Runi bro

When I look at the current state of artificial intelligence, I feel both excitement and concern at the same time because on one hand AI is growing faster than anything we have seen before, but on the other hand I can clearly see that reliability is still a huge problem that nobody can ignore. We are already using AI for writing, coding, research, business decisions, and even medical insights, yet we all know that sometimes it produces answers that sound perfect but are completely wrong. These hallucinations are not small mistakes that we can laugh about, because when AI systems start operating in serious environments, even a single false statement can cause real damage. This is where Mira Network enters the conversation in a way that feels different from typical blockchain or AI projects, because they are not just chasing speed or hype, they are focusing on something deeper which is trust.
Mira Network is built as a decentralized verification protocol, and what that really means in simple words is that they are trying to create a system where AI outputs are not accepted just because one model says so. Instead of trusting a single powerful AI system, they are building a network where multiple independent models check, verify, and economically validate the information before it is accepted as reliable. I find this idea powerful because today most AI systems operate in a centralized way, meaning one model generates an answer and users are expected to believe it. Mira changes this logic completely by saying that trust should not depend on one authority, it should come from distributed consensus that is backed by cryptography and economic incentives.
The biggest issue with modern AI is not intelligence itself, because the models are already extremely capable, but the issue is consistency and truthfulness. AI can sound confident even when it is wrong, and that confidence can mislead people who are not experts in the topic. I have personally seen situations where AI gives a very polished explanation that later turns out to contain serious factual errors, and this is exactly the kind of problem that makes AI risky for autonomous systems. Mira Network approaches this problem by breaking down complex AI outputs into smaller verifiable claims.
Once these claims are separated, they are distributed across a decentralized network of independent AI models. Each model evaluates the claims and provides validation based on its own reasoning process. The key difference here is that no single model controls the outcome. The network reaches consensus in a way that is similar to blockchain validation, where multiple participants confirm the validity of data before it becomes part of the accepted record. By combining AI validation with blockchain consensus, Mira transforms simple AI outputs into cryptographically verified information.
What makes this system even stronger is the use of economic incentives. Participants in the network are rewarded for honest validation and penalized for dishonest or low quality behavior. This mechanism aligns incentives with truthfulness, which is something that centralized AI systems often struggle to achieve. Validators have something at stake, and because of that, they are motivated to act carefully and responsibly.
Blockchain technology plays a critical role because it provides the transparent and tamper resistant layer that records the validation process. Every verified claim can be anchored on chain, creating an auditable trail that anyone can inspect. This transparency builds confidence for developers and enterprises that want to rely on AI in sensitive operations.
I also see a deeper emotional dimension in what Mira Network is building because trust is not just a technical concept, it is a human feeling. When we interact with AI, we want to feel safe relying on it. Mira is trying to bridge that emotional gap by providing a system where verification is built into the core architecture.
Another important aspect is scalability of verification because as AI grows, the volume of generated information increases massively. Mira’s decentralized model allows verification to scale alongside AI generation since the workload is distributed across many validators instead of a single authority.
I think about the future of autonomous agents that manage portfolios, negotiate contracts, and control supply chains. Without verification, small errors can grow into large risks. Mira Network positions itself as the trust layer between raw AI intelligence and real world execution.
In the end, technology should empower us without creating anxiety. With decentralized verification, Mira Network restores confidence by embedding trust directly into infrastructure. It is not about perfection but about building systems where errors are challenged, corrected, and economically discouraged.
@Mira - Trust Layer of AI #Mira $MIRA

Trong một thị trường mà hầu hết các dự án cạnh tranh về tốc độ và những câu chuyện ngắn hạn, @Mira - Trust Layer of AI đang đi một con đường khác bằng cách tập trung vào cơ sở hạ tầng dựa trên trí tuệ. Mira không chỉ định vị mình là một chuỗi khác, mà là một khung công tác nơi các hệ thống AI và mạng phi tập trung có thể phối hợp một cách an toàn và hiệu quả. Sự khác biệt đó rất quan trọng.
Giá trị lâu dài của $MIRA nằm ở vai trò của nó trong hệ sinh thái. Thay vì chỉ đơn thuần là đầu cơ, nó được thiết kế để hỗ trợ quản trị, khuyến khích và sự tham gia vào mạng lưới. Khi các tác nhân AI trở nên hoạt động nhiều hơn trong các môi trường phi tập trung, nhu cầu về phối hợp có cấu trúc, xác minh và thực thi có thể mở rộng ngày càng tăng. Đây chính là nơi #Mira hướng tới hoạt động.

Fogo caught my attention for a reason that has nothing to do with the usual crypto bragging.
It wasn’t the speed claims first. It wasn’t the performance charts. It was the feeling that this team is trying to do something most blockchains avoid saying out loud: if you want to run serious on-chain markets, you need a serious political model too.
A lot of chains still sell the same story. Open to everyone, no gatekeepers, pure community power. It sounds great, and I understand why people want to believe it. But when you spend enough time watching how these systems actually work, you see the gap. A few operators matter more than people admit. Coordination happens in back rooms. Performance breaks when the network gets stressed. And the word “decentralization” gets used like a blanket to cover every unresolved problem.
Fogo feels different because it doesn’t seem interested in hiding those tradeoffs. It feels like an attempt to build around them.
That’s what makes it interesting to me. It’s not trying to sound morally perfect. It’s trying to be operationally honest.
And that changes the tone immediately. The conversation stops being about slogans and starts being about power, standards, and consequences. Who gets to participate when timing matters most? Who decides what level of performance is acceptable? What happens when a validator slows everyone else down? What happens when behavior is technically allowed but clearly harmful to the network? Those are political questions, even if crypto people prefer to dress them up as engineering decisions.
I think that’s the part many people miss. The second you build for latency-sensitive finance, you are no longer designing in an abstract world. You are designing inside physics. Distance matters. Hardware matters. Coordination quality matters. A slow participant does not just hurt themselves. They can affect execution quality for everyone.
That is not an ideological issue. That is a real-world systems issue.
And real systems do not survive on vibes alone. They survive on standards.
We already accept this everywhere else. Airlines do not say, “Let anyone maintain a plane and the market will decide.” Hospitals do not say, “Anyone can walk into the operating room if they believe in openness.” Financial exchanges do not run on pure improvisation. They all have thresholds, procedures, and enforcement because failure is expensive and usually paid for by other people.
Fogo seems to be bringing that same uncomfortable logic into blockchain design. It feels less like a protest movement and more like an institution trying to decide what kind of discipline is required to make the system actually work.
That will make some people uneasy, and honestly, it should. Curation can become gatekeeping very quickly. “Quality control” can be used as a noble-sounding excuse to protect insiders. The social layer can become a closed circle if nobody checks it. Crypto has seen enough of that already, so skepticism is healthy.
But there is another side to this that deserves equal honesty: pretending there is no social layer does not remove power. It just makes power harder to see.
Every network has people with influence. Every network has informal standards. Every network has unwritten rules that matter when things go wrong. Some chains are just better at hiding it behind language that sounds cleaner than reality.
What I find compelling about Fogo is that it seems to be testing what happens when you stop pretending those tensions are temporary or accidental. What if they are the core design problem? What if governance is not just about token votes and upgrades, but about the operating conditions of the chain itself?
That is a much more serious question than the usual “who has the highest TPS” debate, and it is one crypto needs badly.
Because speed alone is not the experiment here. The real experiment is whether a blockchain can be fast enough for demanding market activity while staying legitimate in the eyes of users who do not want a private club. Can you enforce higher standards without becoming exclusionary? Can you coordinate like an operations team without losing public trust? Can you admit that some tradeoffs are necessary without turning that into a blank check for centralization?
There is no easy answer to any of that. I think anyone claiming otherwise is either selling something or avoiding the hard part.
And the hard part is always the same: what happens under stress.
Not when the network is calm. Not when everyone agrees. Not when the diagrams look beautiful.
I mean the moment when a validator fails during a volatile period, or a behavior crosses a line and people argue over whether it was clever or abusive, or a decision improves performance but leaves part of the community feeling shut out. That is when a political model stops being theory and starts becoming real. That is when people learn whether a system has fairness, or just rules. Whether it has accountability, or just authority.
That is why I think Fogo is worth watching, even for people who end up disagreeing with its approach. It is forcing a more honest conversation about what blockchains are actually for, and what kind of governance matches that purpose.
The crypto space has spent years arguing about decentralization like it is one clean thing that can be maximized in every direction at once. It is not. There are different kinds of decentralization, and they do not always move together. You can spread ownership widely and still concentrate operational control. You can increase validator count and weaken execution quality. You can keep systems open in principle while practical participation drifts toward those with the best infrastructure and deepest pockets.
Most people in the industry know this privately. Very few projects are willing to build as if it is true.
That is why this feels important to me. Not because Fogo has already solved the political problem of blockchains. It has not. Nobody has. But because it seems willing to ask a better question than most: what kind of governance does this specific economic machine require, and what tradeoffs are we prepared to own in public?
That question is uncomfortable. It is also the right one.
If blockchains want to become real infrastructure instead of endless ideological branding exercises, they will eventually have to answer it too. Fogo is just doing it in a way that makes the tension impossible to ignore, and maybe that is exactly the point.
I do not think the value of this experiment depends on Fogo being perfect. In some ways, it is more useful if people watch it closely, challenge it hard, and force clarity around how decisions are made. Because the future of blockchain governance probably will not come from one chain proving everyone else wrong. It will come from projects like this exposing the actual tradeoffs and making the industry admit what it has been trying not to say.
That systems have politics. That performance has a cost. That openness has limits when timing is critical. And that trust is not built by pretending those tensions do not exist, but by handling them in the open.
@Fogo Official #fogo $FOGO

Fogo đang bước vào năm 2026 với một bản sắc rõ ràng hơn: không phải là một Layer One đầu cơ theo đuổi động lực tạm thời, mà là một lớp hạ tầng tập trung vào thực thi được thiết kế cho các hệ thống thế giới thực. Cuộc trò chuyện xung quanh blockchain đã trưởng thành. Câu hỏi trung tâm không còn là liệu phi tập trung có thể xảy ra hay không, mà là liệu các hệ thống phi tập trung có thể hoạt động với độ tin cậy cần thiết cho các thị trường tài chính, phối hợp doanh nghiệp và hạ tầng khu vực công.
Hướng đi kỹ thuật gần đây của Fogo củng cố một chủ đề nhất quán — hiệu suất phải được xác định, không phải ngẫu nhiên. Trong các thế hệ blockchain trước, tốc độ thường xuất hiện trên các bảng điều khiển tiếp thị nhưng biến mất dưới tải. Độ trễ biến đổi, phí không đồng nhất và thứ tự không thể đoán trước tạo ra ma sát hạn chế việc áp dụng nghiêm túc. Kiến trúc được cập nhật của Fogo tinh chỉnh quy trình thực thi của nó để giảm biến động thời gian và ổn định dòng giao dịch dưới nhu cầu liên tục.

@Fogo Official #FOGOUSDT $FOGO
Khi tôi bắt đầu học Fogo, thành thật mà nói, tôi đã tiếp cận nó theo cách sai lầm vì tôi nhìn nhận nó thông qua cùng một lăng kính mà tôi sử dụng cho mỗi chuỗi lớp một hiệu suất cao mới, và lăng kính đó thường đầy những so sánh, tuyên bố về tốc độ, số liệu hệ sinh thái và những lời hứa táo bạo mà tất cả đều nghe có vẻ ấn tượng ngay từ cái nhìn đầu tiên nhưng hiếm khi giải thích được ý định sâu xa hơn phía sau kiến trúc, và sau khi dành nhiều thời gian hơn để hiểu những gì họ thực sự đang xây dựng, tôi nhận ra rằng Fogo không cố gắng để thắng một cuộc đua tiếp thị hay cạnh tranh để nhận được những tràng pháo tay trong chu kỳ narative crypto thông thường, mà nó đang cố gắng giải quyết một vấn đề rất cụ thể và rất nghiêm trọng mà hầu hết mọi người chỉ nhận thấy khi tiền thật đang bị đe dọa.

Trong hầu hết các môi trường blockchain mà tôi đã nghiên cứu, việc thực thi là điều mà các nhà phát triển học cách chịu đựng hơn là tin tưởng, vì độ trễ thay đổi nhẹ từ khối này sang khối khác, thứ tự có thể thay đổi dưới áp lực, và sự phối hợp giữa các trình xác thực tạo ra những sai lệch thời gian nhỏ mà âm thầm tích tụ thành sự không chắc chắn thực sự. Qua thời gian, các nhà xây dựng không còn mong đợi sự căn chỉnh chính xác giữa những gì họ dự định và những gì mạng lưới cung cấp, và việc thực thi trở thành điều gì đó mang tính thống kê hơn là quyết định, nơi mà các kết quả thường đúng nhưng hiếm khi giống hệt về thời gian hoặc cấu trúc. Sự bất ổn tinh tế đó buộc các nhà phát triển phải thêm các lớp bảo vệ, logic phòng thủ và các điều kiện dự phòng, không phải vì ứng dụng của họ bị lỗi, mà vì bề mặt thực thi tự nó là biến đổi.

Khi tôi nhìn vào sự thay đổi nhanh chóng của thế giới số, tôi nhận ra rằng hầu hết chúng ta không còn chỉ duyệt internet nữa, mà chúng ta sống bên trong nó, và sự chuyển mình đó chính là lý do tại sao Vanar cảm thấy khác biệt với tôi, vì nó không cố gắng xây dựng một blockchain khác theo hướng hưng phấn, mà nó đang cố gắng âm thầm cung cấp sức mạnh cho những trải nghiệm mà chúng ta đã yêu thích và những trải nghiệm sắp tới. Nó được thiết kế như một mạng lưới Layer-1 thế hệ tiếp theo, nhưng thay vì chỉ tập trung vào việc giao dịch token hoặc theo đuổi các chu kỳ đầu cơ, họ đang xây dựng cơ sở hạ tầng cho game, giải trí, truyền thông kỹ thuật số, NFT, và các nền tảng dựa trên AI cần tốc độ, sự ổn định và tính khả dụng thực sự. Tôi coi nó như một mạng lưới mà muốn blockchain trở nên vô hình theo cách tốt nhất có thể, nơi người dùng tận hưởng những trải nghiệm kỹ thuật số mượt mà mà không cần phải nghĩ đến ví, phí gas, hay các bước phức tạp trong nền tảng.

When I look at how blockchain has evolved in 2026, I do not see a space driven only by hype, narratives, or promises of a distant future anymore, because what truly matters now is execution, performance, and whether a network can actually handle real economic activity without slowing down under pressure. The industry has matured, users are more experienced, and builders are more demanding, which means any new Layer 1 chain entering the market must prove itself through real results instead of loud marketing. This is where Fogo enters the picture, not as another general purpose blockchain trying to compete on every front, but as a focused, performance driven network built specifically for trading and decentralized finance, and I find that clarity of purpose refreshing in a space that often tries to do too many things at once.
Fogo launched its public mainnet in January 2026, and from the beginning the message was clear that they were not building for theory but for real world execution where milliseconds matter and reliability cannot be compromised. I see many chains promise speed, but what stands out to me about Fogo is that they structured their entire architecture around high performance trading environments where latency directly impacts outcomes, profits, and user experience. Instead of chasing broad adoption across every possible category, they concentrated on financial applications where responsiveness and stability define success, and that focus gives the network a strong identity in a crowded multi chain world.
At the core of Fogo’s design is its foundation on the Solana Virtual Machine, which means it is compatible with existing developer tools and workflows that many builders already understand, and this lowers the barrier for teams who want to deploy performance focused decentralized applications without learning an entirely new ecosystem from scratch. What I appreciate here is that they did not try to reinvent every layer of infrastructure just for the sake of uniqueness, but instead built on proven technology and then enhanced it with custom validator optimizations designed specifically for speed and consistency. They are clearly aiming to deliver institutional grade responsiveness on chain, and that ambition speaks directly to serious traders and developers who are tired of congestion, slow confirmations, and unpredictable execution delays.
One of the most powerful aspects of Fogo is its target block time of around 40 milliseconds, combined with transaction finality that aims to settle in roughly 1.3 seconds, and while numbers alone do not tell the full story, they reveal a commitment to minimizing latency at every level of the network. When I imagine high frequency trading strategies, automated DeFi protocols, or large scale liquidity movements, I understand why these milliseconds matter so much, because in competitive markets even a small delay can change an entire outcome. Fogo’s architecture supports this performance through validator colocation near major market infrastructure and consensus tuning that reduces communication lag between nodes, and this is not just a technical detail but a strategic decision that aligns the chain with real world financial behavior rather than abstract decentralization ideals detached from practical needs.
Since its mainnet launch, Fogo has seen early decentralized applications deploy across areas like decentralized exchange functionality, lending systems, borrowing markets, and liquid staking solutions, which signals that builders are beginning to explore what high speed infrastructure can unlock. I believe early ecosystem growth is always a critical indicator of whether a chain offers something genuinely valuable, because developers will not commit time and capital unless they see potential advantages. While new networks often face volatility and uncertain liquidity in their early months, the presence of active applications suggests that there is more happening beneath the surface than simple speculation, and that gives the project deeper credibility over time.
The FOGO token also became tradeable on Binance, which expanded visibility and access for global participants who want exposure to emerging infrastructure plays, and while price fluctuations are natural for newly listed assets, I tend to focus more on the underlying technology and whether it can sustain long term adoption rather than short term market reactions. They are operating in a space where competition is intense, and that means performance must remain consistent even as demand grows, because any breakdown in reliability would quickly erode trust among traders who depend on precision and stability.
What truly caught my attention about Fogo, however, was their decision to cancel a planned twenty million dollar pre sale and shift toward a broader token airdrop distribution model, because in an industry often criticized for insider allocations and concentrated ownership, that move signals a different philosophy. Instead of prioritizing early centralized fundraising, they chose to distribute tokens in a way that rewards community participants and aligns incentives with long term ecosystem growth, and I see that as an emotional and strategic statement about what kind of network they want to build. When a project puts community alignment at the center of distribution, it builds a foundation of shared ownership that can strengthen resilience during volatile market cycles.
Beyond raw speed, Fogo introduces usability improvements like Fogo Sessions, which aim to reduce interaction friction by allowing users to engage with applications without needing to manually approve every single transaction in a repetitive way, and this may sound small at first glance but in practice it transforms the user experience into something smoother and more natural. I think about how many new users feel overwhelmed by constant confirmations and fee calculations, and reducing that cognitive burden makes decentralized finance feel less intimidating and more intuitive. Combined with colocation consensus strategies that minimize network latency, these design choices reflect a broader understanding that performance is not only about numbers but about how people actually feel when they use the system.
In a multi chain environment where networks compete for liquidity, developers, and attention, Fogo positions itself as a purpose built infrastructure layer focused on trading centric applications rather than a universal solution for every imaginable use case. Competing indirectly with other high performance chains, it differentiates itself by leaning deeply into execution quality and tighter economic efficiency, and I believe this specialization can become a strength rather than a limitation. When a blockchain is designed for scenarios where speed directly affects profit and risk, its identity becomes clearer and its value proposition becomes easier to understand for serious market participants.
Of course, challenges remain, because no new Layer 1 escapes early volatility, liquidity swings, or the pressure to continuously improve technical performance as adoption grows, and I know that sustaining 40 millisecond block targets under heavy load will require ongoing optimization and disciplined infrastructure management. However, what gives me cautious optimism is the coherence of Fogo’s thesis, because they are not chasing trends but reinforcing a consistent message about execution quality and financial grade responsiveness. In a market that increasingly rewards reliability over hype, that consistency can build durable trust among users and builders alike.
When I step back and look at the broader picture, I see Fogo as part of a deeper shift in blockchain culture where infrastructure quality matters just as much as narrative excitement, and perhaps even more. They are betting that real decentralized markets need tools engineered for precision, speed, and usability rather than broad slogans, and that bet feels aligned with how the industry is maturing. If they continue refining their performance, supporting developers, and maintaining community aligned distribution, Fogo could represent a meaningful example of what a purpose driven Layer 1 looks like in the next phase of crypto evolution.
In the end, what makes Fogo compelling to me is not just that it is fast, but that it understands why speed matters and who it is building for, because when a network is designed with clear intent and emotional commitment to solving real problems, it resonates differently than projects chasing temporary trends. I am watching how this story unfolds, not with blind excitement but with genuine curiosity about whether focused execution can redefine expectations for on chain trading, and if they succeed, it may quietly reshape how we think about performance in decentralized systems.
@Fogo Official #FOGOCoin $FOGO

Vanar bắt đầu xuất hiện trong các cuộc trò chuyện của các nhà phát triển một cách âm thầm. Không giống như một xu hướng giá cả. Không giống như một câu chuyện lan truyền. Hơn như một cái tên thường được nhắc đến khi mọi người nói về việc giao hàng sản phẩm thực.
Tôi nhận thấy điều đó đầu tiên trong các cuộc trò chuyện thực tế. Loại mà ai đó hỏi nên sử dụng công nghệ nào. Hay làm thế nào để xử lý bộ nhớ cho các tác nhân. Hay làm thế nào để ngăn một hệ thống biến thành một đống keo dễ vỡ.
Thời gian là quan trọng. Bởi vì ngay bây giờ, nhiều nhà phát triển không bị mắc kẹt vào chất lượng mô hình. Họ bị mắc kẹt vào trạng thái. Họ bị mắc kẹt vào bộ nhớ. Họ bị mắc kẹt vào quyền truy cập. Họ bị mắc kẹt vào độ tin cậy trong các phiên.

Khi tôi nhìn vào trạng thái hiện tại của công nghệ blockchain, tôi thường cảm thấy rằng nhiều dự án được xây dựng cho những người đã hiểu về crypto, đã sở hữu ví và đã sống trong thế giới tài chính kỹ thuật số, nhưng rất ít dự án thực sự được thiết kế cho những người bình thường chỉ muốn những sản phẩm hữu ích mà có ý nghĩa trong cuộc sống hàng ngày của họ. Đó là lý do tại sao Vanar nổi bật đối với tôi như một điều khác biệt, vì nó là một blockchain L1 được xây dựng từ đầu với sự chấp nhận trong thế giới thực trong tâm trí, và họ không chỉ đang nói về việc mang hàng triệu người dùng vào Web3, mà họ còn hướng đến việc tiếp cận ba tỷ người tiêu dùng tiếp theo theo cách cảm thấy tự nhiên, dễ dàng và thực tiễn hơn là kỹ thuật và choáng ngợp.

Vanar, an AI‑native blockchain infrastructure provider, announced the introduction of persistent semantic memory for OpenClaw agents through the integration of its Neutron memory layer. This update enables agents to retain, retrieve, and expand upon historical context across sessions, platforms, and deployments, addressing one of the fundamental limitations present in current autonomous AI systems. 
Most AI agents today function with short‑term or session‑bound memory, which forces them to restart workflows, reprocess information, and repeatedly request user input whenever a session ends or the underlying infrastructure changes. OpenClaw’s existing memory model relies largely on ephemeral session logs and local vector indexing, which restricts an agent’s ability to maintain durable continuity across multiple sessions.
With Neutron’s semantic memory incorporated directly into OpenClaw workflows, agents are able to preserve conversational context, operational state, and decision history across restarts, machine changes, and lifecycle transitions. Neutron organizes both structured and unstructured inputs into compact, cryptographically verifiable knowledge units referred to as Seeds, allowing for durable memory recall across distributed environments. 
As a result, OpenClaw agents can be restarted, redeployed, or replaced without losing accumulated knowledge. The integration also enables OpenClaw agents to maintain continuity across communication platforms such as Discord, Slack, WhatsApp, and web interfaces, supporting long‑running and multi‑stage workflows. This broadens the range of potential deployments across customer support automation, on‑chain operations, compliance tooling, enterprise knowledge systems, and decentralized finance. 
Neutron employs high‑dimensional vector embeddings for semantic recall, allowing agents to retrieve relevant context through natural‑language queries rather than fixed keyword matching. The system is designed to achieve semantic search latency below 200 milliseconds, supporting real‑time interaction at production scale. 
“Persistent memory is a structural requirement for autonomous agents,” says Jawad Ashraf, CEO of Vanar in a written statement. “Without continuity, agents are limited to isolated tasks. With memory, they can operate across time, systems, and workflows, compounding intelligence instead of resetting context,” he added. 
The Neutron‑OpenClaw integration is production‑ready for developers, with Neutron providing a REST API and a TypeScript SDK that allow teams to incorporate persistent memory into existing agent architectures without major restructuring. Multi‑tenant support ensures secure memory isolation across projects, organizations, and environments, enabling both enterprise‑level deployments and decentralized applications.
The release reflects a broader architectural shift toward long‑running autonomy and distributed execution in AI systems. As agents increasingly interact across decentralized networks, financial protocols, and real‑time user environments, persistent and verifiable memory transitions from an optional enhancement to a foundational requirement. Persistent memory is not a feature of autonomous agents. It is the prerequisite.
@Vanarchain #Vanar
$VANRY