Strum

@Strum13

Joined February 2021

139 Following

15 Followers

115 Posts

Strum13 retweeted

Alexandre Stachtchenko

@StachAlex

about 2 years ago

Dans la logique étatiste candide qui domine intégralement la politique 🇫🇷, l’État c’est le Bien. Mais vient un jour où le peuple ne vote pas comme prévu. Et soudain, le marginal, le déviant, l’infréquentable : c’est vous. Ce jour-là, beaucoup changeront d'avis sur #Bitcoin.

512

169

110

38K

Strum13 retweeted

MoneyRadar

@MoneyRadar_FR

over 2 years ago

🚨 L'immobilier U.S. chute 2 fois plus vite que pendant la crise des subprimes ! En 18 mois, les prix de l'immobilier ont baissé de 19.6%. C'est beaucoup plus rapide qu'en 2010 où les prix avaient chuté de 23% sur une période de 3 ans. C'est donc loin d'être fini...

MoneyRadar_FR's tweet photo. 🚨 L'immobilier U.S. chute 2 fois plus vite que pendant la crise des subprimes !

En 18 mois, les prix de l'immobilier ont baissé de 19.6%.

C'est beaucoup plus rapide qu'en 2010 où les prix avaient chuté de 23% sur une période de 3 ans.

C'est donc loin d'être fini... https://t.co/OWzEwToo0e

445

161

62K

Strum13 retweeted

Alexandre Stachtchenko

@StachAlex

over 2 years ago

There's nothing correct in this rag. Because yes it’s a rag, there are no other words. But not just any rag, a dangerous rag. 🧵👇 I. Let's start by saying that the mandate of the ECB is to manage price stability. Writing nonsense about Bitcoin does not seem to me to be part of this mandate, so I would be glad if public money didn't finance this kind of thing, especially when the main mandate has not even been achieved for quite a bit of time. It is scandalous that the credibility, time and money of a public institution is used to hit a particular asset. I recall here that it is also on this precise point that the SEC lost its case in the United States, having shown that they were not "merit neutral", that is to say indifferent to the merits and asset qualities. What's more, if Bitcoin is not a currency as they like to repeat, WHY ARE THEY WRITING ABOUT IT AT ALL?! II. Let us also note that the article is seriously lacking in sources. Almost all of the assertions are unsubstantiated. When they are, for the vast majority it is a referral to opinion articles in the press. There is only one academic source: Cong et al. (2023) whose abstract tells us "Our sample consists of 29 centralized exchanges, among which the regulated ones feature transaction patterns consistently observed in financial markets and nature.". Oddly, the ECB paper draws a completely different conclusion: "wash trading accounts for 77.5% of the total trading volume on unregulated exchanges". I continue with the sources to show you the immense bad faith, and in particular in the case of supposed money laundering and financing of terrorism by cryptos. “Bitcoin remains the top choice for money laundering in the digital world, with illicit addresses transferring $23.8 billion in crypto in 2022, marking a 68.0% increase from the previous year.” The source indicated is "Chainanalysis 2024". We will overlook the fact that the company is called Chainalysis. Source links to “2024 Crypto Crime Trends: Illicit Activity Down as Scamming and Stolen Funds Fall, But Ransomware and Darknet Markets See Growth”, January 18.” https://t.co/WtM2xDXkAj I don't even know if I need to continue... The title of the report is literally "Illicit Activity Down." But let's continue anyway because it's juicy. We are told that activity is increasing even though it is decreasing. The reason is quite simple : the authors of the article take the previous reference year (2022) compared to that of even before (2021). Why ? Because it serves their message. Between 2021 and 2022, illicit activity had increased (in value, not necessarily in proportion). Between 2022 and 2023, it has decreased. So it doesn't interest them, and they go back to the year before, despite the fact that it would obviously have been more relevant to take this year's figure rather than arbitrarily that of the previous year. Moreover, in terms of order of magnitude, to tell us that Bitcoin is the "top choice" for laundering when it represents ~$20 billion is to mechanically assert that all other means are inferior, and consequently that there is LESS than 20 billion laundered each year in euros or dollars. Remember that the Pandora Papers ALONE are $11,000 billion in perfectly fiat currency. The few articles that investigated the subject of illicit activities pointed to a proportion of around 1% of the GDP of the euro zone in 2010, or 110 billion (15 years ago). https://t.co/vRcOWNThxb Bad faith is evident to the point of ONLY selecting the years that interest them on graphs which do provide more exhaustive data. At this stage, we are on the edge of pure and simple lies, and, in any case, it is plain and conscious disinformation. I say conscious because they THEMSELVES cite the 2024 Chainalysis article, and so they have seen and read it! They do not ignore this information. III. Beyond the opinion-based sources, the ambient bad faith, the disinformation, and the fact that the authors are not experts and are in full conflict of interest (one of the authors works specifically on the digital euro in addition... .), we obviously find a pile of false assertions, all debunked, or opinions presented as facts: 1) “Today, Bitcoin transactions are still inconvenient, slow, and costly.” Compared to what ? A SEPA transfer that takes 5 working days? An international transfer that costs on average between 5 and 10% of the transaction? Remember that if we compare Bitcoin with payment cards, we are comparing apples and pears. VISA & Mastercard do not do transactions, they do authorizations. And so we have to compare this upper layer to the Lightning Network which perfectly sustains comparison. 2) "Outside the darknet, the hidden part of the internet used for criminal activities, it is hardly used for payments at all." False, completely false, documented, and admitted by the police or intelligence services. Whether it is the FBI which is delighted that criminals use cryptos, or the gendarmerie or even TracFin in France, it is now admitted, including among detractors, that it is not mainly used for criminal activities. In the National Money Laudering Risk Assessment 2022 from the US Department of the Treasury, we can read "the use of virtual assets for money laundering remains far below that of fiat currency and more traditional methods" or even "the size and scope of drug proceeds generated on the darknet and laundered via virtual assets remain low in comparison to cash-based retail street sales. Worldwide sales on major darknet markets appear to have remained modest when compared to overall illicit drug sales. For example, during 2017–2020, drug-related darknet market sales amounted to approximately $315 million annually, or about 0.2 percent of the combined estimated illicit annual retail drug sales in the United States and European Union." https://t.co/7NGQ0Zk9tR I would add that in 2022, the Bitcoin network processed more transaction value than VISA (+$10,000 billion), which is not bad for something supposed to have failed. 3) “Bitcoin is still not suitable as an investment.” It's just the best performing asset in 15 years. 4) “the mining of Bitcoin using the proof of work mechanism continues to pollute the environment on the same scale as entire countries” The authors have not opened the latest academic publications: You et al. (Cornell), Ibanez et al. (University College London), Bruno et al. (University of North Carolina), etc. which ALL points to the opportunity to use Bitcoin to green electricity grids and reduce methane emissions. I guess they also didn't ask those who have already tried, i.e. the Texas grid operator, ERCOT, whose ex-CEO Brad Jones called Bitcoin a blessing for the stability of its network and an incentive to increase the ENR mix. No, the authors prefer evoking the famous “evidence of its huge negative environmental impact.” Which ones? We won't know, since the assertion, although serious, is simply not sourced. As we suspect, the authors probably preferred to give credibility to the famous Digiconomist, a person who has no expertise and has been wrong by major orders of magnitude for more than 5 years on everything he says on this subject, who lies (he declares in the Cell Reports paper that he has no conflict of interest, which is obviously false since he works in a central bank), and who moreover is not even researcher, since he has not finished his doctorate. This seems to be a better pedigree than Fengqi You (mentioned), from the renowned Cornell University, whose research specialties include computer science and energy transition, the two areas that interest us here, and which since 2010 has been honored with fifteen awards recognizing the quality of his research work. To tell the truth, the authors probably don't care at all about the environment, but it gives them a practical angle of attack to attack an object that competes with them. IV. Finally, I add that the article alone is a mountain of contradictions. 1) The value of Bitcoin would be zero because it does not produce "cash flow (unlike real estate) or dividends (stocks), cannot be used productively (commodities), and offers no social benefit (gold jewelry) or subjective appreciation based on outstanding abilities (works of art)." Does the euro produce cash flows? No Does the euro produce dividends? No Can the euro be “used productively”? No Does the euro offer “social benefits” like jewelry? No Is the euro subject to subjective appreciation based on extraordinary qualities? No So we understand that the euro is worth zero? 2) Bitcoin, as we have seen, is supposed to be the “top choice” for money laundering & terrorism. Yet further in the article, the authors rebel against regulatory fatalism, and bring out the killer argument to encourage legislators not to sit idly by: “But Bitcoin transactions offer pseudonymity rather than complete anonymity, as each transaction is linked to a unique address on the public blockchain. Therefore, Bitcoin has been a cursed tool for anonymity, facilitating illicit activities and leading to legal action against offenders by the tracing of transactions". Great, so in the same article, Bitcoin manages to be the best way to carry out illicit activities, but also a “cursed” way which allows “legal actions against offenders” because we can trace the transactions. In. The. Same. Article. V. Finally, the authors wonder why Bitcoin is not yet banned (“it seems wrong that Bitcoin should not be subject to strong regulatory intervention, up to practically forbidding it”), and come to suggest actions to legislator (Reminder, this has no place here, since it does not fall under the mandate of price stability). What are these actions? "The Bitcoin network has a governance structure in which roles are assigned to identified individuals. Authorities could decide that these should be prosecuted in view of the large scale of illegal payments using Bitcoin." First, Bitcoin governance does not have roles assigned to individuals. There are roles, yes, but the individuals who participate in them are interchangeable. They are also not necessarily identified, see solo miners. Among those roles, there are core devs, miners, nodes, exchange platforms etc. Everyone has their little power, but no one controls Bitcoin alone. Let us incidentally recall for example that a few years ago, during the Blocksize Wars, miners & exchange platforms lost their battle against nodes. So what does the authors’ not-at-all-innocent little phrase mean? That we're going to take the core devs from their homes and put them in jail? For which motive ? Because they wrote code? Should Einstein have been put in jail for opening the way to work on nuclear power? Someone who sells a kitchen knife has to go to jail because a buyer committed a crime with it? All this on the basis of a “large scale of illegal payments” which is false, and which they themselves debunked in their own article. I'm sorry, but where is this going ? I reiterate that Bitcoin is a test for democracies, and that in Europe we are failing every step of the test. What is happening is serious. Let's stop the liberticidal delusions and authoritarian or even totalitarian excesses now. It's a political fight.

StachAlex's tweet photo. There's nothing correct in this rag. Because yes it’s a rag, there are no other words. But not just any rag, a dangerous rag.

🧵👇

I. Let's start by saying that the mandate of the ECB is to manage price stability. Writing nonsense about Bitcoin does not seem to me to be part of this mandate, so I would be glad if public money didn't finance this kind of thing, especially when the main mandate has not even been achieved for quite a bit of time.

It is scandalous that the credibility, time and money of a public institution is used to hit a particular asset. I recall here that it is also on this precise point that the SEC lost its case in the United States, having shown that they were not "merit neutral", that is to say indifferent to the merits and asset qualities.

What's more, if Bitcoin is not a currency as they like to repeat, WHY ARE THEY WRITING ABOUT IT AT ALL?!

II. Let us also note that the article is seriously lacking in sources. Almost all of the assertions are unsubstantiated. When they are, for the vast majority it is a referral to opinion articles in the press.

There is only one academic source: Cong et al. (2023) whose abstract tells us "Our sample consists of 29 centralized exchanges, among which the regulated ones feature transaction patterns consistently observed in financial markets and nature.".

Oddly, the ECB paper draws a completely different conclusion: "wash trading accounts for 77.5% of the total trading volume on unregulated exchanges".

I continue with the sources to show you the immense bad faith, and in particular in the case of supposed money laundering and financing of terrorism by cryptos.

“Bitcoin remains the top choice for money laundering in the digital world, with illicit addresses transferring $23.8 billion in crypto in 2022, marking a 68.0% increase from the previous year.” The source indicated is "Chainanalysis 2024". We will overlook the fact that the company is called Chainalysis.

Source links to “2024 Crypto Crime Trends: Illicit Activity Down as Scamming and Stolen Funds Fall, But Ransomware and Darknet Markets See Growth”, January 18.”

https://t.co/WtM2xDXkAj

I don't even know if I need to continue... The title of the report is literally "Illicit Activity Down."

But let's continue anyway because it's juicy. We are told that activity is increasing even though it is decreasing. The reason is quite simple : the authors of the article take the previous reference year (2022) compared to that of even before (2021).

Why ? Because it serves their message. Between 2021 and 2022, illicit activity had increased (in value, not necessarily in proportion). Between 2022 and 2023, it has decreased. So it doesn't interest them, and they go back to the year before, despite the fact that it would obviously have been more relevant to take this year's figure rather than arbitrarily that of the previous year.

Moreover, in terms of order of magnitude, to tell us that Bitcoin is the "top choice" for laundering when it represents ~$20 billion is to mechanically assert that all other means are inferior, and consequently that there is LESS than 20 billion laundered each year in euros or dollars.

Remember that the Pandora Papers ALONE are $11,000 billion in perfectly fiat currency. The few articles that investigated the subject of illicit activities pointed to a proportion of around 1% of the GDP of the euro zone in 2010, or 110 billion (15 years ago).

https://t.co/vRcOWNThxb

Bad faith is evident to the point of ONLY selecting the years that interest them on graphs which do provide more exhaustive data. At this stage, we are on the edge of pure and simple lies, and, in any case, it is plain and conscious disinformation. I say conscious because they THEMSELVES cite the 2024 Chainalysis article, and so they have seen and read it! They do not ignore this information.

III. Beyond the opinion-based sources, the ambient bad faith, the disinformation, and the fact that the authors are not experts and are in full conflict of interest (one of the authors works specifically on the digital euro in addition... .), we obviously find a pile of false assertions, all debunked, or opinions presented as facts:

1) “Today, Bitcoin transactions are still inconvenient, slow, and costly.”

Compared to what ? A SEPA transfer that takes 5 working days? An international transfer that costs on average between 5 and 10% of the transaction?

Remember that if we compare Bitcoin with payment cards, we are comparing apples and pears. VISA & Mastercard do not do transactions, they do authorizations. And so we have to compare this upper layer to the Lightning Network which perfectly sustains comparison.

2) "Outside the darknet, the hidden part of the internet used for criminal activities, it is hardly used for payments at all."

False, completely false, documented, and admitted by the police or intelligence services. Whether it is the FBI which is delighted that criminals use cryptos, or the gendarmerie or even TracFin in France, it is now admitted, including among detractors, that it is not mainly used for criminal activities.

In the National Money Laudering Risk Assessment 2022 from the US Department of the Treasury, we can read "the use of virtual assets for money laundering remains far below that of fiat currency and more traditional methods" or even "the size and scope of drug proceeds generated on the darknet and laundered via virtual assets remain low in comparison to cash-based retail street sales. Worldwide sales on major darknet markets appear to have remained modest when compared to overall illicit drug sales. For example, during 2017–2020, drug-related darknet market sales amounted to approximately $315 million annually, or about 0.2 percent of the combined estimated illicit annual retail drug sales in the United States and European Union."

https://t.co/7NGQ0Zk9tR

I would add that in 2022, the Bitcoin network processed more transaction value than VISA (+$10,000 billion), which is not bad for something supposed to have failed.

3) “Bitcoin is still not suitable as an investment.”

It's just the best performing asset in 15 years.

4) “the mining of Bitcoin using the proof of work mechanism continues to pollute the environment on the same scale as entire countries”

The authors have not opened the latest academic publications: You et al. (Cornell), Ibanez et al. (University College London), Bruno et al. (University of North Carolina), etc. which ALL points to the opportunity to use Bitcoin to green electricity grids and reduce methane emissions. I guess they also didn't ask those who have already tried, i.e. the Texas grid operator, ERCOT, whose ex-CEO Brad Jones called Bitcoin a blessing for the stability of its network and an incentive to increase the ENR mix.

No, the authors prefer evoking the famous “evidence of its huge negative environmental impact.” Which ones? We won't know, since the assertion, although serious, is simply not sourced.

As we suspect, the authors probably preferred to give credibility to the famous Digiconomist, a person who has no expertise and has been wrong by major orders of magnitude for more than 5 years on everything he says on this subject, who lies (he declares in the Cell Reports paper that he has no conflict of interest, which is obviously false since he works in a central bank), and who moreover is not even researcher, since he has not finished his doctorate. This seems to be a better pedigree than Fengqi You (mentioned), from the renowned Cornell University, whose research specialties include computer science and energy transition, the two areas that interest us here, and which since 2010 has been honored with fifteen awards recognizing the quality of his research work.

To tell the truth, the authors probably don't care at all about the environment, but it gives them a practical angle of attack to attack an object that competes with them.

IV. Finally, I add that the article alone is a mountain of contradictions.

1) The value of Bitcoin would be zero because it does not produce "cash flow (unlike real estate) or dividends (stocks), cannot be used productively (commodities), and offers no social benefit (gold jewelry) or subjective appreciation based on outstanding abilities (works of art)."

Does the euro produce cash flows? No
Does the euro produce dividends? No
Can the euro be “used productively”? No
Does the euro offer “social benefits” like jewelry? No
Is the euro subject to subjective appreciation based on extraordinary qualities? No

So we understand that the euro is worth zero?

2) Bitcoin, as we have seen, is supposed to be the “top choice” for money laundering & terrorism.

Yet further in the article, the authors rebel against regulatory fatalism, and bring out the killer argument to encourage legislators not to sit idly by: “But Bitcoin transactions offer pseudonymity rather than complete anonymity, as each transaction is linked to a unique address on the public blockchain. Therefore, Bitcoin has been a cursed tool for anonymity, facilitating illicit activities and leading to legal action against offenders by the tracing of transactions".

Great, so in the same article, Bitcoin manages to be the best way to carry out illicit activities, but also a “cursed” way which allows “legal actions against offenders” because we can trace the transactions.

In. The. Same. Article.

V. Finally, the authors wonder why Bitcoin is not yet banned (“it seems wrong that Bitcoin should not be subject to strong regulatory intervention, up to practically forbidding it”), and come to suggest actions to legislator (Reminder, this has no place here, since it does not fall under the mandate of price stability).

What are these actions?

"The Bitcoin network has a governance structure in which roles are assigned to identified individuals. Authorities could decide that these should be prosecuted in view of the large scale of illegal payments using Bitcoin."

First, Bitcoin governance does not have roles assigned to individuals. There are roles, yes, but the individuals who participate in them are interchangeable. They are also not necessarily identified, see solo miners.

Among those roles, there are core devs, miners, nodes, exchange platforms etc. Everyone has their little power, but no one controls Bitcoin alone. Let us incidentally recall for example that a few years ago, during the Blocksize Wars, miners & exchange platforms lost their battle against nodes.

So what does the authors’ not-at-all-innocent little phrase mean?

That we're going to take the core devs from their homes and put them in jail? For which motive ? Because they wrote code?

Should Einstein have been put in jail for opening the way to work on nuclear power?

Someone who sells a kitchen knife has to go to jail because a buyer committed a crime with it?

All this on the basis of a “large scale of illegal payments” which is false, and which they themselves debunked in their own article.

I'm sorry, but where is this going ?

I reiterate that Bitcoin is a test for democracies, and that in Europe we are failing every step of the test. What is happening is serious.

Let's stop the liberticidal delusions and authoritarian or even totalitarian excesses now. It's a political fight.

421

253

126K

Strum13 retweeted

Yield App @YieldApp

over 3 years ago

We’re thrilled to announce our partnership with @FiatRepublic to bring you a frictionless on- and off-ramp experience! 🤝 Enjoy smooth EUR & GBP transfers and withdrawals through virtual fiat IBANs, using SEPA Instant & UK FPS 💶 💷

YieldApp's tweet photo. We’re thrilled to announce our partnership with @FiatRepublic to bring you a frictionless on- and off-ramp experience! 🤝 Enjoy smooth EUR & GBP transfers and withdrawals through virtual fiat IBANs, using SEPA Instant & UK FPS 💶 💷 https://t.co/BHitthVv4i

Who to follow

over 3 years ago

@PowerHasheur @Ledger @CryptoNash pour ta fortune personnelle

Strum13 retweeted

Hasheur

@PowerHasheur

over 3 years ago

[🎄CONCOURS] Je vous souhaite à tous un bon réveillon. Pour l’occasion, je ferai un tirage au sort le 26 Déc et je précommanderai 10 @Ledger Stax que j’enverrai aux gagnants dès réceptions. Il vous suffit de me Follow, 🔁RT et tag un ami 5 autres sont à gagner sur mon Insta.

PowerHasheur's tweet photo. [🎄CONCOURS] Je vous souhaite à tous un bon réveillon. Pour l’occasion, je ferai un tirage au sort le 26 Déc et je précommanderai 10 @Ledger Stax que j’enverrai aux gagnants dès réceptions.

Il vous suffit de me Follow, 🔁RT et tag un ami

5 autres sont à gagner sur mon Insta. https://t.co/XKEuwFlfMe

Strum13 retweeted

eTrees 🌱 @etrees_

over 3 years ago

🌲 Trees Facts Forests cover 31% of the global land area. More than ever, it's time to reforest! 🌱

Strum13 retweeted

Gritto @Grittoshi

almost 4 years ago

Pendant ce temps là chez nos dirigeants:

123

Strum13 retweeted

Gritto @Grittoshi

almost 4 years ago

Tranche de vie #Bitcoin

864

153

Strum13 retweeted

Hellmouth Banner - T-Rex in Numeris

@TCryptomonnaies

almost 4 years ago

#giveaway flash, ultra simple: 1 NFT @TheAquaverse (140$) Je vous offre de la part de la team un Guardian Genesis 🔱Qui vous rapportera un #NFT de la nouvelle collection ROTG (Rise Of The Guardians) 🔱récupérable 48h avant la sortie officielle Juste à RT ce tweet, TAS demain

120

516

879

Strum13 retweeted

Emi

@Dark_Emi_

almost 4 years ago

Quand tu te fais larguer tu crois que c'est le pire sentiment de ta vie, jusqu'au jour ou tu commences les cryptos et découvre le bear market

537

Strum @Strum13

almost 4 years ago

@CryptoNash @HODLcards @Antoniolabamba @JojoLeDino2 @elonmusk @beniaminmincu @Morganevik

Strum @Strum13

almost 4 years ago

@CryptoNash @HODLcards @Antoniolabamba @JojoLeDino2 @elonmusk @beniaminmincu @Morganevik

Strum13 retweeted

🅽🅰🆂🅷 ♤ @CryptoNash

almost 4 years ago

1/2 Support @HODLcards for a chance to win : 🥇1 @HODLcards #NFT 🥈0.2 $EGLD 🥉100k $LKMEX 4️⃣60k $LKMEX 5️⃣40k $LKMEX 6️⃣30k $LKMEX 7️⃣25k $LKMEX 8️⃣20k $LKMEX 9️⃣15k $LKMEX 🔟10k $LKMEX Conditions of the #Giveaway ⤵️ #Elrond #NFTCommunity #NFTGiveaway #NFTs #Giveaways #FreeNFTs

115

121

108

Strum13 retweeted

👁️ WWWatch 👁️ @wwwatch_

almost 4 years ago

After months of building, we are proud to present WWWatch 👁️ RT & follow us for a chance to win the first NFT #Elrond

176

566

529

Strum13 retweeted

Anice Lajnef @AniceLajnef

almost 5 years ago

15 août 1971, fin des accords de Bretton Woods : le dollar ne se transforme plus en or. Cette date marque la victoire de la "banking school" (monnaie-dette) sur la "currency principle" (monnaie adossée à l'or). Sans limite physique, la #finance prend le contrôle sur le monde.

AniceLajnef's tweet photo. 15 août 1971, fin des accords de Bretton Woods : le dollar ne se transforme plus en or.

Cette date marque la victoire de la "banking school" (monnaie-dette) sur la "currency principle" (monnaie adossée à l'or).

Sans limite physique, la #finance prend le contrôle sur le monde. https://t.co/PpUKAEDx3O

980

496

Strum @Strum13

about 4 years ago

@CryptoNash @MaiarElves @HODLcards @JojoLeDino2 @Antoniolabamba @Morganevik

Strum13 retweeted

🅽🅰🆂🅷 ♤ @CryptoNash

about 4 years ago

🎁 GIVEAWAY 🎁 x1 @MaiarElves NFT 1) Follow @MaiarElves, @HODLcards and @CryptoNash 2) RT + ♥️ 3) Tag 3 friends BIG thanks to https://t.co/H5VwtUTaWq for making this possible ! 24H ⏳ GL all 👀 #NFTGiveaway #ElrondCommunity #NFTCommunity #Giveaways #ElrondGiveaway #FreeNFT

121

Strum @Strum13

about 4 years ago

@CryptoNash @bunnyverse_egld @HODLcards @JojoLeDino2 @Antoniolabamba @Morganevik

Strum13 retweeted

🅽🅰🆂🅷 ♤ @CryptoNash

about 4 years ago

🎁HUGE GIVEAWAY🎁 x1 BunnyVerse 🎫⤵️ ▫️1 BunnyVerse NFT ▫️1 Golden Pet Bunny SFT ▫️1 Presale Mint ▪️🔁+♥️ ▪️Tag 3 friends ▪️Follow @bunnyverse_egld, @HODLcards & @CryptoNash ⏳48H Thx @HODLcards to make this possible ! #NFTGiveaway #ElrondCommunity #Giveaways #ElrondGiveaway

258

222

211

Strum

@Strum13

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users