Marcus Corvinus

I’ll say it the simple way.

I don’t like wearing “square.” I never did. I don’t like boxes, fixed lanes, or platforms that force you to think in one direction.

But Binance Square isn’t a box.

It’s more like a live crypto street—open, noisy in a good way, full of real people, real opinions, and real updates happening at the same time. Every time I open it, I feel like I’m stepping into the place where crypto is actually being discussed properly, not just posted.

And that’s why I keep choosing it.

Binance Square doesn’t feel like a feed, it feels like a place

Most places feel like endless scrolling.

Binance Square feels like a place people meet.

You can literally watch the market mood change in real time. One moment everyone is calm, next moment something breaks out and the entire community is discussing it from different angles—news, charts, fundamentals, risk, narratives, timing. It feels alive because it’s not one-way content. It’s two-way conversation.

That’s what I mean when I say there is a full real community here. Everything gets discussed. Nothing feels too small, too early, or too “niche” to talk about.

If it matters in crypto, it’s already here.

The value-to-value creator culture is rare

What makes Binance Square special isn’t just that people post. It’s how people post.

There are creators here who consistently bring value. You can feel it immediately:

Posts that make you understand a move instead of fear it

Breakdowns that explain why something matters

Updates that feel fresh, not recycled

Warnings that save people from bad decisions

Research that feels like time was actually spent on it

This is the kind of environment where you naturally grow, because your mind stays sharp. You don’t just consume content, you learn patterns.

And when a platform becomes “value-to-value,” it stops being entertainment and starts becoming education.

Every crypto update feels different here

This is one of the biggest reasons I stay.

Even when everyone is talking about the same topic, Binance Square doesn’t feel copy-pasted. You’ll see ten people cover one update, but each one brings a different angle—market structure, macro view, on-chain perspective, risk management, timing, sentiment.

So instead of getting bored, you get layered understanding.

That’s why I can say this confidently:

Anything about the crypto space is always available on Binance Square.
Not just available—explained, debated, broken down, and updated.

It’s where the whole crypto world gets connected in one place

Crypto is not only charts.

It’s also:

narrativesnew listings and rotationsstablecoin flowsbig wallets movingtoken unlock pressurehype cycles and reality checkssecurity issues and scamsregulation impactscommunity sentiment

On Binance Square, all of this lives together. That matters because crypto never moves because of one reason. It moves because many reasons collide.

This is why Binance Square feels complete: you’re not forced to leave the platform just to understand what’s going on.

The campaigns keep the community active and moving

One thing I genuinely like is the campaign culture. It keeps the community alive. It creates momentum. It makes creators show up, think, compete, and improve.

Campaigns don’t just give rewards—they create direction. They push people to contribute more, write better, and stay consistent. It keeps the ecosystem warm, not cold.

And if you’re active, you feel it immediately. You feel like you’re part of something happening, not just watching from outside.

Why I always prioritize Binance Square above everything else

I’m not even trying to “compare” in a loud way, but the difference is clear.

In other places, crypto discussion often turns into noise: people repeat the same lines, chase attention, and argue without adding any clarity. It’s loud, but it’s not helpful.

Binance Square has noise too sometimes—crypto is crypto—but it has a stronger backbone:

More focus on actual market reality

More creators trying to be useful

More community discussion that adds something

More learning if you pay attention

So even if other platforms exist, Binance Square still stays above them for me because I actually leave this place smarter than I entered.

My personal story with Binance Square (63.9K followers, and still learning daily)

This part matters to me.

I’m sitting at 63.9K followers on Binance Square, and that number didn’t happen from luck.

It happened because I stayed consistent.

I learned. I posted. I improved. I studied the market. I listened to the community. I kept showing up. And the more I stayed active, the more the platform gave me something back—knowledge, reach, growth, and opportunities.

I can say it honestly:

I learn almost everything from Binance Square about the crypto space.

Not because I can’t learn elsewhere, but because Binance Square gives it to me in the most practical format:

The update

The reaction

The debate

The lesson

The next move

And yes… I’ve earned from Binance Square in ways people wouldn’t even imagine. Not just “a little.” I mean real value. The kind of value that comes when you become consistent, active, and serious about what you’re doing.

I stay active, I participate, and I take every campaign seriously

I’m not the type to appear once and disappear for weeks.

I stay active.

I comment, I engage, I post, I contribute. And whenever there’s a campaign, I’m not watching it… I’m in it.

Because campaigns are not just rewards to me. They’re a signal that Binance Square is alive and expanding. They’re a reason to stay sharp, push harder, and stay consistent.

That’s why I actively participate in every campaign—because it keeps me connected to the community and keeps my growth moving forward.

Binance Square is the only “Square” I actually like

So yeah… I don’t like wearing square.

But Binance Square is the exception.

Because it doesn’t make me feel boxed in. It makes me feel plugged in—to the market, to creators, to discussions, to real-time updates, and to a community that actually understands crypto.

That’s why it’s my all-time favorite.

And that’s why, no matter what else exists out there, I’ll keep prioritizing Binance Square above everything else.

Because for me, Binance Square isn’t just where I post.

It’s where I grow.

#Square #squarecreator #BinanceSquare

Introduction

The CreatorPad revamp did not arrive quietly. It arrived with clarity, structure, and a very clear message. Serious creators matter. Real contribution matters. Consistency matters.

I have been part of CreatorPad long before this update, and my experience in the past version shaped how I see this new one. I didn’t just try it once. I participated in every campaign. I completed tasks. I created content. I stayed active. And I earned rewards from every campaign I joined. That history matters, because it gives me a real comparison point.

This new CreatorPad feels like a system that finally understands creators who are in this for the long run.

What CreatorPad Really Is After the Revamp

CreatorPad is no longer just a place to complete tasks. It is now a structured creator economy inside Binance Square.

The idea is simple but powerful.You contribute value.You follow projects.You trade when required.You create meaningful content.And you earn real token rewards based on clear rules.
In 2025 alone, millions of tokens are being distributed across CreatorPad campaigns. These are not demo points or vanity numbers. These are real tokens tied to real projects, distributed through transparent mechanisms.

What changed is not just the interface. The philosophy changed.

From Chaos to Structure

Before the revamp, many creators felt confused. Rankings were visible only at the top. If you were not in the top group, you had no idea how close you were or what to improve.

Now, that uncertainty is gone.

You can see:

Your total points even if you are not in the top 100

A clear breakdown of how many points came from each task

How your content, engagement, and trading activity contribute

This one change alone makes CreatorPad feel fair. You are no longer guessing. You are building.

The New Points System Explained Simply

The new system is built around balance.

Your daily performance is measured using:

Content qualityEffective engagementReal trading activity

This matters because it discourages spam and rewards real effort. Posting ten low-quality posts no longer helps. Creating fewer but better posts does.

There is also a cap on how many posts can earn points. This pushes creators to think before posting. It improves overall content quality across Binance Square.

Transparency Is the Real Upgrade

Transparency is not just a feature. It is the foundation of this revamp.

You can now:

See where your points come from

Track improvement day by day

Adjust strategy based on real data

This turns CreatorPad into something strategic. You are no longer just participating. You are optimizing.

Anti-Spam and Quality Control

One of the strongest improvements is how low-quality behavior is handled.

The new CreatorPad actively discourages:

Repetitive contentEngagement farmingFake interactionsLow-effort posts

There are penalties. There are reporting tools. And there is real enforcement.

This protects creators who genuinely put time into writing, researching, and explaining things properly.

My Personal Experience as a Past CreatorPad Creator

My experience with CreatorPad has been very good from the start. I joined campaigns early. I stayed consistent. I followed rules carefully.

Every campaign I participated in rewarded me. Not because of luck, but because I treated it seriously.

This new version feels like it was designed for creators like me. Creators who:

Participate regularly

Understand project fundamentals

Create relevant content

Follow campaign instructions carefully

Now I am pushing even harder. Not because it is easier, but because it is clearer.

CreatorPad vs Others

This comparison matters because many creators ask it.

Others relies heavily on algorithmic interpretation of influence. Rankings can feel unclear. AI decides a lot. Many creators feel they are competing against noise.

CreatorPad is different.
Here, you know the rules.
You know the tasks.
You know how points are earned.

It rewards action, not hype.
It rewards structure, not chaos.

That is why serious creators are shifting focus here.

Revenue Potential After the Revamp

With the new system, revenue potential becomes predictable.

Why?
Because campaigns are frequent.
Token pools are large.
Tasks are achievable.

We are seeing:

Six-figure token poolsTop creators receiving additional allocationsLong-tail participants still earning rewards

If you stay consistent across multiple campaigns, earnings stack over time. This is not a one-time opportunity. It is a compounding system.

Content Strategy That Works Now

The new CreatorPad rewards:

Clear explanations

Project-focused content

Original thoughts

Consistency over hype

Creators who treat this like a job will outperform those chasing shortcuts.

Growing Influence Beyond Tokens

The rewards are important, but visibility matters too.

CreatorPad pushes your content in front of:

Project teamsActive tradersLong-term community membersThis builds reputation. And reputation compounds.

Why I Am Fully Committed to the New CreatorPad

I am committed because:

The system is fair

The rewards are real

The effort is respected

I am not experimenting anymore. I am building.

The new CreatorPad is not for everyone. It is for creators who want structure, clarity, and long-term growth inside Binance Square.

Let's go

This revamp is not cosmetic. It is foundational.

If you take CreatorPad seriously, it takes you seriously back.

I am continuing my journey here with full focus, full effort, and full belief in the system. The results speak for themselves.

The CreatorPad era has truly begun.

LFGOO ❤️‍🔥

When I first tried to map FOGO to the way real trading actually behaves, I stopped thinking about “speed” as a feature and started thinking about it as a tax system. In fast markets, the biggest hidden cost isn’t the fee you can see on a block explorer, it’s the cost you pay when execution becomes unpredictable: the order that should have landed doesn’t land, the cancellation that should have protected you arrives late, the liquidation you expected to catch is already gone, and your strategy’s edge turns into slippage you can’t explain. Most chains only feel “fast” when nothing stressful is happening, and that’s exactly why traders don’t commit serious flow to them. FOGO’s positioning makes sense only if you judge it by the one standard that matters: does the chain stay consistent when it’s crowded, competitive, and slightly hostile?

FOGO being built on the SVM matters more than people think, not because “compatibility” is a nice word, but because a trading venue can’t afford experimental execution. The runtime is where a lot of quiet failures live—unexpected compute costs, weird account interactions, programs behaving differently at scale than they did in a clean test environment—and those failures are not theoretical when money is moving quickly. Choosing a mature execution model is a way of buying reliability up front. It doesn’t guarantee safety, but it reduces the number of unknowns a serious participant has to underwrite before they even start caring about performance.

Where FOGO becomes genuinely specific is in the way it talks about latency as something shaped by network structure, not just hardware. The chain’s documentation describes zone-based behavior and extremely aggressive block targets in testnet context, and it frames consensus movement between zones across epochs. That’s a very particular worldview: you don’t pretend geography doesn’t exist, you design around it. Anyone who has built or traded low-latency systems recognizes the logic immediately. Once execution is sufficiently optimized, the remaining delays are dominated by communication and coordination, and those are constrained by routing and physics. You can throw more compute at the problem and still lose to the simple fact that messages take time to travel. Designing with zones is essentially admitting that the internet has contours and then trying to work with those contours instead of fighting them.

Mainnet being described as running with a single active zone, specifically APAC, is an important detail because it tells you what phase FOGO is in. Early networks often choose a tighter operational footprint to stabilize behavior and reduce the number of moving pieces while real value starts entering the system. That can be a rational trade, but it comes with a real question that traders will not ignore for long: what happens when the network expands? A single-zone environment can look clean and tight, while a broader distribution can introduce variability that changes execution quality. If FOGO wants to be treated like a dependable trading venue rather than a promising experiment, the transition from a controlled zone posture to a wider, more distributed topology has to be smooth, measurable, and openly explained, because nothing kills confidence faster than “it used to be consistent and now it isn’t, but trust us.”

Token structure is another place where you see whether a team understands market behavior beyond surface optics. FOGO’s published tokenomics talk about a large portion of supply locked at genesis with multi-year unlock schedules, alongside community-facing allocations like an airdrop and sale participation. This matters because float is not a minor detail; float is what decides how easily the token can be used as collateral, how violent price discovery becomes, and how sustainable liquidity provision can be. Locked supply can reduce early chaos, but it also concentrates influence and creates future unlock events that the market will front-run. A serious participant looks at these schedules the way they’d look at supply overhang in any other market: as a source of predictable pressure and predictable positioning, not as a moral debate.

The airdrop mechanics are worth taking seriously because they shape early distribution and early behavior. FOGO described the airdrop as fully unlocked and emphasized filtering against automated farming and clustered sybil behavior, along with a minimum threshold to avoid dust. Fully unlocked distributions are uncomfortable precisely because they don’t hide reality. People sell. Some hold. Price discovery happens quickly. But there’s a credibility benefit in letting the market do what markets do instead of staging an artificial calm through vesting gates. For a chain that wants traders to treat it like a real venue, early honesty is more valuable than a temporarily stable chart.

There’s another angle that matters in trading circles even if it rarely gets discussed in polite, public terms: proximity. FOGO’s own writing has referenced high-performance validator infrastructure and the idea of builders being able to operate close to validators. Some people will try to turn that into a philosophical argument, but it’s better to treat it like what it is: a design choice that has consequences for who gets the best execution. In traditional markets, proximity advantages exist and are priced. The real difference between a respectable venue and a chaotic one is whether the rules are clear and stable, or whether advantage is captured quietly through relationships, opaque routing, and insider positioning. If FOGO is serious about being a trading chain, it will eventually have to demonstrate not that everyone is equal—because low-latency environments never truly deliver that—but that the playing field is legible enough that participants can understand what they’re competing against.

Liquidity and interoperability are the practical side of this story. A fast execution layer without reliable asset movement is like a high-performance exchange with a broken deposit system: nobody serious builds strategy exposure around it. FOGO’s mainnet launch messaging has pointed to established interoperability infrastructure, which is the obvious way to bootstrap assets and flow early on. But bridges also import tail risk. Traders don’t price that risk during quiet periods; they price it during the first incident, when everything correlations up and collateral becomes the only thing anyone cares about. If FOGO wants durable trading activity, it needs an operational posture that treats liquidity movement as part of the chain’s risk surface, not as a marketing checkbox: monitoring, clarity around assumptions, and credible incident handling matter here more than features.

If I’m watching FOGO as a market participant, I’m not watching slogans or TPS charts, and I’m not judging it by how it behaves on a calm day. I’m watching whether transaction inclusion stays steady when demand spikes. I’m watching whether confirmations remain predictable when liquidations hit and everyone tries to rebalance at once. I’m watching whether ordering dynamics feel consistent or whether they start to look like a hidden toll for anyone not positioned perfectly. I’m watching what happens as the validator set and zone posture expand, because that’s where “works in a lab” becomes “works as a venue.” And I’m watching whether the ecosystem builds the unglamorous pieces that trading relies on—reliable indexing, stable oracle behavior, robust tooling—because execution is only as good as the weakest integration that touches it.

The reason your opening line lands—“Real-time trading needs real-time chains”—is because it implies something most projects avoid saying directly: it’s not enough to be fast, you have to be consistent. FOGO’s architecture choices suggest it’s trying to build that consistency by taking latency seriously at the consensus and network level, not just at the compute level. The remaining work is proving that this isn’t a one-zone performance snapshot, but a system that can expand without turning execution into a lottery. If FOGO can keep behavior stable as competition increases, and if it can keep the rules around ordering and proximity clear enough that people can price them, then it has a real path to becoming a chain traders use when it matters, not only when it’s quiet.

#fogo @Fogo Official $FOGO

Introduction: When a Founder Sells, the Market Listens

Every time Vitalik Buterin moves a meaningful amount of ETH, the entire crypto market pauses and watches. It is not just another whale transaction, because this is the co-founder of Ethereum, one of the most important blockchain networks in existence. When his wallet sends ETH to a new address or interacts with a DeFi protocol, traders speculate, headlines spread, and narratives form within minutes. Recently, the phrase “Vitalik Sells” started trending again after on-chain data showed a series of ETH sales over several weeks. Some interpreted it as a bearish signal, others called it routine treasury management, and a few believed it was part of a larger strategic shift. The truth, as always in crypto, sits somewhere in the middle and requires context, data, and calm analysis rather than emotional reaction.

Who Vitalik Buterin Is and Why His Actions Matter

is not simply an early investor who accumulated tokens at low prices. He is the intellectual architect behind Ethereum’s design philosophy and long-term roadmap. Since launching in 2015, he has consistently emphasized decentralization, security, privacy research, and public goods funding. Because of this influence, his wallet activity is treated almost like a policy signal, even though he has repeatedly said that Ethereum does not revolve around one person. Markets still react strongly because visibility creates psychological weight, and psychology drives short-term price movements more than fundamentals do.

The Timeline of the Recent ETH Sales

In late January 2026, reports began circulating that Vitalik intended to withdraw approximately 16,384 ETH from personal holdings in order to fund long-term ecosystem initiatives. The framing used in several outlets described this as a period of “mild austerity,” meaning that development priorities would increasingly rely on existing resources rather than external expansion. Shortly after that disclosure, on-chain analysts observed multiple batches of ETH being swapped over several days rather than one large transaction hitting the market at once.

By early February, roughly 2,900 to 3,000 ETH had been sold in structured intervals, with each transaction sized to reduce slippage and minimize direct shock to liquidity pools. Over the following weeks, cumulative figures reported across analytics platforms suggested that more than 10,000 ETH had been liquidated, amounting to over twenty million dollars depending on the average sale price during that period. Some of the ETH had first been withdrawn from DeFi lending platforms before being converted, which reinforced the idea that this was planned capital rotation rather than spontaneous liquidation.

How the Sales Were Executed

The structure of the transactions matters as much as the volume. Instead of transferring a massive block to a centralized exchange and executing a single market order, the ETH was routed through decentralized mechanisms and split into smaller swaps. This pattern is consistent with someone who understands liquidity depth and market impact and wants to avoid unnecessary price disruption. It reflects deliberate treasury management rather than emotional decision-making.

In addition, portions of the proceeds were reportedly directed toward philanthropic and research-focused entities associated with Vitalik’s long-standing interests in public goods funding, biosecurity research, and open-source development. In one widely discussed case, around 211 ETH was converted and then donated to a foundation connected to scientific research initiatives. This reinforces the broader narrative that these sales are linked to funding commitments rather than exit behavior.

Why the Market Reacted So Strongly

Crypto markets are hypersensitive to founder signals because they operate in an environment where information spreads instantly and narratives move faster than facts. When traders see the wallet of a prominent figure selling ETH during a period of price weakness, they naturally assume negative insider insight even if none exists. Fear compounds quickly, especially when leveraged traders amplify moves through liquidations.

Another reason for the strong reaction is timing. Some of the larger transaction clusters occurred while ETH was already experiencing downward pressure due to macroeconomic uncertainty and broader market volatility. When founder sales coincide with falling prices, the correlation is often interpreted as causation. In reality, the crypto market is influenced by multiple variables at once, including global liquidity conditions, regulatory headlines, and risk appetite shifts. Founder transactions can contribute to volatility, but they rarely act as the sole driver.

Is This a Bearish Signal for Ethereum

The most important question long-term holders ask is whether these sales represent a loss of confidence. Based on publicly available information, there is no evidence that Vitalik is exiting his position or signaling doubt about Ethereum’s future. Even after the reported sales, his remaining holdings are still substantial, which suggests alignment with the network’s long-term growth.

Historically, Vitalik has sold ETH during previous cycles to fund development, grants, and charitable causes without signaling abandonment. In earlier years, similar sales occurred during both bull and bear markets, and Ethereum continued evolving through upgrades such as proof-of-stake and scaling improvements. The current wave appears consistent with that pattern rather than a dramatic shift in outlook.

The Bigger Picture: Funding Public Goods and Protocol Development

Ethereum’s philosophy has always emphasized sustainable funding for research, privacy, and security infrastructure. Unlike traditional corporations, blockchain ecosystems do not generate revenue in the same centralized way, which means funding must often come from token allocations and treasury management. If a founder converts part of personal holdings to support development, that can be viewed as reinvestment into the ecosystem rather than extraction.

The concept of mild austerity suggests a more disciplined approach to spending, ensuring that capital is deployed carefully instead of aggressively expanding budgets during uncertain market phases. In a maturing industry, this kind of financial prudence can strengthen long-term credibility even if it creates short-term price discomfort.

What Traders and Investors Should Understand

Short-term traders may interpret the ongoing ETH sales as overhead supply that limits immediate upside. When a known seller operates in the market, price can struggle to break out decisively. However, markets eventually absorb structured selling if demand remains steady. Long-term investors should focus less on headline reactions and more on Ethereum’s technical roadmap, developer activity, and network usage metrics.

It is also important to verify on-chain claims independently using blockchain explorers rather than relying solely on social media screenshots. Public blockchains provide transparency, which allows anyone to confirm transaction history and assess patterns objectively.

Final Thoughts: Beyond the Headline

The phrase “Vitalik Sells” is powerful because it simplifies a complex situation into two words. It implies urgency and fear even when the underlying reality may be strategic and measured. After examining the data, timing, and historical precedent, the most balanced interpretation is that these ETH sales are part of a structured funding and capital allocation plan rather than a dramatic loss of confidence in Ethereum’s future.

Markets may continue reacting emotionally whenever founder wallets move, but long-term value is built through development, security improvements, and sustained ecosystem growth. If Ethereum continues delivering upgrades, scaling solutions, and developer innovation, then temporary selling pressure becomes just another chapter in a much larger story.

#VitalikSells

Fogo is trying to become a place where execution feels crisp, where you don’t sit there waiting, wondering if your transaction is going to land clean or if you’re about to get clipped by latency. That’s the core identity they’re pushing: not “a new chain,” but a venue built around speed and consistency. And in this kind of market, that’s not a cosmetic difference. The only problem is… speed by itself doesn’t pull liquidity. Liquidity shows up when moving capital into a venue is simple, predictable, and low-stress.

That’s why Wormhole becoming Fogo’s native bridge isn’t just a random integration. It’s basically Fogo saying, “We’re not going to wait months for liquidity to slowly crawl in through a dozen weird routes.” They’re choosing one main highway on purpose. If you want people to actually use a fast execution environment, you need the on-ramp to be familiar. Wormhole already has that familiarity for a lot of users and operators. So instead of asking the market to learn Fogo first, they’re letting the market enter through something it already understands.

From Fogo’s perspective, this is about controlling the first impression. When someone hears about a new chain, the first real test is never the block time. It’s the first transfer. If moving assets over feels messy, if the steps are confusing, if fees surprise the user, if they have to hunt around for the “right” bridge, most people just drop it and go back to where their capital already sits. That’s how new ecosystems die quietly—people don’t rage quit, they simply don’t continue. A native bridge reduces that friction. It gives Fogo one clean answer when users ask: “How do I get funds there?”

And you can feel the intention behind it. Fogo doesn’t want to be treated like a side chain you visit once. They want to be treated like a venue you can actually trade on. Venues need inventory. Market makers and active traders don’t just care about what the chain can do. They care about what they can do on it today, with real assets, with real depth. Wormhole makes it easier for that inventory to arrive early. That’s the whole game in the first phase: get enough assets onto the chain so the first serious apps aren’t launching into emptiness.

But there’s a second layer here that matters even more, and it’s the part most people don’t say out loud. A bridge isn’t only an entrance. It’s also an exit. The same smooth rail that brings liquidity in can pull it out instantly when sentiment flips. So this decision is not automatically “good” or “bad.” It’s a trade. Fogo is buying access to liquidity across many networks, but it’s also accepting that capital can leave just as efficiently. That means Fogo has to earn retention the hard way, with actual on-chain reasons to stay: consistent execution, real applications people use, and a trading environment that feels reliable when volatility shows up.

So if you’re evaluating Fogo as a project, you shouldn’t obsess over the headline number like “40+ networks.” The sharper way to look at it is: does this bridge choice help Fogo reach the point where it stops being a concept and starts behaving like a real market? Does liquidity arrive and then settle into the ecosystem, or does it bounce in and out like a tourist? Do early venues get enough depth to feel usable, or do they launch and immediately feel thin? Those outcomes are what decide whether the chain becomes a real place for flow, or just another fast chain that people mention and then forget.

I also like what this signals about Fogo’s priorities. It tells me they understand that distribution matters. It tells me they aren’t pretending liquidity magically appears because the chain is technically strong. They’re trying to connect directly to where capital already lives, so the project can be judged on its actual product: execution. That’s a more realistic strategy than building in isolation and hoping liquidity “finds you.”

Now, the part I’d watch closely is how Fogo behaves once this bridge is live and people actually start moving size. If onboarding is smooth, if transfers are straightforward, if ecosystem apps start seeing stable inventory, you’ll feel it in the way traders talk. They stop saying “I tried it once” and start saying “I keep funds there.” That’s the difference between attention and adoption. And the bridge is only the first step toward that.

#fogo @Fogo Official $FOGO