Alans •Conin•

『』『“I believe I can do anything” 』『』

[Alans •Conin• @Tanolise1]

$BNBCAT

[Binance Cat - $BNBCAT @BinanceCat_x]

Almost $210,000 worth of WBNB rewards has been distributed to $BNBCAT holders

[Binance Cat - $BNBCAT @BinanceCat_x]

$BNBCAT now live on Binance Wallet

https://t.co/Tl9eQrheio

[Alans •Conin• @Tanolise1]

@zhuifei008 @cz_binance 我還沒讀過，很好奇裡面是怎麼說我們的大哥的。

[Alans •Conin• @Tanolise1]

@antpalkin @Quanterty Cooking 👏

[cvxv666 @antpalkin]

one of my Grok Bots is deep in the trading engine right now, final passes before it touches live money

so I put a second agent on something else. it's building us a site

you'll be able to watch the bot trade live, see where the capital sits and how it moves, and ask Grok what it thinks about a trade while you're looking at it (there's a $CVXV666 holders section in there too)

two agents, two jobs, neither of them waiting on me

link drops here in a couple of hours

we are very early

[Aleiah @AleiahLock]

I BUILT MY OWN OFFICE AND GROK BOT IS THE BOSS

Just look at what my workplace/office looks like.

Before, AI just waited for me to open a chat and type a prompt.

Now I run a real digital office: persistent agents with clear roles, a shared cloud computer, browser, and terminal. They keep working 24/7 even when my laptop is closed.

And the best part - it’s easy.

Download the app → sign in → create the “Chief” → give them job titles (just like briefing new hires) → show a task once → connect Telegram.

> No experience needed.
> No VPS.
> No coding.
> Everything is straightforward.

I just drop a goal in Telegram and the bots break it down, delegate, and deliver. I only make the decisions.

Grok Bot isn’t a chatbot. It’s a team you can actually build in one evening - even if you’ve never created agents before.

[Cobie @cobie]

@maghrrebi @artsch00lreject yes 14 years ago kittehcoin was priced at 26 satoshis per coin while btc was 719 dollars per coin

[Alans •Conin• @Tanolise1]

The driving force leading Base to reclaim its greatness.

[Meowl 🦉 🐱 @meowl_cto]

JUST IN: Meowl goes viral after roller skating through the city at night! 🦉 🛼

[Alans •Conin• @Tanolise1]

Not wrong, just frong… 🐸

[Pools @TradePools]

Wanderer Above The Sea of Frong

[lil bro @lilbro]

Day 1 Gacha recap on @collectdotrip

Deposit: $1800
Cash out: +$13,000
Kept: ~$2000 in inventory.

This team has consistently shipped an amazing platform for collectors. Building out this gacha is no easy task.

This is a Collector Crypt killer and it’s being built on @Pumpfun

[Frong 🐸 @frongcommunity]

about last night 🐸

[Jeff @cfm_sol]

$FRONG is actually worth paying close attention to, because it is currently the "cleanest mechanism and best example of the flywheel effect in action" on Pools. The trading itself is strengthening the token's underlying structure, rather than relying purely on narrative or team-driven momentum.

Pools is the official memecoin launchpad launched by Uniswap Labs on Robinhood Chain. FRONG is one of the early test tokens created by Uniswap product designers using the Pools test contract before the official launch.

The core mechanism of TradePools: 0.25% of trading fees are automatically reinvested and locked as liquidity, and 0.05% creator fees are used for buybacks and burns. The higher the trading volume, the deeper the liquidity and the stronger the structure.

The teaser video before Pools launched was actually named "frong.mp4," featuring a frog, uploaded by Zack Labadie. Combined with the fact that Uniswap's official account has also posted frog-related content multiple times, the lore alignment is quite strong.

Later, Uniswap founder Hayden Adams publicly stated: "We didn't expect the tokens created during testing to be discovered," and confirmed that they have waived all creator fees for test tokens including FRONG, switching to an automatic buyback-and-burn mechanism instead.

Furthermore, both the Pools launchpad and FRONG have a clear flywheel mechanism.

The core flywheel of the Pools launchpad itself: trading generates 0.25% fees, most of which are automatically reinvested back into the permanently locked liquidity pool. Deeper liquidity → lower slippage and better trading experience, attracting more trading volume → back to step one.

FRONG has an additional flywheel on top: because FRONG is a test-phase token, Uniswap later waived all creator fees and changed it to: all fees are used for buybacks and burns.

So FRONG now has a double flywheel: (Pools general mechanism) liquidity-deepening flywheel + deflationary flywheel (more trading → more buybacks and burns).

The higher the cumulative trading volume, the more locked liquidity increases and the larger the buyback/burn amount. For example, at $200M in trading volume, a rough estimate would be ~$500K in liquidity deepening + ~$100K in buybacks and burns.

Additionally, my initial understanding of FRONG—that it brings attention to Pools—remains unchanged.

[Fuego @fuegonft]

Fuego Honor’s Collection 001

@vnovakovski The world is yours.

Thank you for all you do at @Lighter_xyz

This @fuegonft was minted for you.

[Alans •Conin• @Tanolise1]

@binance 👀

[Shrub @Shrubcoinbnb]

I can read it now !

[The Smart Ape 🔥 @the_smart_ape]

$FRONG is not the first token on uniswap's launchpad.

it's launch #464 out of 793. the first 1 was a test called "Testing CCA on Robinhood Chain" deployed 3 weeks earlier.

but here's what makes it special:

> it went through a launch contract that doesn't officially exist, dev branch only, deployed the day before, patched 37 min after

> its frog was already on pools[.]trade's cdn 45 hours before the token existed. it's the product's own mascot

> it was launched by the guy who designed the product. the fee nft in the launch tx points to labadie.eth

> and it's the only one of the 793 the crowd picked

[Opifor @Opifor]

Correction to my previous post: I got one important part wrong.

I said I had found no direct transfers between Zack Labadie’s verified wallets and the wallet that launched $FRONG. That
conclusion was incomplete. I had checked Ethereum and Robinhood Chain, but I had not included Base.

Once Base is included, the attribution picture changes significantly.

It is 100% proven onchain that the wallet which launched FRONG, 0xE195...cE58, had previously been directly funded by
0x1db6...2FD0, a wallet cryptographically verified on Zack Labadie’s official Farcaster profile:

https://t.co/drsaUtRGbA

The actual FRONG launch caller was E195:

https://t.co/hMu03StUus

On November 26, 2024, Zack’s verified wallet sent 0.000601647451057836 ETH directly to E195. This was E195’s first normal
transaction and first native funding on Base:

https://t.co/nyF37E6eTH

On January 7, 2025, the same wallet directly transferred four NFT/ERC-1155 assets to E195.

The following day, it sent another 0.005869440312463167 ETH:

https://t.co/7FbcmGRN99

On February 27, 2025, it also called transfer(E195, 205.795452805595001658) on the HIGHER token contract:

https://t.co/IeRxAPT1HF

These are not explorer labels, beneficiary settings, or identity fields supplied by the FRONG caller. They are direct outbound
transactions initiated by Zack’s verified wallet between 518 and 610 days before FRONG launched.

That distinction changes everything.

A random third party could copy Zack’s public handle, wallet address, uploader metadata, and the frog asset after discovering
the public https://t.co/nItIRFUSB1 site. The launcher accepts unverified identity metadata, and anyone can select a public wallet as fee
beneficiary.

But a random third party cannot go back in time and create signed 2024 and 2025 transactions from Zack’s verified wallet to
E195.

The rest of the factual evidence in my original post remains correct:

The frong.mp4 asset used by https://t.co/nItIRFUSB1 carries archived S3 metadata naming [email protected] as its uploader:

https://t.co/c6yjsDc2lz

E195 launched FRONG and selected the same Zack-linked wallet as its fee beneficiary.

E195 then used the same Uniswap launch infrastructure to test both an instant pool through FRONG and an LBP/CCA launch through
CHWDR.

The exact ETH used immediately before FRONG was bridged by E195 from its own Ethereum address, so the historical Base
transfers were not the final FRONG gas transfer. But they prove something more important for attribution: E195 already had a
direct, repeated and long-standing operational relationship with Zack’s verified wallet.

This makes the “completely unrelated third party copied public information” scenario much weaker than I previously thought.

My updated conclusion is that FRONG was very likely an internal Uniswap/pools.trade test launched from a team-linked wallet.

There is still no signed statement proving that Zack personally controlled E195’s private key. That final distinction matters
if we are making a strict key-ownership claim.

But the historical funding and operational connection are no longer speculation. They are fully verifiable onchain.

The proof was not in the FRONG transaction alone. It was sitting in E195’s older Base history.

[Peter Navarro @RealPNavarro]

Fauci lied and Americans died.

His diary proves I was right. China travel ban. Lab leak. Hydroxychloroquine. Masks. Lockdowns.

America deserves accountability.

MORE HERE 👇

https://t.co/6PolV2HkOu

[toly 🇺🇸 @toly]

👑👑👑