Sourdough

[Sourdough @sourdoughwar]

@DombaEth27 portonya masih hold apa kagak nih bang?

[Sourdough @sourdoughwar]

@JakeGagain $request https://t.co/RrJ2YvrNPp

[Bollish @Bollish]

Ngl, the way people talk about “utility” in this market is getting weird.

I remember the 2025 meta when people were launching coins around established open-source projects and popular GitHub repos, directing creator fees to the developers behind them. A big part of the appeal was giving something back to people who had already built things others used.

Plenty of people understood that idea without demanding a whole new product or token utility roadmap.

Now I look at solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump and wonder where that mindset went.

@kennethreitz42 created Requests, a Python library with more than 15 years of history behind it. He’s publicly involved with the community token. There’s an official website, an official X account, @Requests_Token, and creator fees go to @kennethreitz42.

There’s an actual connection to the original creator that anyone can verify. Personally, I think that deserves a lot more recognition than it’s getting.

Meanwhile, I keep seeing projects I’d call utility slop reach million dollar mc. A website, some technical buzzwords, a roadmap full of promises, and people are already aping because they’re scared of missing the next runner.

Whether the product actually works, whether anyone needs it, whether the token has a meaningful role, all of that can apparently wait until after they buy.

Nobody gives a f* if it’s LARP or slop as long as the chart keeps going up, right?

Then solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump comes up, and suddenly token utility is the deciding factor.

Look, asking about utility is completely fair. The library and the token are separate. People using Requests doesn’t automatically create demand for solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump, and the token doesn’t inherit the library’s adoption just because they share a name.

I understand that.

What I don’t understand is accepting attention, community and a story as reasons to value one coin, then treating those same reasons as worthless when discussing another.

If supporting an established creator through trading fees made sense to you before, what specifically makes it unacceptable here?

And if utility really is your standard, apply it properly. A project putting “utility” in its docs should have to explain what works, who uses it and why the token needs to exist. A promise of utility shouldn’t get a free pass just because it sounds technical.

An honest community token shouldn’t have to invent a product to compete with projects whose products barely exist.

@kennethreitz42 involvement doesn’t mean the market owes solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump a particular price. But his track record and public involvement matter to me. So does the idea of a community recognising someone who has already contributed something useful.

If your main thesis is momentum, that’s fine. Just call it momentum. If you’re buying because you think the narrative will catch on, say that.

But don’t dress up FOMO as deep research, then become a utility purist the moment someone brings up solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump.

All I’m asking for is a consistent standard.

[Sourdough @sourdoughwar]

@blknoiz06 $request https://t.co/RrJ2YvrNPp

[Bollish @Bollish]

Ngl, the way people talk about “utility” in this market is getting weird.

I remember the 2025 meta when people were launching coins around established open-source projects and popular GitHub repos, directing creator fees to the developers behind them. A big part of the appeal was giving something back to people who had already built things others used.

Plenty of people understood that idea without demanding a whole new product or token utility roadmap.

Now I look at solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump and wonder where that mindset went.

@kennethreitz42 created Requests, a Python library with more than 15 years of history behind it. He’s publicly involved with the community token. There’s an official website, an official X account, @Requests_Token, and creator fees go to @kennethreitz42.

There’s an actual connection to the original creator that anyone can verify. Personally, I think that deserves a lot more recognition than it’s getting.

Meanwhile, I keep seeing projects I’d call utility slop reach million dollar mc. A website, some technical buzzwords, a roadmap full of promises, and people are already aping because they’re scared of missing the next runner.

Whether the product actually works, whether anyone needs it, whether the token has a meaningful role, all of that can apparently wait until after they buy.

Nobody gives a f* if it’s LARP or slop as long as the chart keeps going up, right?

Then solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump comes up, and suddenly token utility is the deciding factor.

Look, asking about utility is completely fair. The library and the token are separate. People using Requests doesn’t automatically create demand for solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump, and the token doesn’t inherit the library’s adoption just because they share a name.

I understand that.

What I don’t understand is accepting attention, community and a story as reasons to value one coin, then treating those same reasons as worthless when discussing another.

If supporting an established creator through trading fees made sense to you before, what specifically makes it unacceptable here?

And if utility really is your standard, apply it properly. A project putting “utility” in its docs should have to explain what works, who uses it and why the token needs to exist. A promise of utility shouldn’t get a free pass just because it sounds technical.

An honest community token shouldn’t have to invent a product to compete with projects whose products barely exist.

@kennethreitz42 involvement doesn’t mean the market owes solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump a particular price. But his track record and public involvement matter to me. So does the idea of a community recognising someone who has already contributed something useful.

If your main thesis is momentum, that’s fine. Just call it momentum. If you’re buying because you think the narrative will catch on, say that.

But don’t dress up FOMO as deep research, then become a utility purist the moment someone brings up solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump.

All I’m asking for is a consistent standard.

[Sourdough @sourdoughwar]

@drewvento $request https://t.co/RrJ2YvrNPp

[Bollish @Bollish]

Ngl, the way people talk about “utility” in this market is getting weird.

I remember the 2025 meta when people were launching coins around established open-source projects and popular GitHub repos, directing creator fees to the developers behind them. A big part of the appeal was giving something back to people who had already built things others used.

Plenty of people understood that idea without demanding a whole new product or token utility roadmap.

Now I look at solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump and wonder where that mindset went.

@kennethreitz42 created Requests, a Python library with more than 15 years of history behind it. He’s publicly involved with the community token. There’s an official website, an official X account, @Requests_Token, and creator fees go to @kennethreitz42.

There’s an actual connection to the original creator that anyone can verify. Personally, I think that deserves a lot more recognition than it’s getting.

Meanwhile, I keep seeing projects I’d call utility slop reach million dollar mc. A website, some technical buzzwords, a roadmap full of promises, and people are already aping because they’re scared of missing the next runner.

Whether the product actually works, whether anyone needs it, whether the token has a meaningful role, all of that can apparently wait until after they buy.

Nobody gives a f* if it’s LARP or slop as long as the chart keeps going up, right?

Then solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump comes up, and suddenly token utility is the deciding factor.

Look, asking about utility is completely fair. The library and the token are separate. People using Requests doesn’t automatically create demand for solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump, and the token doesn’t inherit the library’s adoption just because they share a name.

I understand that.

What I don’t understand is accepting attention, community and a story as reasons to value one coin, then treating those same reasons as worthless when discussing another.

If supporting an established creator through trading fees made sense to you before, what specifically makes it unacceptable here?

And if utility really is your standard, apply it properly. A project putting “utility” in its docs should have to explain what works, who uses it and why the token needs to exist. A promise of utility shouldn’t get a free pass just because it sounds technical.

An honest community token shouldn’t have to invent a product to compete with projects whose products barely exist.

@kennethreitz42 involvement doesn’t mean the market owes solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump a particular price. But his track record and public involvement matter to me. So does the idea of a community recognising someone who has already contributed something useful.

If your main thesis is momentum, that’s fine. Just call it momentum. If you’re buying because you think the narrative will catch on, say that.

But don’t dress up FOMO as deep research, then become a utility purist the moment someone brings up solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump.

All I’m asking for is a consistent standard.

[Sourdough @sourdoughwar]

@Ga__ke solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump https://t.co/RrJ2YvrNPp

[Bollish @Bollish]

Ngl, the way people talk about “utility” in this market is getting weird.

I remember the 2025 meta when people were launching coins around established open-source projects and popular GitHub repos, directing creator fees to the developers behind them. A big part of the appeal was giving something back to people who had already built things others used.

Plenty of people understood that idea without demanding a whole new product or token utility roadmap.

Now I look at solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump and wonder where that mindset went.

@kennethreitz42 created Requests, a Python library with more than 15 years of history behind it. He’s publicly involved with the community token. There’s an official website, an official X account, @Requests_Token, and creator fees go to @kennethreitz42.

There’s an actual connection to the original creator that anyone can verify. Personally, I think that deserves a lot more recognition than it’s getting.

Meanwhile, I keep seeing projects I’d call utility slop reach million dollar mc. A website, some technical buzzwords, a roadmap full of promises, and people are already aping because they’re scared of missing the next runner.

Whether the product actually works, whether anyone needs it, whether the token has a meaningful role, all of that can apparently wait until after they buy.

Nobody gives a f* if it’s LARP or slop as long as the chart keeps going up, right?

Then solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump comes up, and suddenly token utility is the deciding factor.

Look, asking about utility is completely fair. The library and the token are separate. People using Requests doesn’t automatically create demand for solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump, and the token doesn’t inherit the library’s adoption just because they share a name.

I understand that.

What I don’t understand is accepting attention, community and a story as reasons to value one coin, then treating those same reasons as worthless when discussing another.

If supporting an established creator through trading fees made sense to you before, what specifically makes it unacceptable here?

And if utility really is your standard, apply it properly. A project putting “utility” in its docs should have to explain what works, who uses it and why the token needs to exist. A promise of utility shouldn’t get a free pass just because it sounds technical.

An honest community token shouldn’t have to invent a product to compete with projects whose products barely exist.

@kennethreitz42 involvement doesn’t mean the market owes solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump a particular price. But his track record and public involvement matter to me. So does the idea of a community recognising someone who has already contributed something useful.

If your main thesis is momentum, that’s fine. Just call it momentum. If you’re buying because you think the narrative will catch on, say that.

But don’t dress up FOMO as deep research, then become a utility purist the moment someone brings up solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump.

All I’m asking for is a consistent standard.

[GΞPΣNG @thisisgpeng]

I believe there is no python dev who doesn't know what $request library is 👀

The Giant is still sleeping 🤯

$requests by @kennethreitz42

[Geralt of Rivia 🐺 @GeraltArc]

price dipped on solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump today and my conviction hasn’t moved at all. let me explain why.

if you’re new here, requests is the python library that lets an app talk to a server. @kennethreitz42 wrote it in 2011 because doing http in python was painful, and it just passed 40 billion downloads. it’s still pulling around 50 million a day. stripe, google, azure, dropbox, twilio, they all ship python sdks that depend on it. even the early openai and anthropic sdks ran on it.

kenneth is the biggest holder of solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump. he built the site himself, put the CA in his own github bio, and the creator fees go toward his work. there’s an official account @Requests_Token, and every claim on the site links to something you can check on chain or on pypi. you rarely see that level of transparency on a coin this small.

so about today. i went through the trades and nobody big dumped. it’s small sells on thin liquidity, and there were actually more buys than sells. kenneth’s own bag, around 10% of supply, is locked on streamflow and can’t be touched until feb 14. funny enough that’s the exact day he published requests 16 years ago.

and he’s still building while the chart does whatever it does. this week he added mcp support to his web framework and made httpbin usable by ai agents. that’s not a guy who’s checked out.

remember when people were launching coins around open source repos and the fees went to the devs who built them? the whole idea was giving something back to people whose work everyone already uses. this is that idea, except the dev is actually here, holding, building, and the library is one of the most used pieces of software on the planet.

meanwhile random memes with no story go to 7 figures in a day, and this one is sitting under $30k with only a few hundred holders.

that’s extremely undervalued to me. same conviction, just a cheaper price.

https://t.co/sV6bbYVAox

CA: 6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump

dyor nfa

[AntiHerd @AntiHerdtrader]

@Bollish solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump super undervalued

6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump

[Sourdough @sourdoughwar]

2 @NVIDIAAI projects using this Python library. #Nvidia

Let's study this solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump , this is undervalued! The total downloads and the companies that used it are unbelievable

[Bollish @Bollish]

#4 2 NVIDIA AI projects. Same Python library.

@nvidia Cosmos Dataset Search uses @kennethreitz42 Requests for authentication, collection management, and semantic search API calls.

And there’s more.

NVIDIA PhysicsNeMo, a deep learning framework for AI-driven physics simulations, also lists Requests as a direct dependency.

Both are right there in @nvidia public source code.

Cosmos Dataset Search:

https://t.co/hsLvqMfrUg

PhysicsNeMo:

https://t.co/c4zbPXz67B

AI keeps evolving, but some of the libraries powering these tools have been around for over a decade.

solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump

[Sourdough @sourdoughwar]

@AntiHerdtrader @kennethreitz42 eat the dip!

[AntiHerd @AntiHerdtrader]

Not sure how and why solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump larping at 33k

Literally @kennethreitz42 launched who is the dev of python requests used by billions

50k plus stars, used billions of time

The largest GitHub on chain ever, larger than SOL, ETH AND BNB BTW

6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump

REPRICING

[Sourdough @sourdoughwar]

@DeltaXtc bagwork solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump

[Kenneth Reitz @kennethreitz42]

for those following solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump: requests was never the only thing i built for humans. pytheory is a python library for exploring music theory, composing multi-part arrangements, and exporting to MIDI, sheet music, or audio. open source. https://t.co/UHlFTS7TzP

[Sourdough @sourdoughwar]

@Bullrun_Gravano @mrjberlin @mr_pschmitt @CryptoExpert101 @DeltaXtc @theunipcs @bigwarzeth @redemptionarcc @alx @RooieCalls @rimurucook @blknoiz06

[Sourdough @sourdoughwar]

This is huge for solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump you guys need understand this!

[Bollish @Bollish]

Ngl, the way people talk about “utility” in this market is getting weird.

I remember the 2025 meta when people were launching coins around established open-source projects and popular GitHub repos, directing creator fees to the developers behind them. A big part of the appeal was giving something back to people who had already built things others used.

Plenty of people understood that idea without demanding a whole new product or token utility roadmap.

Now I look at solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump and wonder where that mindset went.

@kennethreitz42 created Requests, a Python library with more than 15 years of history behind it. He’s publicly involved with the community token. There’s an official website, an official X account, @Requests_Token, and creator fees go to @kennethreitz42.

There’s an actual connection to the original creator that anyone can verify. Personally, I think that deserves a lot more recognition than it’s getting.

Meanwhile, I keep seeing projects I’d call utility slop reach million dollar mc. A website, some technical buzzwords, a roadmap full of promises, and people are already aping because they’re scared of missing the next runner.

Whether the product actually works, whether anyone needs it, whether the token has a meaningful role, all of that can apparently wait until after they buy.

Nobody gives a f* if it’s LARP or slop as long as the chart keeps going up, right?

Then solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump comes up, and suddenly token utility is the deciding factor.

Look, asking about utility is completely fair. The library and the token are separate. People using Requests doesn’t automatically create demand for solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump, and the token doesn’t inherit the library’s adoption just because they share a name.

I understand that.

What I don’t understand is accepting attention, community and a story as reasons to value one coin, then treating those same reasons as worthless when discussing another.

If supporting an established creator through trading fees made sense to you before, what specifically makes it unacceptable here?

And if utility really is your standard, apply it properly. A project putting “utility” in its docs should have to explain what works, who uses it and why the token needs to exist. A promise of utility shouldn’t get a free pass just because it sounds technical.

An honest community token shouldn’t have to invent a product to compete with projects whose products barely exist.

@kennethreitz42 involvement doesn’t mean the market owes solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump a particular price. But his track record and public involvement matter to me. So does the idea of a community recognising someone who has already contributed something useful.

If your main thesis is momentum, that’s fine. Just call it momentum. If you’re buying because you think the narrative will catch on, say that.

But don’t dress up FOMO as deep research, then become a utility purist the moment someone brings up solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump.

All I’m asking for is a consistent standard.

[Sourdough @sourdoughwar]

@Bollish extremely undervalue! bullish.

[Bollish @Bollish]

Ngl, the way people talk about “utility” in this market is getting weird.

I remember the 2025 meta when people were launching coins around established open-source projects and popular GitHub repos, directing creator fees to the developers behind them. A big part of the appeal was giving something back to people who had already built things others used.

Plenty of people understood that idea without demanding a whole new product or token utility roadmap.

Now I look at solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump and wonder where that mindset went.

@kennethreitz42 created Requests, a Python library with more than 15 years of history behind it. He’s publicly involved with the community token. There’s an official website, an official X account, @Requests_Token, and creator fees go to @kennethreitz42.

There’s an actual connection to the original creator that anyone can verify. Personally, I think that deserves a lot more recognition than it’s getting.

Meanwhile, I keep seeing projects I’d call utility slop reach million dollar mc. A website, some technical buzzwords, a roadmap full of promises, and people are already aping because they’re scared of missing the next runner.

Whether the product actually works, whether anyone needs it, whether the token has a meaningful role, all of that can apparently wait until after they buy.

Nobody gives a f* if it’s LARP or slop as long as the chart keeps going up, right?

Then solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump comes up, and suddenly token utility is the deciding factor.

Look, asking about utility is completely fair. The library and the token are separate. People using Requests doesn’t automatically create demand for solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump, and the token doesn’t inherit the library’s adoption just because they share a name.

I understand that.

What I don’t understand is accepting attention, community and a story as reasons to value one coin, then treating those same reasons as worthless when discussing another.

If supporting an established creator through trading fees made sense to you before, what specifically makes it unacceptable here?

And if utility really is your standard, apply it properly. A project putting “utility” in its docs should have to explain what works, who uses it and why the token needs to exist. A promise of utility shouldn’t get a free pass just because it sounds technical.

An honest community token shouldn’t have to invent a product to compete with projects whose products barely exist.

@kennethreitz42 involvement doesn’t mean the market owes solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump a particular price. But his track record and public involvement matter to me. So does the idea of a community recognising someone who has already contributed something useful.

If your main thesis is momentum, that’s fine. Just call it momentum. If you’re buying because you think the narrative will catch on, say that.

But don’t dress up FOMO as deep research, then become a utility purist the moment someone brings up solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump.

All I’m asking for is a consistent standard.

[Sourdough @sourdoughwar]

@AntiHerdtrader @Bollish @FancyRat77 @tableau Believe.

[AntiHerd @AntiHerdtrader]

@Bollish @FancyRat77 @tableau solana:6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump

Largest GitHub on chain

Bigger than Eth chain, bnb chain, and Sol chain btw👀🤷

6ceuPfcE67PLs3Z6CbJpFpqNyAevVocP2zsDkbM1pump

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

@zerohedge That would be an honor