Need more CORE to hit the highest tier?? B14G has you covered! 💯💪 app.b14g.xyz/?ref=d16105227e…

WOMP WOMP

I don’t trust pumps that are inverse to BTC’s price movement

Top is in on $HYPE

it can always go lower.

What are the moral implications of profiting off of another’s cancer diagnosis?

ATTN FJC NFT Holders, We are pleased to provide an update regarding the profit‑linked interest associated with your ASX FJC RWA NFT Following the recent sale event, our partner Prism Real Estate and its affiliates have identified a replacement property and are currently under contract, with the intent that this asset serve as the reinvestment vehicle supporting the profit‑linked interest. The identified property is an institutional‑quality industrial asset located in a strong Midwest logistics submarket, characterized by stable occupancy, limited new supply, and attractive long‑term fundamentals. Prism and its affiliates are actively conducting their due diligence and inspection period, including customary financial, legal, physical, and market reviews. This process is intended to confirm that the asset meets underwriting standards and aligns with the return profile associated with the profit‑linked interest. Assuming the diligence process proceeds as expected and all customary closing conditions are satisfied, closing is currently anticipated on or around June 3. Upon closing, the replacement property would become the underlying asset supporting the continued performance of the profit‑linked interest. At this time: No action is required from ASX RWA NFT loan holders Updates will continue to be provided as key milestones are reached Final confirmation will be shared following completion of diligence and closing As with all acquisitions, timing and outcome remain subject to satisfactory due diligence results and customary closing conditions. We appreciate your continued engagement and will keep you informed as the process advances. Please feel free to reach out with any questions. Sincerely, ASX Management Team

That is not even true. No plastic surgery. You are literally proving my point by being racist. Typical white female response. Any pretty Asian woman must have had surgery. You are a racist retard. It's so pathetic. You are literally proving my point.

Grok needs another trip to the reeducation camp

The great Bitcoin dump of February 2026. Compilation of real time anime clips put together.

Might be the biggest bombshell in this entire case fr

Issa, how you say, over

We need to talk about Maple’s “$150M net inflows in 72h.” Because on-chain, a meaningful chunk of that looks like internal liquidity rotation.. not fresh external deposits. Here’s what our quant found during his Maple/Syrup flow research on Ethereum: 1. The timing is… interesting. The dispute between Maple and the counterparty went public on 19 Nov. Just one day earlier, a huge syrupUSDC position jumped from ~$3.5M to ~$16M. That jump corresponds almost exactly to a 15M USDC deposit into the Syrup USDC Router. 2. That 15M didn’t come from a user. It didn’t come from a CEX, or an external wallet. It came directly from Syrup’s own Open Term Loan Manager contract. An internal Maple/Syrup system contract... This isn’t some whale deposit. It’s internal liquidity moving between Maple-owned components. So calling this “new inflow” is questionable. 3. Where did the Loan Manager get its 15M? Looking backward, the only large “IN” before that was an ~18M USDC deposit (14 Nov) from: 0x8fee157cb621ac7484f8b218edd1c14ce8722628 This address is bizarre.. It interacts almost exclusively with Maple/Syrup contracts, no real footprint elsewhere, behaves like a strategy/integration/internal liquidity wallet Not like a customer. fund, or a real depositor. So it’s unclear whether the 18M was external capital or just Maple reshuffling its own liquidity. 4. Scale matters. That 15M internal rotation is already 10% of Maple’s public “$150M inflows” claim. If multiple similar movements occurred, the real external demand could be significantly lower than the headline suggests. 5. The daily on-chain data makes this even more suspicious. We pulled Syrup USDC Router logs (Ethereum, Nov 1–20): For each day we have: usdc_in: USDC sent into Syrup Router usdc_out: USDC forwarded out (always equals in) syrup_mint / syrup_burn → net change in syrupUSDC supply Since the router ends each day with 0 USDC, all that matters is syrup_net, the change in liabilities. Here’s what stands out: Huge positive syrupUSDC liability increases on: 10 Nov: 25.95M 18 Nov: 58.23M 19 Nov: 25.02M 20 Nov: 10.98M These are massive jumps! -> tens of millions per day! And yet, usdc_in – usdc_out = 0 every single day...... Meaning: the USDC backing these new liabilities wasn’t coming from outside the system at all. It was existing USDC inside Maple being repackaged into syrupUSDC. Not new TVL, or external deposits. Just internal flows creating the appearance of growth. And these spikes line up perfectly with Maple’s marketing window on Nov 18–20, during the peak of the drama. 6. To be clear! Xerberus is not claiming fraud, or saying Maple fabricated numbers. But on-chain, this specific 15M flow, and several of the >20M/day mint spikes simply do not look like fresh external inflows. They look like internal reallocations across Maple’s own contracts. So if Maple is counting these rotations as “net inflows,” the headline number might materially overstate real external demand. We should ask them directly: How much of the reported $150M was genuine new capital, and how much was internal liquidity being moved between Maple/Syrup components? Because right now, the chain suggests a non-trivial portion of that “inflow” never came from the market at all.

Attn Lords! We will be hosting our first weekly Community Call in our Discord this Thursday at 2PM EST. 🗒️ The Topic: How To Maximize Your RWA Returns. Bring your ☕️ and questions and let's talk real estate! 🔗 discord.gg/asxcapital?event=…

In just 12 hours since opening whitelist access for Babylon Co-Staking Marketplace: 🔹 175 BTC staked 🔹 1.2M BABY staked 📊 BTC APR: 1.5% 📊 BABY APR: 80% The market clearly wants BTCFi. And we’re delivering it.

Our mission has always been simple: Make Bitcoin productive everywhere. Today, we takes the first step into a multi-chain future. Whitelist access to @babylonlabs_io Co-Staking (BTC BABY) is now open. 📊 BTC APR ~80% 📊 BABY APY ~3,000% (yep, not a typo) The early bird gets the yield.

🔥🔥🔥🔥

CORE is the future

⚠️@Coredao_Org & @colend_xyz users: read this thread to the end. Your money is bleeding out in real time. 1. October 10 2025: the day the largest CORE whales went NEGATIVE… and were NEVER fully liquidated When CORE crashed from $0.38 to $0.10 in a few hours, the biggest CORE holders (positions between $2 M and $5 M) saw their Health Factor drop below 1.00 some into negative territory by more than $1.5 M. In a healthy lending protocol, HF < 1.00 triggers immediate liquidation. In Colend? Almost nothing happened. debank.com/profile/0xb9efb3a… debank.com/profile/0x5ddc531… debank.com/profile/0x95f009f… debank.com/profile/0xa8ec7b7… Only a handful of tiny liquidations went through: Example for =>0xb9efb3abfd12649faf03d360818d66e62592262c 2025/10/10 17:20:19 → 1,092 USDT debt closed → 9,786 aCoreWCORE seized (≈ $1,971 recovered) 2025/10/10 17:20:16 → 1,770 USDT → 15,853 aCoreWCORE (≈ $3,193) 2025/10/10 17:20:13 → 676 USDT → 5,699 aCoreWCORE (≈ $1,148) … Total recovered across 20 txs: ~$27 k Meanwhile, a single whale should have lost $4–5 M. They lost less than 0.4 % of their position. Why? There was simply not enough on-chain liquidity on Core DEXs to absorb the sale of the collateral. A liquidator trying to buy $4 M worth of CORE would have faced 40–60 % slippage. Nobody took the trade. In a healthy lending protocol, the system automatically liquidates underwater positions using its own treasury funds to protect suppliers. In Colend’s case, the protocol silently froze liquidations, allowing whales with negative Health Factors to manually add more CORE and save themselves leaving ordinary lenders completely exposed with zero protection. 2. Core Chain DEX liquidity is a cruel joke: While the total value locked across Core DEXs might suggest robustness, the effective liquidity the actual stablecoins available to absorb sells is terrifyingly low. The entire network's DEXs have a maximum capacity to absorb a CORE liquidation of only approximately $1.2 million. Effective CORE/USDT depth: - Molten: ~3.18M WCORE / ~$370k USDT - A rcherSwap: ~50k WCORE / ~$10k USDT -IcecreamSwap: ~900 WCORE / ~$181 USDT Total depth to absorb a sale: ~$1.2 M max. One underwater whale: $4 M. Do the math. It's a puddle vs. a tsunami. scan.coredao.org/tokenholdin… scan.coredao.org/tokenholdin… scan.coredao.org/tokenholdin…