iamlequanghuong

➥ Cheetah Torne ( @BTC_Torne ) - An Ordinals Free Mint Worth Watching The Bitcoin Ordinals narrative is quietly regaining momentum, and Cheetah Torne is shaping up to be one of the early drops carrying that energy into the next cycle. ▰▰▰ → Why it's on my radar : A clean, community-first setup that doesn't try to overengineer itself: > Free mint > 2,500 supply > Hosted by @ordinalgenesis > Strong meme-native branding In a market saturated with projects forcing utility narratives, Cheetah Torne moves in the opposite direction - leaning fully into Ordinals culture: simple, recognizable, and built for the community to own. ▰▰▰ → What makes the setup interesting Most NFT launches today over-promise and under-deliver. Cheetah Torne strips it back to fundamentals that actually matter at the early stage: > Low barrier to entry (free mint) > Tight supply for organic scarcity > Distribution through an established Ordinals host > Brand identity that's memeable by design Timing, narrative alignment, and community attention are often the real alpha in early Ordinals - not roadmaps. ▰▰▰ → Mint Details > May 13, 2026 > 19:00 UTC > Free Mint > Supply: 2,500 > Host: @ordinalgenesis ▰▰▰ → Final take Still early. Still speculative. No floor or secondary data yet - and that's exactly the stage where conviction matters more than confirmation. But if you're aligned with: ↳ Bitcoin-native NFTs ↳ Early Ordinals culture ↳ Community-driven launches ↳ Low-friction entry points …then Cheetah Torne deserves a spot on the watchlist. Not financial advice. DYOR before every mint. RRRAWR.

$5 -> $85 (20x) with @SphincsMinus Big thanks to alpha caller @cuongisreal 👑

Comment below with how you would introduce our story. The best three entries each get $50. Drop your address if you win and RT this. Let’s see what the hive mind comes up with. The future is written by those who show up in the replies.

➥ @unipixnft NFT might be one of the strangest - and most interesting - NFT concepts I’ve seen this year 👀 A project where Claude AI isn’t just helping with content… but actually acts as the “founder.” → The AI: > writes tweets > replies to the community > observes user behavior > builds the allowlist based on real engagement → According to @MelioHL, the whole idea behind Unipix is: “allowlist emerges from behavior.” Meaning the AI watches: > who actually stays > who engages consistently > who is only farming attention before disappearing That’s what makes this project feel very different from most NFT launches right now. The AI x NFT narrative is already hot, but Unipix is trying to turn AI into an actual community operator instead of just a marketing tool. → Interesting points so far: > Free Mint > Supply still not public > Early alpha callers are starting to talk about it > Hype seems to be building organically on X At this stage, Unipix feels more like a very early social experiment than a fully developed NFT project. But honestly, that’s exactly what makes it interesting. If they execute this properly, Unipix could become a major case study for AI-native communities in Web3

I hope everyone gets rich. Next, I hope that if anyone loses money in my project, please don't blame me, haha. I have no ability to control the price. I only earn from transaction fees. I will do my best to make the necessary updates. Let's make BSC great again!! $SATO

Detailed analysis of ETH's SATO The good news is we don't have this problem I reviewed the SATO Hook contract, and the issue is not a simple fee, nor is it a typical trap or the project team directly withdrawing ETH. Detailed analysis The core problem is that the Hook internally maintains two curve states that should be synchronized: ethCum totalMintedFair Theoretically, they should satisfy: totalMintedFair = Curve.totalMinted(ethCum) or: ethCum = Curve.ethAt(totalMintedFair) But in the actual contract, buying and selling use different coordinates. Buying path: Curve.mintFor(ethCum, ethToCurve) That is, buying is priced according to the curve position at ethCum. Selling path: Curve.burnFor(totalMintedFair, satoFairIn) That is, selling redeems ETH based on the position inferred from totalMintedFair. Once ethCum > Curve.ethAt(totalMintedFair), the following occurs: Buying is done at a more expensive curve, Selling is done at a cheaper curve. This is not the ordinary 0.3% + 0.3% fee. I reviewed block 25,041,403: Hook balance ≈ 1774.9398 ETH feesAccrued ≈ 91.1172 ETH curve reserve ≈ 1683.8226 ETH But the total liability on the selling side inferred from totalMintedFair is only: ≈ 1626.8557 ETH Meaning at that time there was: ≈ 56.9669 ETH left in the Hook, but the selling function does not treat it as redeemable value for holders. This part can be defined as: gap = ethCum - Curve.ethAt(totalMintedFair) This money has not disappeared, nor has it gone to any trap address or project wallet. It is still in the Hook contract. But because the selling path only recognizes totalMintedFair and not the extra gap in ethCum, this portion of ETH becomes an excess reserve unreachable by the current trading path. The consequence is: Subsequent buying will continue to push ethCum higher, Buying prices get increasingly delayed, But selling redemption still calculates based on the lower totalMintedFair curve. The larger the gap, the greater the loss when buying then selling. This causes SATO's actual redeemable value to be continuously diluted; in extreme cases, even if there is a lot of ETH in the Hook, holders cannot fully sell back according to these ETH balances. I did not find owner/pause/blacklist/tax/upgrade permissions in the Token itself; minter is locked to the Hook. So this seems more like a Hook curve accounting design/implementation bug, not a traditional owner backdoor. But the problem is serious: the deployed Hook shows no upgrade/admin fix entry, nor any withdraw/rescue to properly migrate this gap. If the project team wants to stop the bleeding, they should at least: 1. Pause or strongly warn front-end buying 2. Display buy price and immediate sell value 3. Stop showing a single curve price 4. Implement migration/compensation/new Hook solutions In short: The problem with SATO is not that ETH was stolen, but that ETH is locked in the Hook, becoming an excess reserve unrecognized by the selling curve. A brief version to share: SATO Hook's problem is not a typical trap, nor is it the project team directly withdrawing ETH. The core is that ethCum and totalMintedFair curve states in the contract are out of sync. Buying is priced by ethCum, selling redeems by totalMintedFair. When ethCum > Curve.ethAt(totalMintedFair), users "buy at a high curve and sell at a low curve." The difference in ETH remains in the Hook contract, but the selling path does not recognize this value, creating an unrecoverable gap. When I reviewed block 25,041,403, the gap was ≈ 56.97 ETH. This is not an ordinary fee, but a curve accounting misalignment.

➥ Early : @frameonx Is an ultra-early project building FRAME OS a platform connecting crypto projects directly with creators/KOLs, cutting out agencies. → → How it works: Connect X → get a FRAME Score (real influence, anti-bot) → unlock campaigns → get paid. → Current state: ~2 weeks old > Alpha + waitlist only > No clear rewards or token yet > Mostly social farming (leaderboard, referrals)