One of the most powerful things about $AWF is that the donation mechanism isn't based on promises — it's verifiable on-chain. This transaction marks a major milestone, bringing the total donations generated by the AWF ETH CTO community to 280 ETH: etherscan.io/tx/0x9954799818… Here's how it works: ✅ AWF tokens are traded ✅ The contract collects the donation tax ✅ Those tokens are automatically swapped for ETH through the AWF/WETH Uniswap pool ✅ The ETH is sent directly to the Animal Welfare Fund donation wallet No middlemen. No manual intervention. Everything is transparent and auditable on Ethereum. With ownership renounced, most LP tokens burned, and every donation traceable on-chain, AWF demonstrates how crypto can create sustainable funding for animal welfare causes. This is what decentralized giving looks like. #AWF #Ethereum #AnimalWelfare #CryptoForGood #OnChain #ETH @AWF_ETHCTO @VitalikButerin @Lewis_Bollard @EffectvAltruism @cz_binance @zengjiajun_eth

don’t fcking piss me awf

Go awf cuz! ...on your page though lmao.

Also shake it off THEE shake it awf

Wystarczającą szkodą dla polskiej przedsiębiorczości jest to, że poprzez bramkę AWF systemu KSeF wszystkie szczegóły faktur polskich firm znają trzy obce wywiady. To, że jakieś prywatne osoby zdobędą dostęp do faktur, może nas ewentualnie uratować, bo mogą w ten sposób prześwietlić firmy wspierane przez te wywiady i wtedy gra rynkowa stanie się symetryczna. Więc to byłoby bardzo korzystne, gdyby dane z KSeF wyciekły. Lepiej by je znali wszyscy, niż gdy znają je tylko obce wywiady.

DO NOT piss me awf

they turnt it Awf

bitch im gagged for the century let me turn this phone AWF

I hate tht I missed out on the discussion yesterday but I know I woulda been pissed AWF seeing ppl hyping up bird brain and that backwards ass passive aggressive speech!! Don’t fill me in, I don’t even wanna know 🙄🙄

feck awf

back AWF SHES TAKEN

This argument really just shows how devastated your are. First regarding “Abu Bakr” Abu Bakr was not even the real personal name of the first caliph. In your own Sunni rijal sources, the first caliph is listed as Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafa, and “Abu Bakr” is his kunya. So when you scream “Ali named his son Abu Bakr,” you haven’t even proved Imam Ali named anyone after Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafa. You’re literally confusing a kunya with a personal name just for proving your retired idea Even worse for you, Maqatil al-Talibiyyin says about Abu Bakr ibn Ali: “lam yu‘raf ismuhu” — his actual name was not known. So what exactly are you celebrating? A kunya whose real name is disputed or unknown? That’s your proof? Pathetic.About “Abu Bakr ibn Ali”, this is even weaker than you think. Abu Bakr was not necessarily his real name; it was a kunya. Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani says in Maqatil al-Talibiyyin: “His name was not known.” Other reports say his real name may have been Muhammad al-Asghar, or Abdullah, or Ubaydullah. Second about “Umar” In your own Sunni hadith material, this name is also transmitted as “Amr(عمرو)”, not “Umar(عمر)”. Ibn Abi Shaybah, in his Musannaf, narrates with the wording: “Muhammad ibn Amr(عمرو) ibn Ali, from Ali ibn Abi Talib...” So before you start screaming “Ali named his son Umar,” maybe first learn that the name itself is reported as Amr(عمرو) in your own sources. That alone destroys your fake certainty. And even if we accept the reading “Umar” for the sake of argument, what exactly does that prove? Nothing. Umar was NOT a private trademark owned by Umar ibn al-Khattab. It was a normal Arab name. In Sunni books of Sahabah, there are at least twenty-six companions listed with the name Umar: Umar ibn Abi Salamah, Umar ibn Suraqah, Umar ibn Sa‘d, Umar ibn Sufyan, Umar ibn ‘Amr al-Laythi, Umar ibn ‘Umayr, Umar ibn ‘Awf, Umar ibn Malik, Umar al-Aslami, Umar al-Khath‘ami, Umar al-Yamani, and many others. So your logic is embarrassingly childish. If Imam Ali having a son called Umar, then every Arab who had the name Umar must have been named after him too; even if they were born before Umar ibn Khattab!? That is not even sound like evidence; that is desperate name-game propaganda. Third about “Uthman” This one is even more humiliating for your argument. Uthman was a common Arab name, and Ibn Hajar in al-Isabah lists many companions named Uthman, including Uthman ibn Maz‘un, one of the early noble companions. So acting like every “Uthman” must mean Uthman ibn Affan is just childish. Maqatil al-Talibiyyin explicitly reports that Imam Ali said about his son Uthman: “I named him after my brother Uthman ibn Maz‘un.” Not Uthman ibn Affan. Uthman ibn Maz‘un. So again, where is your proof that Imam Ali meant Uthman ibn Affan? You have none. You just saw the same name and started building fairy tales. And the biggest joke is this: you want to use names to erase history, while your own Sahih al-Bukhari says Hazrat Fatima became angry with Abu Bakr, stayed away from him and did not speak to him until she died. Bukhari also says Imam Ali buried Fatima at night without informing Abu Bakr, and Ali did not give bay‘ah for those months. So stop playing cute games with names. Names do not erase Fadak. Names do not erase Hazrat Fatima’s anger. Names do not erase Imam Ali’s delayed bay‘ah. Names do not prove political approval. Your whole argument is basically: “Someone had the same name, therefore Imam Ali loved and approved of the three caliphs.” That is kindergarten-level logic dressed up as aqidah.

This argument really just shows how devastated your are. First regarding “Abu Bakr” Abu Bakr was not even the real personal name of the first caliph. In your own Sunni rijal sources, the first caliph is listed as Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafa, and “Abu Bakr” is his kunya. So when you scream “Ali named his son Abu Bakr,” you haven’t even proved Imam Ali named anyone after Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafa. You’re literally confusing a kunya with a personal name just for proving your retired idea Even worse for you, Maqatil al-Talibiyyin says about Abu Bakr ibn Ali: “lam yu‘raf ismuhu” — his actual name was not known. So what exactly are you celebrating? A kunya whose real name is disputed or unknown? That’s your proof? Pathetic.About “Abu Bakr ibn Ali”, this is even weaker than you think. Abu Bakr was not necessarily his real name; it was a kunya. Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani says in Maqatil al-Talibiyyin: “His name was not known.” Other reports say his real name may have been Muhammad al-Asghar, or Abdullah, or Ubaydullah. Second about “Umar” In your own Sunni hadith material, this name is also transmitted as “Amr(عمرو)”, not “Umar(عمر)”. Ibn Abi Shaybah, in his Musannaf, narrates with the wording: “Muhammad ibn Amr(عمرو) ibn Ali, from Ali ibn Abi Talib...” So before you start screaming “Ali named his son Umar,” maybe first learn that the name itself is reported as Amr(عمرو) in your own sources. That alone destroys your fake certainty. And even if we accept the reading “Umar” for the sake of argument, what exactly does that prove? Nothing. Umar was NOT a private trademark owned by Umar ibn al-Khattab. It was a normal Arab name. In Sunni books of Sahabah, there are at least twenty-six companions listed with the name Umar: Umar ibn Abi Salamah, Umar ibn Suraqah, Umar ibn Sa‘d, Umar ibn Sufyan, Umar ibn ‘Amr al-Laythi, Umar ibn ‘Umayr, Umar ibn ‘Awf, Umar ibn Malik, Umar al-Aslami, Umar al-Khath‘ami, Umar al-Yamani, and many others. So your logic is embarrassingly childish. If Imam Ali having a son called Umar, then every Arab who had the name Umar must have been named after him too; even if they were born before Umar ibn Khattab!? That is not even sound like evidence; that is desperate name-game propaganda. Third about “Uthman” This one is even more humiliating for your argument. Uthman was a common Arab name, and Ibn Hajar in al-Isabah lists many companions named Uthman, including Uthman ibn Maz‘un, one of the early noble companions. So acting like every “Uthman” must mean Uthman ibn Affan is just childish. Maqatil al-Talibiyyin explicitly reports that Imam Ali said about his son Uthman: “I named him after my brother Uthman ibn Maz‘un.” Not Uthman ibn Affan. Uthman ibn Maz‘un. So again, where is your proof that Imam Ali meant Uthman ibn Affan? You have none. You just saw the same name and started building fairy tales. And the biggest joke is this: you want to use names to erase history, while your own Sahih al-Bukhari says Hazrat Fatima became angry with Abu Bakr, stayed away from him and did not speak to him until she died. Bukhari also says Imam Ali buried Fatima at night without informing Abu Bakr, and Ali did not give bay‘ah for those months. So stop playing cute games with names. Names do not erase Fadak. Names do not erase Hazrat Fatima’s anger. Names do not erase Imam Ali’s delayed bay‘ah. Names do not prove political approval. Your whole argument is basically: “Someone had the same name, therefore Imam Ali loved and approved of the three caliphs.” That is kindergarten-level logic dressed up as aqidah.

This argument really just shows how devastated your are. First regarding “Abu Bakr” Abu Bakr was not even the real personal name of the first caliph. In your own Sunni rijal sources, the first caliph is listed as Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafa, and “Abu Bakr” is his kunya. So when you scream “Ali named his son Abu Bakr,” you haven’t even proved Imam Ali named anyone after Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafa. You’re literally confusing a kunya with a personal name just for proving your retired idea Even worse for you, Maqatil al-Talibiyyin says about Abu Bakr ibn Ali: “lam yu‘raf ismuhu” — his actual name was not known. So what exactly are you celebrating? A kunya whose real name is disputed or unknown? That’s your proof? Pathetic.About “Abu Bakr ibn Ali”, this is even weaker than you think. Abu Bakr was not necessarily his real name; it was a kunya. Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani says in Maqatil al-Talibiyyin: “His name was not known.” Other reports say his real name may have been Muhammad al-Asghar, or Abdullah, or Ubaydullah. Second about “Umar” In your own Sunni hadith material, this name is also transmitted as “Amr(عمرو)”, not “Umar(عمر)”. Ibn Abi Shaybah, in his Musannaf, narrates with the wording: “Muhammad ibn Amr(عمرو) ibn Ali, from Ali ibn Abi Talib...” So before you start screaming “Ali named his son Umar,” maybe first learn that the name itself is reported as Amr(عمرو) in your own sources. That alone destroys your fake certainty. And even if we accept the reading “Umar” for the sake of argument, what exactly does that prove? Nothing. Umar was NOT a private trademark owned by Umar ibn al-Khattab. It was a normal Arab name. In Sunni books of Sahabah, there are at least twenty-six companions listed with the name Umar: Umar ibn Abi Salamah, Umar ibn Suraqah, Umar ibn Sa‘d, Umar ibn Sufyan, Umar ibn ‘Amr al-Laythi, Umar ibn ‘Umayr, Umar ibn ‘Awf, Umar ibn Malik, Umar al-Aslami, Umar al-Khath‘ami, Umar al-Yamani, and many others. So your logic is embarrassingly childish. If Imam Ali having a son called Umar, then every Arab who had the name Umar must have been named after him too; even if they were born before Umar ibn Khattab!? That is not even sound like evidence; that is desperate name-game propaganda. Third about “Uthman” This one is even more humiliating for your argument. Uthman was a common Arab name, and Ibn Hajar in al-Isabah lists many companions named Uthman, including Uthman ibn Maz‘un, one of the early noble companions. So acting like every “Uthman” must mean Uthman ibn Affan is just childish. Maqatil al-Talibiyyin explicitly reports that Imam Ali said about his son Uthman: “I named him after my brother Uthman ibn Maz‘un.” Not Uthman ibn Affan. Uthman ibn Maz‘un. So again, where is your proof that Imam Ali meant Uthman ibn Affan? You have none. You just saw the same name and started building fairy tales. And the biggest joke is this: you want to use names to erase history, while your own Sahih al-Bukhari says Hazrat Fatima became angry with Abu Bakr, stayed away from him and did not speak to him until she died. Bukhari also says Imam Ali buried Fatima at night without informing Abu Bakr, and Ali did not give bay‘ah for those months. So stop playing cute games with names. Names do not erase Fadak. Names do not erase Hazrat Fatima’s anger. Names do not erase Imam Ali’s delayed bay‘ah. Names do not prove political approval. Your whole argument is basically: “Someone had the same name, therefore Imam Ali loved and approved of the three caliphs.” That is kindergarten-level logic dressed up as aqidah.

This argument really just shows how devastated your are. First regarding “Abu Bakr” Abu Bakr was not even the real personal name of the first caliph. In your own Sunni rijal sources, the first caliph is listed as Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafa, and “Abu Bakr” is his kunya. So when you scream “Ali named his son Abu Bakr,” you haven’t even proved Imam Ali named anyone after Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafa. You’re literally confusing a kunya with a personal name just for proving your retired idea Even worse for you, Maqatil al-Talibiyyin says about Abu Bakr ibn Ali: “lam yu‘raf ismuhu” — his actual name was not known. So what exactly are you celebrating? A kunya whose real name is disputed or unknown? That’s your proof? Pathetic.About “Abu Bakr ibn Ali”, this is even weaker than you think. Abu Bakr was not necessarily his real name; it was a kunya. Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani says in Maqatil al-Talibiyyin: “His name was not known.” Other reports say his real name may have been Muhammad al-Asghar, or Abdullah, or Ubaydullah. Second about “Umar” In your own Sunni hadith material, this name is also transmitted as “Amr(عمرو)”, not “Umar(عمر)”. Ibn Abi Shaybah, in his Musannaf, narrates with the wording: “Muhammad ibn Amr(عمرو) ibn Ali, from Ali ibn Abi Talib...” So before you start screaming “Ali named his son Umar,” maybe first learn that the name itself is reported as Amr(عمرو) in your own sources. That alone destroys your fake certainty. And even if we accept the reading “Umar” for the sake of argument, what exactly does that prove? Nothing. Umar was NOT a private trademark owned by Umar ibn al-Khattab. It was a normal Arab name. In Sunni books of Sahabah, there are at least twenty-six companions listed with the name Umar: Umar ibn Abi Salamah, Umar ibn Suraqah, Umar ibn Sa‘d, Umar ibn Sufyan, Umar ibn ‘Amr al-Laythi, Umar ibn ‘Umayr, Umar ibn ‘Awf, Umar ibn Malik, Umar al-Aslami, Umar al-Khath‘ami, Umar al-Yamani, and many others. So your logic is embarrassingly childish. If Imam Ali having a son called Umar, then every Arab who had the name Umar must have been named after him too; even if they were born before Umar ibn Khattab!? That is not even sound like evidence; that is desperate name-game propaganda. Third about “Uthman” This one is even more humiliating for your argument. Uthman was a common Arab name, and Ibn Hajar in al-Isabah lists many companions named Uthman, including Uthman ibn Maz‘un, one of the early noble companions. So acting like every “Uthman” must mean Uthman ibn Affan is just childish. Maqatil al-Talibiyyin explicitly reports that Imam Ali said about his son Uthman: “I named him after my brother Uthman ibn Maz‘un.” Not Uthman ibn Affan. Uthman ibn Maz‘un. So again, where is your proof that Imam Ali meant Uthman ibn Affan? You have none. You just saw the same name and started building fairy tales. And the biggest joke is this: you want to use names to erase history, while your own Sahih al-Bukhari says Hazrat Fatima became angry with Abu Bakr, stayed away from him and did not speak to him until she died. Bukhari also says Imam Ali buried Fatima at night without informing Abu Bakr, and Ali did not give bay‘ah for those months. So stop playing cute games with names. Names do not erase Fadak. Names do not erase Hazrat Fatima’s anger. Names do not erase Imam Ali’s delayed bay‘ah. Names do not prove political approval. Your whole argument is basically: “Someone had the same name, therefore Imam Ali loved and approved of the three caliphs.” That is kindergarten-level logic dressed up as aqidah.

pissing me AWF

NS but why is this mindset kind awf classist, if you're from a third-world country the best device you could have as a kid was only a phone. Com shops only had mainstream games and the only way you could access games like FNAF, Undertale, Minecraft, etc. was through YouTube

Now im just gonna stick to samsung to piss u awf