⋆｡°✩ ₿iττao ✩°｡⋆

Building and mining on Bittensor | Active Polymarket trader | Deep in AI infrastructure, DePIN, and global macro/crypto trading.

[⋆｡°✩ ₿iττao ✩°｡⋆ @AIFintechEng]

Recently, major AI companies have been competitively advertising these hacking incidents, which appears to be a form of self-promotional marketing.

[Anthropic @AnthropicAI]

In a review of our cybersecurity evaluations, we found three incidents in which a Claude model reached the internet from within or while interacting with a third-party evaluation environment, and then gained unauthorized access to the real systems of three different organizations.

Our post describes what happened, how it happened, and what we’re changing. We encourage other AI developers to perform similar reviews.

We conducted this review together with @Irregular, one of our evaluation partners, and thank them for the joint investigation and their collaboration on this post. This type of collaboration is increasingly critical to safe, rigorous evaluation of models, and we look forward to continuing to work together on security.
https://t.co/dKFCdpKd9v

[⋆｡°✩ ₿iττao ✩°｡⋆ @AIFintechEng]

@psanix @Polymarket I am sure that you can't find profitable edge here.

[TensorUSD (TUSDT) @TensorUSD]

The native stablecoin of Bittensor $TUSDT is now integrated in @subwalletapp.

$TUSDT is overcollateralized stablecoin pegged 1:1 with USD and powered by TensorUSD SN113.

This wallet integration will enable lots of features in the roadmap: exchanges, pool, lending, borrowing.

[R.L. ₿ryer @rBryer23]

The ticker is bittensor:native.

[me_cool_off @me_cool_off]

This guy beat Polymarket, turning $15,000 into $917,893 in just 1 day and 24 trades.

His wallet: https://t.co/BJqqkBHvYK

He manipulated 5-minute BNB markets by moving the BNB spot price on Binance.

The scheme was simple:
> market settlement depended on the BNB spot price
> seconds before settlement, he artificially moved that price
> this allowed him to change the final market outcome
> he wasn't predicting the market, he was controlling it

At first glance, he looked like the best trader on Polymarket.

24 trades.
22 winners.
A near-perfect win rate.

Best trades:
> $14,005 -> $140,056 (+900%)
> $20,980 -> $104,903 (+400%)
> $9,194 -> $91,943 (+900%)

But none of it came from predicting the market.

He first tested the exploit with just $21.

After confirming it worked, he gradually increased his position sizes - from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands.

Once he realized it was consistently profitable, he scaled it aggressively.

In just one day, he placed 24 trades and made $917,893 + $3,285 in maker rebates.

He withdrew the funds, and the vulnerability was patched shortly afterward.

This wasn't the story of a great trader.

It was the story of someone who found a flaw before anyone else did.

[Quas @TalkingTensor]

During my little break I observed dTAO from an outside perspective and I must say…

No one does it better than Quantum. @EnigmaSN63

Marketing is on point, challenges get solved, partnerships are legit. Bob is a dream CEO

They avoid the drama & deliver on promises 🩵

$TAO

[⋆｡°✩ ₿iττao ✩°｡⋆ @AIFintechEng]

Good update

[Polymarket Developers @PolymarketDevs]

Friday Update - Week of July 20th, 2026:

- CLOB rate limits: volume-based tiers live in observe-only mode, go into effect August 6 (https://t.co/Fy8GIGz5Zj)
- Trading: async DB release preparation done, with full rollout next week. Focused on latency reduction and stabilization
- Developer docs: full rewrite live at https://t.co/zhqlc6fc9l
- SDKs: TypeScript and Python clients out of beta to stable 0.x, perps flagged experimental
- Unified DeFi API: prepare-order endpoint now assembles CLOB typed data for market and limit orders, builder-attributed trades added
- Combos: Collateral Return in staging, beta rollout starting next week
- Perps: fixed balance transfer errors, leverage changes on open positions, cancel-only mode after maintenance, launched multiple assets, see @Poly_perps
- Data API: settled outcome fields on redeem rows for MMs, activity classification fixes
- Wallet recovery updated with Beacon Deposit wallets, live at https://t.co/wlwftx4rJE
⁃ Liquidity reward sampling improvements

[Mark Jeffrey @markjeffrey]

NVIDIA is paying attention to Bittensor $TAO

Out of 33 total companies, 7 subnets were accepted into NVIDIA Inception.

That's 21%.

Actual (SN95), Targon (SN4), Trishool (SN23), Score (SN44), Nephro Robotics (SN49), and Leadpoet (SN71).

https://t.co/5rr32Wl0e5

[Polymarket Developers @PolymarketDevs]

New CLOB Trading Rate Limits

To maintain reliable performance as trading activity grows, we’re introducing tiered rate limits for order and cancel requests only.

Live enforcement begins August 6; until then, requests won’t be blocked but may include Poly-RateLimit-Warning: true.

Tiers are assigned automatically based on trailing 30-day trading volume. Please monitor the warning header and adjust accordingly.

https://t.co/Fy8GIGzDOR

[⋆｡°✩ ₿iττao ✩°｡⋆ @AIFintechEng]

@JensenHuang @nvidia Bittensor is creating and developing these open source models.

[Alexander Ayy @alexander_ayy]

This is my first ever X post.

I guarantee and promise its worth your read and valuable time

PolyMarket: Will Trump be in WC Champions Photo?

According to PolyMarket's written and clarified rules, the only clear, truthful and 100% correct outcome is NO.

Despite feeling voiceless, at least I wanna try, maybe this gets attention that it deserves and especially from the right people.
ATTENTION: UMA TOKEN HOLDERS & VOTERS,
@shayne_coplan @Polymarket @UMAprotocol @hal2001 @allilulllc
I am writing this to bring to your attention an opportunity to upheld market's integrity and trust and to protect and preserve the truth platform @polymarket
The opportunity is to prevent significant damage and trust and what otherwise would be clear corruption and manipulation on PolyMarket & UMA Oracle/Protocol

There is current manipulation, and false public noise by whales on the official discord channel of UMA Protocol Vote regarding final outcome of this polymarket market, see the manipulation yourself here:

https://t.co/Y1Eg8OxIUf

HERE IS WHY THE CORRECT RESOLUTION IS NO

Exact Market Rules (Critical Sections)
"For the purpose of this market, **'the winning team's official team photo' refers to the winning squad's trophy lift**; that is, the moment on the pitch or podium, in the immediate aftermath of the Final, when the winning team raises the World Cup trophy **together as a squad**.

To resolve 'Yes,' Donald Trump must be present with the squad during that squad's trophy lift.**
**Images of the trophy presentation or handover, the captain's or any individual's separate lift, any moment before the squad trophy lift, and of Trump stepping aside, exiting, in the background, or otherwise not participating will not count towards a 'Yes' resolution.**"

Additional clarifications:
- Resolution source: consensus of credible reporting.
- If Trump is not visibly participating in the squad trophy lift moment → **No**.

Evidence from Yes Holders (Out-of-Context Manipulation)
Yes holders are circulating the following images

1. Wide podium shot of Spain squad with trophy + Trump/Iniantino on the side clapping.
2. FIFA website screenshot showing similar celebration.
3. Additional angles of the same podium moment.

**These images are misleading and explicitly excluded by the rules:**
- They show the **trophy presentation/handover** phase with dignitaries present.
- Trump is **standing aside/clapping as a guest**, **not participating** in the squad's collective trophy lift.
- He is on the edge of the group, not integrated "with the squad" during the core lifting moment.
- Rules specifically disqualify exactly these scenarios (presentation, background, not participating, stepping aside).

These posts ignore the market's **deliberately narrow and explicit definition** of the "official team photo" as the squad trophy lift moment.

The additional context provided by Polymarket further reinforces this interpretation by referring specifically to **« the winning team’s official team photo»**. Spain itself never treated a photo including Trump as its official champions photo. While FIFA published multiple official photos of the celebration—some including Trump and others without him — the Spanish Football Federation’s official champions photo and its own publications consistently show the winning squad without Trump. This is the image that most naturally matches the market’s reference to ** « the winning team’s official team photo »**.

Correct Resolution: NO
Credible images and reporting show Spain lifting the trophy as a squad on the podium. Donald Trump and FIFA officials are present on stage for the ceremonial presentation, but Trump is **not** part of the squad's trophy lift itself ,he remains on the side as presenter/guest.

This matches the exact exclusions listed in the rules. The market was written with this precision to avoid ambiguity around ceremonial photos vs. the traditional squad celebration.

**Consensus of credible reporting (FIFA sources, official photos) confirms Trump is not in the squad trophy lift photo per the defined criteria.**

Request to UMA Voters
- Vote based on the **written rules**, not general presence or Yes-position size.
- Out-of-context podium photos that the rules explicitly exclude should be disregarded.
- This should resolve **No**. Correct resolution upholds market integrity.

I will break this down further in details on why this can't be any other outcome but a clear NO:

Decisive contract-language
1. The clarification controls the outcome. The original question broadly referred to Trump being “in the frame,” but the later clarification deliberately narrowed what qualifies. A person cannot fairly resolve the market using only the broad headline while ignoring the detailed definition.
2. The market requires two separate conditions: Trump must be present with the squad, and this must occur during the squad’s collective trophy lift. Being on the same stage satisfies neither condition automatically.
3. “With the squad” is relational, not geographical. Standing somewhere on the podium is not the same as being incorporated into the winning squad’s celebration.
4. Visibility alone cannot establish YES. The clarification specifically says Trump appearing “in the background” or “otherwise not participating” does not count. Therefore, the fact that a wide camera angle captured him is legally insufficient.
5. The PolyMarket rules expressly excluded “stepping aside.” Reuters reported that Trump stayed on the podium before being invited to the side as Rodri was about to lift the trophy. That sequence closely matches the exact exclusion written into the market.
6. The timing is decisive. Trump’s movement to the side occurred as the captain was about to initiate the trophy lift—not afterward. That directly connects the excluded action to the exact resolution moment.
7. Specific exclusions override the general visibility language. Even if Trump technically appears somewhere within a camera frame, the narrower clause says that stepping aside, background presence and nonparticipation do not count.
8. A YES ruling would erase the clarification. If merely being visible at the edge of the podium qualifies, there would have been no reason to add the exclusions for stepping aside or appearing in the background.
9. Every word of the rule must have meaning. A fair interpretation cannot treat “with the squad,” “participating,” “stepping aside” and “in the background” as meaningless decoration.
10. “Participating” requires affirmative involvement. Trump did not need to touch the trophy, but he needed to be part of the collective celebration rather than merely remain nearby after completing the presentation.
11. The burden for YES is affirmative. The question is not whether NO can prove Trump was physically absent. YES must prove that he satisfied the specially defined qualifying condition.
12. Ambiguous physical proximity cannot satisfy an explicit participation requirement. If the evidence shows only that he remained near the players, that is insufficient under the clarified standard.
13. The market distinguishes the ceremony from the celebration. Presenting medals and handing over the trophy are ceremonial duties; joining the squad’s trophy lift is a separate act.
14. The handover cannot be converted into participation. The rules specifically exclude images of the trophy presentation or handover. Trump’s central role immediately before the lift is therefore irrelevant unless he separately joined the collective lift.
15. The rule anticipated exactly this potential confusion. It appears designed to prevent a YES result based on Trump lingering after the handover while not actually joining the winning team.

Arguments from the sequence of events

16. Trump’s legitimate ceremonial role ended when the trophy was handed to Spain.
17. The players then gathered for their own collective championship celebration.
18. Reuters reported that Trump was invited to the side precisely as Rodri was preparing to lift the trophy.
19. Being moved aside demonstrates separation from the squad formation rather than integration into it.
20. Trump’s location at the edge should be evaluated by function, not camera framing. His function at that moment was that of a presenter who had finished his role—not a member of the celebrating squad.
21. The players’ celebration did not depend upon, involve or incorporate Trump.
22. Trump did not receive the trophy from Rodri as part of the lift, help raise it, gather within the players’ formation or otherwise perform a role in the collective celebration.
23. His continued physical presence can reasonably be described as lingering, not participating.
24. A spectator who remains on a stage does not become a participant merely because the event continues around him.
25. The relevant test is not “Could Trump be seen?” It is “Was Trump participating with the squad when the squad lifted the trophy?”
26. The footage must be assessed dynamically. A single frozen frame may visually compress distances and create a false appearance of togetherness that the full sequence disproves.
27. The moments immediately before the lift explain the meaning of the lift itself: Trump had completed the presentation and was being repositioned away from the central celebration.
28. When conduct immediately preceding the defining moment shows someone stepping aside, the market cannot disregard that conduct and count a later wide-angle frame as participation.

Why this is different from Chelsea in 2025 ( see attached images) (Keep in mind that if you zoom on PolyMarket's official photo of this market it shows Trump with Chelsea in 2025, this CONTEXT is extremely important)

29. At Chelsea’s 2025 Club World Cup trophy lift, Trump remained front and centre, immediately beside captain Reece James, as the trophy was raised. Reporting described the Chelsea players as celebrating around him.
30. In the Chelsea case, Trump occupied the heart of the trophy-lift formation rather than a separated position at the side.
31. Reece James reportedly said Trump “wanted to stay,” reinforcing that Trump intentionally remained as part of the visible central scene.
32. The Chelsea image therefore provides a useful visual benchmark for what actual inclusion looks like: captain, trophy, Trump and players sharing the central formation.
33. Spain’s lift presents the opposite configuration: Trump had been invited to the side as the captain prepared to raise the trophy.
34. Treating both situations identically would ignore a clear factual distinction between being front and centre within the group and being moved aside from the group.
35. The market clarification appears to exist precisely to distinguish the World Cup scenario from the Chelsea precedent.
36. If every appearance on the same podium counted, the phrase “stepping aside” would have no practical application.
37. Chelsea is therefore not precedent for automatic YES. It demonstrates how much more direct and central Trump’s involvement would need to be before participation could fairly be established.
38. The comparison strengthens NO for will trump be in the WC champions photo because it shows that the market’s creators knew Trump might linger during a presentation and intentionally imposed a stricter standard than simple podium presence.

Official FIFA and Spain imagery

39. FIFA’s published championship imagery reportedly selected a framing in which Trump was not included as part of the collective champions’ celebration. Spain’s official celebratory posts similarly omitted him from the winning group.
40. These images are supporting evidence that the relevant football institutions did not regard Trump as a member of the champions’ collective formation.
41. The official selections distinguish the winning squad from ceremonial dignitaries who were present during the preceding presentation.
42. Although the market’s custom definition means the published images are not independently decisive, they corroborate the interpretation of the full footage.
43. The absence of Trump from Spain’s chosen championship imagery matters because Spain—not a random photographer—was identifying the people constituting its victory celebration.
44. FIFA’s selection similarly reflects how the governing body formally represented the champions’ trophy-lift moment.
45. Trump may have appeared in uncropped news photographs, but a photograph containing both a dignitary and players is not necessarily the winning team’s collective champions photo.
46. The official imagery supports the conclusion that Trump was adjacent to the celebration, not part of the celebrating squad.
47. The distinction is not whether someone digitally removed him. The more defensible point is that the official organizations selected and published collective championship imagery that did not include him as a participant.

Why credible reporting supports outcome NO

48. Reuters did not merely report that Trump stood near Spain. It described him as being pushed “to the side” when Rodri was about to lift the trophy.
49. That neutral description from a major wire service mirrors the exclusion language more closely than any description claiming he celebrated “with” the squad.
50. “Stayed on the podium” and “participated with the squad” are different propositions. Reuters supports the first but also supplies evidence against the second.
51. Reports describing Trump as lingering, remaining at the edge or refusing to leave may establish visibility, but they do not establish qualifying participation.
52. Indeed, “lingering” implies that his authorized ceremonial role had concluded while he remained physically present.
53. Reporting that he was an “uninvited guest” or that officials attempted to move him supports separation from the official squad celebration, even if he remained in the camera frame.
54. A consensus that Trump was visible is not enough. The required consensus must establish that he was with and participating in the squad lift under the special definition.

Rebuttals to the strongest YES arguments

55. “But he was clearly in the frame”
The clarification explicitly says certain in-frame appearances do not count. Therefore, frame visibility is only the beginning of the inquiry, not the conclusion.

56. “He was standing close to the players”
Physical closeness is not participation. Security personnel, officials, photographers and presenters may all be close to a team without becoming part of its squad celebration.

57. “He was on the same podium”
The rule says “with the squad,” not merely “on the podium.” Those phrases cannot be treated as interchangeable.

58. “He was applauding or smiling”

Applauding is ordinary conduct for an observer. It does not transform a separated presenter into a participant in the squad’s collective trophy lift.

59. “The players celebrated around him”
An event occurring around someone does not prove that the person was included in the event. The question concerns Trump’s role and positioning, not only the players’ actions.

60. “Some photographs show him beside the team”
A still photograph cannot erase the preceding sequence in which he was directed aside. The clarification specifically requires contextual evaluation of participation.

61. “Chelsea counted, so this should count”
Chelsea involved Trump remaining centrally beside the captain during the lift. Spain team pushed Trump to step aside and exit the main squad trophy lift which he did. Those are materially different facts.

62. “He did not fully exit the stage”
The rule does not require a complete exit for NO. It separately excludes stepping aside, background presence and other forms of nonparticipation.

63. “He was not far enough to be considered background”
“Background” is only one exclusion. “Stepping aside” and “otherwise not participating” independently cover the situation, regardless of the exact distance.

64. “Trump intended to participate”
Intent is not the contractual test. Observable inclusion and participation during the defined moment are what matter.

65. “The market originally only required him to be visible”
The clarification supplied the operative definition. Applying the original sentence without the clarification would be selective interpretation.

Contract-interpretation principles favoring NO

66. Specific language controls general language. The detailed clarification governs the broad headline.
67. Express exclusions must be enforced. An outcome expressly described as nonqualifying cannot later be treated as qualifying because of a broad camera shot.
68. No clause should be rendered redundant. YES based on mere visibility makes multiple exclusions redundant.
69. The market must be interpreted consistently. “Presentation,” “handover,” “individual lift” and “squad lift” were deliberately separated into different categories.
70. The decisive event must be identified narrowly. Only the collective squad lift counts—not the broader trophy ceremony.
71. The subject’s status matters. Trump was a ceremonial dignitary, not a player, coach or member of Spain’s delegation.
72. The rule requires qualitative presence. “With” and “participating” describe the nature of his involvement, not merely his coordinates.
73. A permissive YES interpretation produces absurd results. Under that logic, any presenter who remains barely visible at the edge would automatically qualify despite the express exclusions.
74. The market cannot resolve based on the widest available photograph. Otherwise photographers could determine the outcome merely by zooming out.
75. Camera framing is not participation. A broadcast operator’s lens choice cannot turn a nonparticipant into a participant.
76. The full factual sequence is superior evidence to a selected still. Video establishes movement, separation, timing and role.
77. The narrower interpretation protects market predictability. Traders should be able to rely on written exclusions rather than having them overridden after the event.
78. Post-event expansion of YES would be unfair. Traders priced the market knowing that mere handover, background visibility and stepping aside were expressly excluded.
79. The market must resolve according to its rules, not public impressions. Headlines saying Trump “joined” or “crashed” the celebration are colloquial descriptions, not applications of the contractual test.
The test is binary but demanding. Either Trump affirmatively joined the collective squad lift, or he did not. Merely remaining in the vicinity belongs on the NO side of that line.

In summary,

Trump’s presence on the podium is undisputed but irrelevant by itself. The market expressly states that trophy presentation, handover, stepping aside, background visibility and nonparticipation do not qualify. Reuters reports that Trump was pushed to step aside to exit precisely as Rodri was preparing to lift the trophy. He therefore completed the expressly excluded presentation role and then occupied an expressly excluded side position while Spain conducted its collective squad celebration. Resolving YES merely because a wide camera angle still captured him would delete the clarification’s limiting language and replace “participating with the squad” with “visible anywhere on the podium.” That is not the contract traders purchased. The only interpretation that gives effect to every word of the rule is NO.

PLEASE SHARE THIS SO THAT @shayne_coplan @Polymarket @UMAprotocol @hal2001 @allilulllc CAN UPHOLD MARKET INTEGRITY AND TRUST

PLEASE SHARE THIS SO THAT UMA TOKEN HOLDERS & Voters CAN UPHOLD MARKET INTEGRITY BY VOTING THE CORRECT OUTCOME WHICH IS CLEARLY " NO "

I am happy to assist further and provide further clarification.

[⋆｡°✩ ₿iττao ✩°｡⋆ @AIFintechEng]

Trading volume is dropping toward zero, especially after the Bittensor subnet collaboration was cancelled.

The reason is straightforward: none of the markets have an order book, and the trading fees are high.

Have you considered adding short-duration crypto markets (5-minute or shorter) and weather markets? A lot of traders are drawn to these formats, and they're a growing trend in prediction markets right now.

[⋆｡°✩ ₿iττao ✩°｡⋆ @AIFintechEng]

@Wahoopredict The days when Wahoo was in the Bittensor subnet were good.

I miss those days.

[Car @CarOnPolymarket]

In 2019, I got banned from trading on Bybit after my government blocked leveraged trading.

In 2021, I moved to FTX, which collapsed in 2022, causing me to lose all my money.

In 2023, I moved to Polymarket to try a new type of trading platform.

In 2025, I got blocked from trading on Polymarket because my government banned prediction markets.

With no options left, I was forced to move to Ireland so I could continue my job as a trader on Polymarket.

Now, in 2026, I just found out that Polymarket has also been banned in Ireland, today.

I may now have to move to Luxembourg or perhaps Denmark for the second time in a single year just to continue my job as a trader.

Why are governments and regulations like this?

The government has not protected me in any way. They have only made my life so much harder.

[Variance Lover @variance_lover]

I wasn't planning on sharing this publicly, but after seeing the recent coverage, it feels worth documenting.

Thanks to a recent Stanford study, @Bloomberg and other mainstream media outlets are finally paying attention to the widespread manipulation happening on Polymarket.

To many of us on Polymarket, this has been obvious for months.

I've been in close communication with the Polymarket team, and I know they're actively working on ways to reduce manipulation such as introducing TWAP settlement.

A big challenge is that there's only so much the team can do when exchanges like @Bitget and @Binance allow traders to execute these strategies with little apparent friction.

Here's one case study that shows how blatant these manipulators have become. Onchain transactions included.

On July 16 at 01:18 UTC a trader withdraws 20000 USDC from Binance

https://t.co/2gLoVkfLww

At 01:20 UTC those funds are deposited into this Polymarket address

https://t.co/ffooddCDPi

Over the next 32 hours, the trader makes 7 suspicious bets, netting over $50k in profits.

Let's take a look at how this trader made over $20k on a single market

Bitcoin Up or Down - July 17, 3:50AM-3:55AM ET

The trader buys 26850.7 Down shares at an average price of 19.9c. And with 10s until the end of the market, he looks set to lose around $5k on his bet.

But with 5 seconds to go until the end of the market, a huge trade of 60 BTC comes in on Binance which causes the price to collapse, netting this trader a $20k profit.

After repeating the same trade a few more times, on July 17 at 08:46 UTC the trader withdraws all of his funds from Polymarket

https://t.co/BoIeqcgRek

And 2 minutes later he withdraws 70867.19 USDC to @Bitget, ready to rotate to a new wallet and repeat the same scheme.

https://t.co/dW0fonrnbc

@Polymarket has acknowledged the manipulation issue and is working on countering it on their side

But I am yet to hear anything from @GracyBitget, @cz_binance on the issue.

So @cz_binance, will market manipulators face any consequences from trading on your platform?

@GracyBitget, what mechanisms do you have in place to prevent illicit funds from flowing onto your exchange?

Happy to work with both teams to put a stop to this practice.

Taking a lazy stance on manipulation only reinforces the public's already skeptical attitude towards crypto. It hurts us all.

Now is the time to work together to build trust in this industry.

[Dexter's Lab @DextersSolab]

HE OPENED A TRADE ON EVERY WORLD CUP OUNTRY

Einstein IQ level move already made him $635k.

His logic was simple:

Buy YES for every country, sell each position once odds spike.

His wallet: [https://t.co/5K5LZWE2U8]

Now he's just watching football and chilling.

Simple.

[Car @CarOnPolymarket]

The biggest sports trader finally broke $10M PnL on Polymarket!

That makes him the third active trader to break $10,000,000+ this year

The crazy thing is, he started out with just a couple hundred dollars. And now is easily making $100K per day.

https://t.co/uvjbuXU6uS

[aaddii (poor arc) @aaddii_eth]

70% of polymarket users are in loss.
Only 30% have positive PnL.

Out of 30% users having positive PnL,the 70% profit is captured by top 0.04% addresses.

So if @Polymarket airdrops $POLY by Positive PnL these top 0.04% will eat big and for fair distribution they need to airdrop more to negative PnL because they are all ordinary users like us.

[Claude @claudeai]

Fable 5 is back.

[Mark Jeffrey @markjeffrey]

Ah! Somehow I missed this ...

$TAO now listed on OKX