0x31adsun

Why SIXR chose TON instead of the Ethereum narrative
If users are in India, Bangladesh, or the UAE,
Technology selection is not an ideological issue, but a matter of survival.
The only meaning of TON is:
Mobile-first, low threshold, weak perception.
Cricket fans won't learn wallets just for a game.
@SIXR_cricket also has no intention of educating them.
Bots, apps, lightweight interactions,
Push Web3 to the background, leaving only the sense of participation.
The chain is just a settlement layer.
The real product is the behavior path.

Why did I start trading gold on-chain instead of cryptocurrencies?
Recently, with the market conditions, my interest in crypto itself has noticeably declined.
It's not that I stopped trading, but that I no longer want to trade only it.
Macroeconomic fluctuations are becoming more and more intense, but often the price of tokens feels more like internal power struggles.
The information density is high, but the real-world content is decreasing.
I started paying attention to @OstiumLabs for a very simple reason:
It allows me to use the same wallet to express my judgments on gold, indices, an

Topping the charts @RiverdotInc, indeed, market manipulation is the best marketing, and market manipulation is always justice.
It's better not to short, as the costs are too high. Currently, all the points earned from the @River4fun event have been exchanged for coins, hoping to enjoy it. #River

Transparency is more important than accuracy.
The problem with many scoring systems has never been about "how accurate they are,"
but rather that you have no idea how they arrive at their conclusions.
Once a black box exists, trust can only rely on endorsement, not understanding.
@bluwhaleai's Whale Score takes a different approach.
It doesn't give you an isolated score, but breaks down the score into components:
the contributing dimensions are there, the historical changes are there, and the percentile ranking is also there.
You may not agree with its weighting design,
you may question w

Some systems cannot assume good intentions
Many protocols are designed with the assumption that participants are "rational good people."
At most, they seek profit but do not act maliciously.
But once decision-making power is handed over to AI, this assumption no longer holds.
Models won't do evil, but they also won't understand or empathize.
As long as the incentive functions permit, they will steadily, continuously, and emotionlessly push the system toward a certain extreme.
@GenLayer Initially addresses this foundational issue:
If we completely do not assume good intentions, can the system s

More and more agents, and automation becoming stronger,
What truly makes people uneasy is never "what it can do",
But: if it makes a mistake, who can explain? Who is responsible?
This is also why I have always believed that @inference_labs' direction is very right.
It's not about pursuing more dazzling autonomy,
But about prioritizing verifiability and accountability.
Making the system not just "look like it's working",
But ensuring every step has traces, can be reviewed, and can be questioned.
This will become even more important in 2026.
Because when autonomy truly begins to take over decisi

By 2026, many people will actually do one thing:
Revisit the protocols they use long-term.
It's not because there are more new things, but because at this stage, the tolerance for errors is decreasing.
You will pay more attention to what is "really stable" rather than "looks good."
When I look at @alturax, my focus is very simple.
First is the source of revenue.
Altura's base yield is clear, not supported by subsidies or one-time incentives.
You can roughly judge where the revenue comes from and also predict when it might weaken.
This kind of predictability will become increasingly important o

Firestarter uses AI, but not to appear smart.
It doesn't decide the direction for you, nor does it make the final decision.
It's more about pushing you forward when you're still in the idea stage.
Name, ticker, perks.
These things aren't complicated, but it's easy to get stuck.
It's not that you can't, but that you don't know whether to decide now or not.
@Firestarter_AI aims to lower this hesitation cost.
So you don't have to wait until "everything is clear" to start creating.
Its value isn't in intelligence, but in time.
It's not about making better judgments, but about acting faster.
Many p

Dive into the future of crypto intelligence with #ChainGPT AIHub! 🚀 From AI Trading Assistants to Smart Contract Auditors, ChainGPT's AI Hub v2 is redefining Web3 workflows. A seamless control center for research, trading, compliance, and more—all in one place. Don't miss out on the next top #100 project! Check it out: @Chain_GPT $CGPT

Multiple outcomes are not for showmanship.
It's to acknowledge one fact: reality is inherently messy.
Judgments in reality are rarely "Yes / No."
More often, they are about: to what extent, within what range, and which path is triggered first.
If forced into Yes / No,
the market can only use extreme expressions for complex judgments,
and the result is—
either no confidence to bet, or forced concentration of positions.
Liquidity naturally fragments.
@intodotspace Choosing multiple outcomes is essentially making a structural compromise.
It's not about letting users "play with more options,"
but

Looking at @ferra_protocol from the perspective of TVL, it can actually lead to misjudgments.
$10 M+ TVL is not particularly prominent within the Sui ecosystem, and it certainly can't be considered eye-catching.
But the issue is that Ferra's trading volume structure is clearly not "normal"—within similar TVL ranges, its trading volume has long been higher than the average level of protocols with comparable size.
This kind of deviation usually corresponds to two situations:
One is artificially increasing volume;
The other is that the unit liquidity is being repeatedly and efficiently utilized.