![balajis's tweet photo. From IPO and M&A to crypto?
The tech M&A era may be ending.
But the crypto era could be just beginning.
Because the combined effect of new policies is to make it much harder for startups to IPO or M&A, but much easier to sell equity-backed security tokens on the Internet.
Let me explain.
1) It's hard to IPO. First, for decades the SEC's Sarbox rules have made it onerous for small companies to go public. They made these rules to stop the next Enron, but they didn't do that (nor did they stop the financial crisis). What they did do was chop the number of publicly traded US companies in half[a] from its 1999 peak:
2) It's hard to M&A. As a consequence, starting in the mid-2000s, the conventional wisdom became that tech companies should stay private for longer. Because IPOs were hard, that meant M&A loomed much larger as a path to liquidity for venture-backed tech startups. This period of about 20 years included huge exits like Instagram ($1B), Oculus ($2B) and WhatsApp ($19B).
But since the advent of Lina Khan's FTC, big M&As have been blocked on the grounds that this would increase competition by disallowing big fish from eating smaller fish. That was the (ostensible) rationale for the joint EU/US/UK regulatory assault on Adobe's proposed acquisition of Figma[b], which would have been a huge exit that funded many more startups:
Khan's reasoning is fundamentally incorrect because when a big company buys a small competitor at a high price it's actually a surrender — and a huge capital injection into the VC ecosystem to create many more such competitors. If there are fewer such exits — either IPOs or M&As — then there's no capital for tech startups. And hence no competition.
3) The new admin is still anti-M&A! Tech guys thought the new admin would be friendlier to M&A. But surprisingly, the new administration has bought into Lina Khan's logic — and is apparently continuing[c] her policies:
I think this is partly due to their (understandable) tribal animus against Big Tech companies for media-driven censorship during the 2020 election. But unless things change, it means tech M&A isn't coming back.
Moreover, there is continuity with Biden anti-M&A policies on another front. Japan's Nippon Steel was blocked from acquiring US Steel by Biden, but the new admin upheld the block. However, they seem to be offering a different path[d] where Nippon Steel invests in the US company but doesn't own it.
Regardless: neither big companies nor foreign companies may easily acquire US companies. And the thing is, M&A is already hard. It's like getting married, it's a huge production. If you layer some unpredictable government risk on top of an already difficult-to-do deal, many M&As just won't even be contemplated.
4) But the crypto window is open. However, when Gov closes a door it sometimes opens a window. Even though IPOs are still expensive, even though M&A has been made much more difficult...the new administration has de facto deregulated crypto with the launch of the presidential memecoins and the pro-crypto executive orders.
No one yet knows what the new rules are, but if you can do an unbacked memecoin you should almost certainly be able to do an equity-backed ICO, also known as a securities token offering (STO):
In fact, STOs actually fit the admin's vision that "the world should invest in US-founded coins" and that "small entities should be able to be independent for longer."
And remember their idea that Nippon Steel investing[d] in US Steel is ok, but owning it is not ok? This could be a way to square the circle. If you disallow Big Tech companies from buying Little Tech companies, you need to allow the latter to raise capital somehow in order to compete with Big Tech.
So let the world invest in them onchain without owning them, just like Nippon Steel is investing in US Steel. And just like Masa[e] and Saudi[f] are investing hundreds of billions in US companies without owning them outright.
That's a financial win/win that preserves sovereignty.
Moreover, mom and pop shops (restaurants and the like) can in theory STO as well. In theory, the STO takes the capital cost of going public from millions to zero. But you'd need to layer new decentralized regulatory mechanisms on such a market, similar to Uber/Airbnb/Amazon's star ratings and bans of bad actors.
5) From blue states to blockchains. Anyway: there are a zillion details to be worked out in terms of putting cap tables on chain and conducting high-trust public offerings with lockups and the like.
But this is ultimately where we wanted to go anyway. California is no longer the only place to operate, Delaware is no longer the best place to incorporate, and New York is no longer a great place to trust in the rule of law.
Blue states are over, but blockchains are in.
Because obviously Internet companies should exist in an Internet-native form onchain and be able to access Internet-scale capital markets via crypto. And indeed, even as the number of New York-listed stocks has been falling, the number of Internet-listed digital assets has been rising.
So, to my tech friends: yes, the tech IPO and M&A windows may be closed. But the tech STO window could be thrown wide open.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkIT1CebQAAKmuR.jpg)
![balajis's tweet photo. From IPO and M&A to crypto?
The tech M&A era may be ending.
But the crypto era could be just beginning.
Because the combined effect of new policies is to make it much harder for startups to IPO or M&A, but much easier to sell equity-backed security tokens on the Internet.
Let me explain.
1) It's hard to IPO. First, for decades the SEC's Sarbox rules have made it onerous for small companies to go public. They made these rules to stop the next Enron, but they didn't do that (nor did they stop the financial crisis). What they did do was chop the number of publicly traded US companies in half[a] from its 1999 peak:
2) It's hard to M&A. As a consequence, starting in the mid-2000s, the conventional wisdom became that tech companies should stay private for longer. Because IPOs were hard, that meant M&A loomed much larger as a path to liquidity for venture-backed tech startups. This period of about 20 years included huge exits like Instagram ($1B), Oculus ($2B) and WhatsApp ($19B).
But since the advent of Lina Khan's FTC, big M&As have been blocked on the grounds that this would increase competition by disallowing big fish from eating smaller fish. That was the (ostensible) rationale for the joint EU/US/UK regulatory assault on Adobe's proposed acquisition of Figma[b], which would have been a huge exit that funded many more startups:
Khan's reasoning is fundamentally incorrect because when a big company buys a small competitor at a high price it's actually a surrender — and a huge capital injection into the VC ecosystem to create many more such competitors. If there are fewer such exits — either IPOs or M&As — then there's no capital for tech startups. And hence no competition.
3) The new admin is still anti-M&A! Tech guys thought the new admin would be friendlier to M&A. But surprisingly, the new administration has bought into Lina Khan's logic — and is apparently continuing[c] her policies:
I think this is partly due to their (understandable) tribal animus against Big Tech companies for media-driven censorship during the 2020 election. But unless things change, it means tech M&A isn't coming back.
Moreover, there is continuity with Biden anti-M&A policies on another front. Japan's Nippon Steel was blocked from acquiring US Steel by Biden, but the new admin upheld the block. However, they seem to be offering a different path[d] where Nippon Steel invests in the US company but doesn't own it.
Regardless: neither big companies nor foreign companies may easily acquire US companies. And the thing is, M&A is already hard. It's like getting married, it's a huge production. If you layer some unpredictable government risk on top of an already difficult-to-do deal, many M&As just won't even be contemplated.
4) But the crypto window is open. However, when Gov closes a door it sometimes opens a window. Even though IPOs are still expensive, even though M&A has been made much more difficult...the new administration has de facto deregulated crypto with the launch of the presidential memecoins and the pro-crypto executive orders.
No one yet knows what the new rules are, but if you can do an unbacked memecoin you should almost certainly be able to do an equity-backed ICO, also known as a securities token offering (STO):
In fact, STOs actually fit the admin's vision that "the world should invest in US-founded coins" and that "small entities should be able to be independent for longer."
And remember their idea that Nippon Steel investing[d] in US Steel is ok, but owning it is not ok? This could be a way to square the circle. If you disallow Big Tech companies from buying Little Tech companies, you need to allow the latter to raise capital somehow in order to compete with Big Tech.
So let the world invest in them onchain without owning them, just like Nippon Steel is investing in US Steel. And just like Masa[e] and Saudi[f] are investing hundreds of billions in US companies without owning them outright.
That's a financial win/win that preserves sovereignty.
Moreover, mom and pop shops (restaurants and the like) can in theory STO as well. In theory, the STO takes the capital cost of going public from millions to zero. But you'd need to layer new decentralized regulatory mechanisms on such a market, similar to Uber/Airbnb/Amazon's star ratings and bans of bad actors.
5) From blue states to blockchains. Anyway: there are a zillion details to be worked out in terms of putting cap tables on chain and conducting high-trust public offerings with lockups and the like.
But this is ultimately where we wanted to go anyway. California is no longer the only place to operate, Delaware is no longer the best place to incorporate, and New York is no longer a great place to trust in the rule of law.
Blue states are over, but blockchains are in.
Because obviously Internet companies should exist in an Internet-native form onchain and be able to access Internet-scale capital markets via crypto. And indeed, even as the number of New York-listed stocks has been falling, the number of Internet-listed digital assets has been rising.
So, to my tech friends: yes, the tech IPO and M&A windows may be closed. But the tech STO window could be thrown wide open.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkITDMJaAAQisZA.png)
![balajis's tweet photo. From IPO and M&A to crypto?
The tech M&A era may be ending.
But the crypto era could be just beginning.
Because the combined effect of new policies is to make it much harder for startups to IPO or M&A, but much easier to sell equity-backed security tokens on the Internet.
Let me explain.
1) It's hard to IPO. First, for decades the SEC's Sarbox rules have made it onerous for small companies to go public. They made these rules to stop the next Enron, but they didn't do that (nor did they stop the financial crisis). What they did do was chop the number of publicly traded US companies in half[a] from its 1999 peak:
2) It's hard to M&A. As a consequence, starting in the mid-2000s, the conventional wisdom became that tech companies should stay private for longer. Because IPOs were hard, that meant M&A loomed much larger as a path to liquidity for venture-backed tech startups. This period of about 20 years included huge exits like Instagram ($1B), Oculus ($2B) and WhatsApp ($19B).
But since the advent of Lina Khan's FTC, big M&As have been blocked on the grounds that this would increase competition by disallowing big fish from eating smaller fish. That was the (ostensible) rationale for the joint EU/US/UK regulatory assault on Adobe's proposed acquisition of Figma[b], which would have been a huge exit that funded many more startups:
Khan's reasoning is fundamentally incorrect because when a big company buys a small competitor at a high price it's actually a surrender — and a huge capital injection into the VC ecosystem to create many more such competitors. If there are fewer such exits — either IPOs or M&As — then there's no capital for tech startups. And hence no competition.
3) The new admin is still anti-M&A! Tech guys thought the new admin would be friendlier to M&A. But surprisingly, the new administration has bought into Lina Khan's logic — and is apparently continuing[c] her policies:
I think this is partly due to their (understandable) tribal animus against Big Tech companies for media-driven censorship during the 2020 election. But unless things change, it means tech M&A isn't coming back.
Moreover, there is continuity with Biden anti-M&A policies on another front. Japan's Nippon Steel was blocked from acquiring US Steel by Biden, but the new admin upheld the block. However, they seem to be offering a different path[d] where Nippon Steel invests in the US company but doesn't own it.
Regardless: neither big companies nor foreign companies may easily acquire US companies. And the thing is, M&A is already hard. It's like getting married, it's a huge production. If you layer some unpredictable government risk on top of an already difficult-to-do deal, many M&As just won't even be contemplated.
4) But the crypto window is open. However, when Gov closes a door it sometimes opens a window. Even though IPOs are still expensive, even though M&A has been made much more difficult...the new administration has de facto deregulated crypto with the launch of the presidential memecoins and the pro-crypto executive orders.
No one yet knows what the new rules are, but if you can do an unbacked memecoin you should almost certainly be able to do an equity-backed ICO, also known as a securities token offering (STO):
In fact, STOs actually fit the admin's vision that "the world should invest in US-founded coins" and that "small entities should be able to be independent for longer."
And remember their idea that Nippon Steel investing[d] in US Steel is ok, but owning it is not ok? This could be a way to square the circle. If you disallow Big Tech companies from buying Little Tech companies, you need to allow the latter to raise capital somehow in order to compete with Big Tech.
So let the world invest in them onchain without owning them, just like Nippon Steel is investing in US Steel. And just like Masa[e] and Saudi[f] are investing hundreds of billions in US companies without owning them outright.
That's a financial win/win that preserves sovereignty.
Moreover, mom and pop shops (restaurants and the like) can in theory STO as well. In theory, the STO takes the capital cost of going public from millions to zero. But you'd need to layer new decentralized regulatory mechanisms on such a market, similar to Uber/Airbnb/Amazon's star ratings and bans of bad actors.
5) From blue states to blockchains. Anyway: there are a zillion details to be worked out in terms of putting cap tables on chain and conducting high-trust public offerings with lockups and the like.
But this is ultimately where we wanted to go anyway. California is no longer the only place to operate, Delaware is no longer the best place to incorporate, and New York is no longer a great place to trust in the rule of law.
Blue states are over, but blockchains are in.
Because obviously Internet companies should exist in an Internet-native form onchain and be able to access Internet-scale capital markets via crypto. And indeed, even as the number of New York-listed stocks has been falling, the number of Internet-listed digital assets has been rising.
So, to my tech friends: yes, the tech IPO and M&A windows may be closed. But the tech STO window could be thrown wide open.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkISq4OaAAAlgJN.png)
Olivia
Online
Giorgio Lacanna
@GIORGIOGY
Curious about everything
Bergamo, Lombardia
Joined December 2019
606 Following
176 Followers
2K Posts
Pinned Tweet
One person billion dollar company has been achieved: @galligator
@AravSrinivas Finally!
Who to follow
Joey Michael
@JoeyS2T
1st generation Nintendo fan raising a new Koopaling. NYC 🏙 First Responder 🚨 Video Games 🎮 Fitness 🏋🏼 YouTuber 🎥
VibigStick 
@VibigStick
the higher degree you got, the more complex ways to show how stupid you are.
An Alliance between US and China will slave entire galaxy and beyond.
ReyMe
@ReyMe0
Living my best life while trying to navigate this strange world full of misanthropes.
@EricJorgenson Pre ordered yesterday from 🇮🇹
We gave our growth strategy to a tiny YouTube channel (5k subs)
Less than a year later:
- 1k views/video to 600k+
- Made a 2.4m video
- $200/month to 6 figures/year
So f***k it… Here’s the same strategy you can use in 2026:
If you want me to help grow your channel over 8 weeks… apply to our accelerator
Applications close soon!
Also as usual one person who likes and RTs the first tweet gets a full 100% scholarship ❤️
https://t.co/jnVn8VilUS
Calling it now:
2026 will be the year that time spent on social media decreases while time spent reading books increases.
@AlexAndBooks_ 5, every year I read less… and I don’t want to count all the books I didn’t pass the first 40 pages
In 10 years, many more people will use crypto, but they may not know they're using crypto.
They only need to feel the benefits, not understand the systems behind it. The best tech is often invisible.
TV in the 90s: you turn it on, you watch.
TV 2025:
- turn on, wait for it to load
- popup: TV wants to update, 1.5GB. No.
- scroll sideways, find prime video app or etc
- popup: now app wants to update, 500MB. No!!
- App launching... App loading…
- select account screen
- 🫠
@AravSrinivas Create marketing tool. Genious growth loops
The importance of betting big:
In entrepreneurship, you will lose more times than you win. So you just need to make sure that when you win, you win so big, it overshadows all your losses.
No one cares about small victories or defeats.
From IPO and M&A to crypto?
The tech M&A era may be ending.
But the crypto era could be just beginning.
Because the combined effect of new policies is to make it much harder for startups to IPO or M&A, but much easier to sell equity-backed security tokens on the Internet.
Let me explain.
1) It's hard to IPO. First, for decades the SEC's Sarbox rules have made it onerous for small companies to go public. They made these rules to stop the next Enron, but they didn't do that (nor did they stop the financial crisis). What they did do was chop the number of publicly traded US companies in half[a] from its 1999 peak:
2) It's hard to M&A. As a consequence, starting in the mid-2000s, the conventional wisdom became that tech companies should stay private for longer. Because IPOs were hard, that meant M&A loomed much larger as a path to liquidity for venture-backed tech startups. This period of about 20 years included huge exits like Instagram ($1B), Oculus ($2B) and WhatsApp ($19B).
But since the advent of Lina Khan's FTC, big M&As have been blocked on the grounds that this would increase competition by disallowing big fish from eating smaller fish. That was the (ostensible) rationale for the joint EU/US/UK regulatory assault on Adobe's proposed acquisition of Figma[b], which would have been a huge exit that funded many more startups:
Khan's reasoning is fundamentally incorrect because when a big company buys a small competitor at a high price it's actually a surrender — and a huge capital injection into the VC ecosystem to create many more such competitors. If there are fewer such exits — either IPOs or M&As — then there's no capital for tech startups. And hence no competition.
3) The new admin is still anti-M&A! Tech guys thought the new admin would be friendlier to M&A. But surprisingly, the new administration has bought into Lina Khan's logic — and is apparently continuing[c] her policies:
I think this is partly due to their (understandable) tribal animus against Big Tech companies for media-driven censorship during the 2020 election. But unless things change, it means tech M&A isn't coming back.
Moreover, there is continuity with Biden anti-M&A policies on another front. Japan's Nippon Steel was blocked from acquiring US Steel by Biden, but the new admin upheld the block. However, they seem to be offering a different path[d] where Nippon Steel invests in the US company but doesn't own it.
Regardless: neither big companies nor foreign companies may easily acquire US companies. And the thing is, M&A is already hard. It's like getting married, it's a huge production. If you layer some unpredictable government risk on top of an already difficult-to-do deal, many M&As just won't even be contemplated.
4) But the crypto window is open. However, when Gov closes a door it sometimes opens a window. Even though IPOs are still expensive, even though M&A has been made much more difficult...the new administration has de facto deregulated crypto with the launch of the presidential memecoins and the pro-crypto executive orders.
No one yet knows what the new rules are, but if you can do an unbacked memecoin you should almost certainly be able to do an equity-backed ICO, also known as a securities token offering (STO):
In fact, STOs actually fit the admin's vision that "the world should invest in US-founded coins" and that "small entities should be able to be independent for longer."
And remember their idea that Nippon Steel investing[d] in US Steel is ok, but owning it is not ok? This could be a way to square the circle. If you disallow Big Tech companies from buying Little Tech companies, you need to allow the latter to raise capital somehow in order to compete with Big Tech.
So let the world invest in them onchain without owning them, just like Nippon Steel is investing in US Steel. And just like Masa[e] and Saudi[f] are investing hundreds of billions in US companies without owning them outright.
That's a financial win/win that preserves sovereignty.
Moreover, mom and pop shops (restaurants and the like) can in theory STO as well. In theory, the STO takes the capital cost of going public from millions to zero. But you'd need to layer new decentralized regulatory mechanisms on such a market, similar to Uber/Airbnb/Amazon's star ratings and bans of bad actors.
5) From blue states to blockchains. Anyway: there are a zillion details to be worked out in terms of putting cap tables on chain and conducting high-trust public offerings with lockups and the like.
But this is ultimately where we wanted to go anyway. California is no longer the only place to operate, Delaware is no longer the best place to incorporate, and New York is no longer a great place to trust in the rule of law.
Blue states are over, but blockchains are in.
Because obviously Internet companies should exist in an Internet-native form onchain and be able to access Internet-scale capital markets via crypto. And indeed, even as the number of New York-listed stocks has been falling, the number of Internet-listed digital assets has been rising.
So, to my tech friends: yes, the tech IPO and M&A windows may be closed. But the tech STO window could be thrown wide open.
![balajis's tweet photo. From IPO and M&A to crypto?
The tech M&A era may be ending.
But the crypto era could be just beginning.
Because the combined effect of new policies is to make it much harder for startups to IPO or M&A, but much easier to sell equity-backed security tokens on the Internet.
Let me explain.
1) It's hard to IPO. First, for decades the SEC's Sarbox rules have made it onerous for small companies to go public. They made these rules to stop the next Enron, but they didn't do that (nor did they stop the financial crisis). What they did do was chop the number of publicly traded US companies in half[a] from its 1999 peak:
2) It's hard to M&A. As a consequence, starting in the mid-2000s, the conventional wisdom became that tech companies should stay private for longer. Because IPOs were hard, that meant M&A loomed much larger as a path to liquidity for venture-backed tech startups. This period of about 20 years included huge exits like Instagram ($1B), Oculus ($2B) and WhatsApp ($19B).
But since the advent of Lina Khan's FTC, big M&As have been blocked on the grounds that this would increase competition by disallowing big fish from eating smaller fish. That was the (ostensible) rationale for the joint EU/US/UK regulatory assault on Adobe's proposed acquisition of Figma[b], which would have been a huge exit that funded many more startups:
Khan's reasoning is fundamentally incorrect because when a big company buys a small competitor at a high price it's actually a surrender — and a huge capital injection into the VC ecosystem to create many more such competitors. If there are fewer such exits — either IPOs or M&As — then there's no capital for tech startups. And hence no competition.
3) The new admin is still anti-M&A! Tech guys thought the new admin would be friendlier to M&A. But surprisingly, the new administration has bought into Lina Khan's logic — and is apparently continuing[c] her policies:
I think this is partly due to their (understandable) tribal animus against Big Tech companies for media-driven censorship during the 2020 election. But unless things change, it means tech M&A isn't coming back.
Moreover, there is continuity with Biden anti-M&A policies on another front. Japan's Nippon Steel was blocked from acquiring US Steel by Biden, but the new admin upheld the block. However, they seem to be offering a different path[d] where Nippon Steel invests in the US company but doesn't own it.
Regardless: neither big companies nor foreign companies may easily acquire US companies. And the thing is, M&A is already hard. It's like getting married, it's a huge production. If you layer some unpredictable government risk on top of an already difficult-to-do deal, many M&As just won't even be contemplated.
4) But the crypto window is open. However, when Gov closes a door it sometimes opens a window. Even though IPOs are still expensive, even though M&A has been made much more difficult...the new administration has de facto deregulated crypto with the launch of the presidential memecoins and the pro-crypto executive orders.
No one yet knows what the new rules are, but if you can do an unbacked memecoin you should almost certainly be able to do an equity-backed ICO, also known as a securities token offering (STO):
In fact, STOs actually fit the admin's vision that "the world should invest in US-founded coins" and that "small entities should be able to be independent for longer."
And remember their idea that Nippon Steel investing[d] in US Steel is ok, but owning it is not ok? This could be a way to square the circle. If you disallow Big Tech companies from buying Little Tech companies, you need to allow the latter to raise capital somehow in order to compete with Big Tech.
So let the world invest in them onchain without owning them, just like Nippon Steel is investing in US Steel. And just like Masa[e] and Saudi[f] are investing hundreds of billions in US companies without owning them outright.
That's a financial win/win that preserves sovereignty.
Moreover, mom and pop shops (restaurants and the like) can in theory STO as well. In theory, the STO takes the capital cost of going public from millions to zero. But you'd need to layer new decentralized regulatory mechanisms on such a market, similar to Uber/Airbnb/Amazon's star ratings and bans of bad actors.
5) From blue states to blockchains. Anyway: there are a zillion details to be worked out in terms of putting cap tables on chain and conducting high-trust public offerings with lockups and the like.
But this is ultimately where we wanted to go anyway. California is no longer the only place to operate, Delaware is no longer the best place to incorporate, and New York is no longer a great place to trust in the rule of law.
Blue states are over, but blockchains are in.
Because obviously Internet companies should exist in an Internet-native form onchain and be able to access Internet-scale capital markets via crypto. And indeed, even as the number of New York-listed stocks has been falling, the number of Internet-listed digital assets has been rising.
So, to my tech friends: yes, the tech IPO and M&A windows may be closed. But the tech STO window could be thrown wide open.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkIWauhaAAAIDLl.png)
@markmanson I would add what am I worried about and why
@SahilBloom In the right market
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Thich Men
Seen from Vietnam
belizolgap
Seen from Turkey
Sasha Pearl
Seen from Saudi Arabia
Shivangi Kant
Seen from United Arab Emirates
EVLİ ÇİFT👫DENİZ💜CAN
Seen from Turkey
MAXE-18
Seen from Germany
HijabPornAi
Seen from Turkey
Hubby Wife
Seen from Pakistan
🅿️❎ (px_isaswow) 🐻💂🏻♀️😎
Seen from Vietnam
Hijo Cornudo
Seen from Mexico
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.2M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.6M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
108.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.3M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.6M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
86.8M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
80.6M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.2M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.4M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.6M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
68.5M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.4M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
61.1M followers
X
@x
60.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
59.9M followers