēļas, vērtējot ideju, ka inflācija atdziest, politikas spiediens mazināsies, un riska aktīvi varēs turpināt pieaugt.
Tagad visa šī naratīva pamatā tiek apstrīdēta vienā ziņojumā.
Tāpēc reakcijas, piemēram, šīs, kļūst vardarbīgas.
Nevis tāpēc, ka CPI maģiski maina visu nakti…
…bet tāpēc, ka pārpildītas pozīcijas ātri izkustas, kad gaidas sabrūk.
Ja inflācija paliek noturīga:
• procentu likmju samazināšanas optimismu vājinās
• likviditātes gaidas atdziest
• riska apetīti pārbauda
• volatilitāte, visticamāk, paplašinās visā kriptovalūtā
Nākamais BTC kustība ir svarīgāka par pašu virsrakstu.
Jo īstos buļļu tirgos slikti makro jaunumi tiek ātri absorbēti.
Ja Bitcoin nespēj absorbēt šo, tirgotāji var sākt apzināties, ka tirgus vairāk balstījās uz likviditātes gaidām nekā uz faktisko spēku.
Tā ir daļa, ko vērts vērot.
Un, godīgi sakot, pats skaitlis nav lielākā stāsta daļa.
Reālā problēma ir pozicionēšana.
Tirgus pavadīja nedēļas, vērtējot ideju, ka inflācija atdziest, politikas spiediens mazināsies, un riska aktīvi varēs turpināt pieaugt.
Tagad visa šī naratīva pamatā tiek apstrīdēta vienā ziņojumā.
Tāpēc reakcijas, piemēram, šīs, kļūst vardarbīgas.
Nevis tāpēc, ka CPI maģiski maina visu nakti…
…bet tāpēc, ka pārpildītas pozīcijas ātri izkustas, kad gaidas sabrūk.
Ja inflācija paliek noturīga:
• procentu likmju samazināšanas optimismu vājinās
• likviditātes gaidas atdziest
• riska apetīti pārbauda
• volatilitāte, visticamāk, paplašinās visā kriptovalūtā
Nākamais BTC kustība ir svarīgāka par pašu virsrakstu.
Jo īstos buļļu tirgos slikti makro jaunumi tiek ātri absorbēti.
Ja Bitcoin nespēj absorbēt šo, tirgotāji var sākt apzināties, ka tirgus vairāk balstījās uz likviditātes gaidām nekā uz faktisko spēku.
Tā ir daļa, ko vērts vērot.
$SUI SUI tikko atgādināja tirgu, cik ātri Layer 1 naratīvi var atkal atdzīvoties.
Tokenis uzlēca gandrīz par 50% pēc tam, kad sāka cirkulēt ziņas par Nasdaq kotētu firmu, kas pāriet uz SUI staking ekspozīciju — un tas ir svarīgāk, nekā cilvēki domā.
Tas nav tikai vēl viena "zaļā svece" stāsts.
Publiskās kompānijas, kas ienāk staking ekosistēmās, pilnībā maina uztveri:
• Vairāk likumības
• Vairāk institucionālās intereses
• Vairāk uzmanības uz peļņu nesošajiem kripto modeļiem
• Vairāk konkurences starp L1 ekosistēmām, kas cīnās par kapitālu
Izskatās, ka tirgus pēkšņi atkal rūpējas par ātriem L1 — īpaši par tiem, kurus cilvēki domā, ka institūcijas varētu pieskarties.
Un, godīgi sakot? SUI iestatījums jau bija spēcīgāks, nekā lielākā daļa cilvēku gribētu atzīt:
- Augoša ekosistēmas aktivitāte
- Spēcīga mazumtirdzniecības interese
- Tīrāka zīmola identitāte nekā daudziem vecākiem L1
- Spekulatīvā momentum tirgotāji MĪL ātrus ķēdes
Bet šeit ir īstais jautājums:
Tagad jautājums ir, vai šis patiešām ilgst… vai arī tas ir tikai vēl viena trakā naratīva svece, kas nākamnedēļ atdzisīs.
Jo kripto ir ieradums sajaukt cenu paplašināšanos ar ilgtermiņa pieņemšanu.
Šobrīd SUI bulli skaidri kontrolē — bet paraboliskie gājieni bez sekojošas likviditātes parasti tiek grūti pārbaudīti pēc tam.
Uzmanīgi vēroju, vai būvētāji un TVL patiešām seko šim hype šoreiz.
Vai tu pērk izlaušanos... vai gaidi atgriešanos? 👇
#Write2Earn
#SUI
Tokenis uzlēca gandrīz par 50% pēc tam, kad sāka cirkulēt ziņas par Nasdaq kotētu firmu, kas pāriet uz SUI staking ekspozīciju — un tas ir svarīgāk, nekā cilvēki domā.
Tas nav tikai vēl viena "zaļā svece" stāsts.
Publiskās kompānijas, kas ienāk staking ekosistēmās, pilnībā maina uztveri:
• Vairāk likumības
• Vairāk institucionālās intereses
• Vairāk uzmanības uz peļņu nesošajiem kripto modeļiem
• Vairāk konkurences starp L1 ekosistēmām, kas cīnās par kapitālu
Izskatās, ka tirgus pēkšņi atkal rūpējas par ātriem L1 — īpaši par tiem, kurus cilvēki domā, ka institūcijas varētu pieskarties.
Un, godīgi sakot? SUI iestatījums jau bija spēcīgāks, nekā lielākā daļa cilvēku gribētu atzīt:
- Augoša ekosistēmas aktivitāte
- Spēcīga mazumtirdzniecības interese
- Tīrāka zīmola identitāte nekā daudziem vecākiem L1
- Spekulatīvā momentum tirgotāji MĪL ātrus ķēdes
Bet šeit ir īstais jautājums:
Tagad jautājums ir, vai šis patiešām ilgst… vai arī tas ir tikai vēl viena trakā naratīva svece, kas nākamnedēļ atdzisīs.
Jo kripto ir ieradums sajaukt cenu paplašināšanos ar ilgtermiņa pieņemšanu.
Šobrīd SUI bulli skaidri kontrolē — bet paraboliskie gājieni bez sekojošas likviditātes parasti tiek grūti pārbaudīti pēc tam.
Uzmanīgi vēroju, vai būvētāji un TVL patiešām seko šim hype šoreiz.
Vai tu pērk izlaušanos... vai gaidi atgriešanos? 👇
#Write2Earn
#SUI
Pieraksties, lai skatītu citu saturu