Correct a few mistakes The circulating market value of GUA coin is actually 18.57M. If calculated at 0.1U, the lowest point is also 13.26M. FDV has actually remained above 100 million US dollars This is in line with the rumors circulating about the market value requirements for Binance contract listings —————— From the perspective of MM The GUA coin is actively maintaining a cost of 0.1U. Based on the 26 days since Alpha's launch, the cost of maintaining the seven digit coin price is actually spent. In other words, as of now, most market participants have not been trapped except for those who were trapped on the day the contract was launched From a narrative perspective The combination of AI and metaphysics is actually very mature. If you use AI fortune telling, you will find that AI is relatively accurate in interpreting and fortune telling, greatly reducing the threshold for users to obtain professional mysticism, and the professionalism is also quite high. This is a subdivision of the AI vertical track, why is it just not working for you? How do you view the launch of Aster contracts for projects? This is actually an exam for the project team. By passing the exam, one can enter the next stage. If not, the status quo should be maintained. Essentially, it is using market performance to screen projects, greatly increasing the cost of wrongdoing for project parties —————— MEME listing itself is accidental, and if the ultimate goal of launching MEME is to smash the market, then launching MEME itself needs to be more cautious. From the memo of temporarily suspending the listing of Sol on Binance, it can be seen that Binance does not want to be the last link in liquidity, that is, the listing of Binance is the endpoint. So Binance has considerable requirements for the liquidity of chips, the maturity of project parties, the professionalism of market making, the amount of Marketing PR used, the initial unlocking requirements of tokens, and even the chip structure. Essentially, this is also increasing the cost of wrongdoing for project parties and creating a safer trading environment for individual investors —————— I understand the losses you have incurred while holding Palu, and I have also held Palu and incurred significant losses. But betting on spot goods/contracts itself is not certain. When the liquidity of chips is not good enough, the chip structure is not healthy enough, the head associated address does not meet the standards for healthy coin listing, there is not sufficient chip attraction, and the community discussion is not broken. As a listing team, do you think that listing on Palu carries risks. Will the Listing team, which is responsible for the performance after the coin is listed, consider the risk of listing when voting on the resolution. When Palu Giggle and Binance are all on the platform of the coin group, if Palu is the healthiest, shouldn't it be okay not to use Palu? This principle is like an inscription, why did only 1000sats and ordi come out while other atoms and the like were not launched? Essentially, it is due to the unhealthy structure of the chips. When the top chip holders sell directly, the project may be smashed to zero. Memes that have not been thoroughly washed have structural risks.