iamlequanghuong

➥ @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)

➥ Owning a Day > Owning an NFT I used to think a day was just something you go through and forget. Nothing really sticks. Then I came across @yr365art. At first, it looked like another NFT collection. But the more I read, the more it felt different. Each piece is tied to a real day in history. And owning one doesn’t feel like collecting it feels like choosing what you want to remember. → 1/ Take October 31, 2008. The Bitcoin whitepaper dropped quietly. No hype, no audience. Just an idea. But looking back, that was the moment everything started to shift—how we think about money, trust, systems. →2/ Or January 27, 1945 Auschwitz was liberated. That’s not just a date. It’s something you shouldn’t scroll past and forget. → 3/ Or January 1, 1863 The Emancipation Proclamation. A turning point, but also a reminder that some stories don’t end in one day. That’s when it clicked for me: this isn’t really about NFTs. It’s about memory. Right now, only around 15% of days are claimed. Most of history is still just sitting there, waiting for someone to care. =>> If I had to choose, I’d still go with October 31, 2008. Because it proved one thing ideas don’t need permission to change the world. A lot of people collect NFTs to own something. This feels more like choosing what I refuse to forget. The story’s still being written. I’m just choosing where I stand. @yr365art #365Art #EverydayHasALegacy