Nightfury13

A few years ago, I watched a friend build his entire online business on one social platform. He was doing everything right growing followers, selling products, creating a loyal audience. For a while, it looked like freedom. He owned his content, his customers loved him, and money was flowing. Then one algorithm change happened. Reach collapsed overnight. His business still existed, but the rails underneath it had changed, and suddenly he realized something painful: he didn’t truly control the system that controlled him.

That story kept coming back to me while I was studying Pixels.
On paper, Pixels looks like one of Web3 gaming’s strongest promises fulfilled. A blockchain-based social farming game, NFTs, player-owned assets, token rewards, guilds, staking, marketplace economics, it checks nearly every box people imagine when they hear “decentralized gaming.” Players aren’t just grinding; they’re participating in an economy.

But when I dug deeper, I noticed something that matters far more than crops, land, or token rewards.
Pixels may be decentralized in gameplay, but its foundation still leans heavily on centralized infrastructure.
And that difference matters more than most players realize.
Right now, PIXEL trades around $0.008337, with a market cap near $6.42 million, roughly $13.87 million in daily trading volume, and a fully diluted valuation of about $41.66 million. Circulating supply sits near 770 million, while the max supply is 5 billion. That means only about 15.42% of total supply is unlocked, according to Tokenomist, with vesting stretching into 2029 and the next major unlock on May 19, 2026, when another 91.18 million PIXEL enters circulation.

That unlock structure immediately tells me something important: the market is not only pricing current utility, it is pricing future dilution.
This is why the market cap to FDV ratio around 0.15 matters so much. It suggests traders are treating PIXEL less like a finished economy and more like a system still carrying long-term inflation pressure.
And honestly, that makes sense.
Pixels has real utility. The token is not empty. PIXEL is used for premium in-game spending land minting, guild creation, pets, VIP perks, build speedups, cosmetics, skill boosts, and marketplace advantages. I actually think this is one of Pixels’ strongest fundamentals. Unlike many GameFi tokens that became little more than speculative chips, PIXEL has actual sinks.

But utility does not equal sovereignty.
That’s where Ronin enters the conversation.
When Pixels migrated from Polygon to Ronin in 2023, it looked like a smart move. Faster transactions, lower fees, stronger ecosystem support, better onboarding through Sky Mavis. Growth followed. DappRadar later showed Pixels hitting 20 million monthly active wallets in April 2024, 48 million unique wallets in Q2, and generating roughly $20 million in revenue during 2024.
Those are not small numbers.
I’ll be honest when I first saw those stats, I understood why so many investors viewed Pixels as one of Web3 gaming’s breakout cases.

But growth can sometimes hide dependence.
Because choosing Ronin was not just a technical migration. It was a strategic alignment with an ecosystem largely shaped by Sky Mavis.
That creates a hidden reality: Pixels may own its token, economy design, and player systems, but it does not fully own the rails that deliver them.
Wallet infrastructure, validator systems, bridge security, marketplace visibility, and broader ecosystem liquidity are deeply tied to Ronin.

I think of it like owning a beautiful shop inside someone else’s mall. You control your products, your staff, your layout but if the mall changes foot traffic, raises costs, or loses trust, your business feels it immediately.
This is where Web3 often becomes more complicated than its marketing.
The Ronin Bridge exploit in 2022 already proved how infrastructure concentration can expose systemic fragility. Ronin has improved validator distribution since then, but decentralization is not just about node counts. It’s also about who shapes ecosystem gravity.

And Sky Mavis still holds enormous gravity.
That doesn’t mean Pixels is misleading anyone. It means Pixels reflects the real state of most blockchain ecosystems: partial decentralization.

Players own assets. Communities earn rewards. Token holders participate.
But the deepest strategic choices migration, treasury management, infrastructure partnerships, emergency responses usually remain concentrated.

I noticed this pattern across crypto repeatedly. FTX showed how “decentralized” markets could still depend on centralized trust. Solana outages reminded people that speed can still bottleneck through infrastructure. In gaming, the same principle applies: owning land is not the same as owning direction.
To Pixels’ credit, the project has built meaningful economic traction. Paying wallets reportedly climbed to 109,000 by December 2024, in-game PIXEL spending reached 10 million tokens that month, and player spending efficiency improved. These are signs of a functioning economy, not just speculation.

But the chart tells its own truth too.
PIXEL remains about 99.2% below its $1.02 all-time high.
That collapse erased almost all early hype.

To me, this suggests the market has already shifted its view. PIXEL is no longer being priced like explosive Web3 fantasy. It’s being priced more like a utility-heavy token with infrastructure dependence, future dilution, and selective upside if execution continues.

That distinction matters.
So when I ask, “Who really controls Pixels?” I don’t think the answer is simple.
It’s not just token holders. It’s not just players. It’s not even just the core team.
Real control sits where game design, tokenomics, and infrastructure overlap.

Pixels has built one of the more legitimate economies in blockchain gaming. But its long-term independence may still depend less on farming mechanics and more on how much strategic freedom it truly has beneath Ronin’s framework.

That’s the part I keep watching.
Because in Web3, owning the harvest feels powerful.
But owning the land underneath the system is something else entirely.

So here’s the bigger question: if Ronin’s priorities shift tomorrow, how much of Pixels’ future would players actually control and how much would simply be decided for them?
#pixel @Pixels $PIXEL
#ArthurHayes’LatestSpeech #BinanceLaunchesGoldvs.BTCTradingCompetition
#StrategyBTCPurchase
#ShootingIncidentAtWhiteHouseCorrespondentsDinner $APE $ZKP

I remember sitting with a friend at a coffee shop last year, both of us staring at the same chart on his laptop. He'd been tracking a small gaming token for weeks, convinced it was "almost ready." The price kept drifting sideways. He kept refreshing. At some point he said, "I don't even know what the game actually does." That moment stuck with me. Because that's exactly the wrong way to watch something like PIXEL.
When I came back to Pixels recently, I didn't open the chart first. I opened the game. And something clicked differently this time.
Most people still describe Pixels like it's a farming sim with a token bolted on. That framing made sense two years ago. It doesn't fully hold now. What Pixels has actually built is closer to a layered economic environment one where your actions inside the game determine what you're allowed to access, not just what you earn. Farming, guild participation, staking, VIP membership these aren't parallel features. They're a filtering system. The game is constantly asking: what kind of participant are you?
That question matters more than it sounds.
When Pixels migrated to Ronin, it reportedly crossed 1M+ daily active users and 2.8M monthly active users. Lifetime wallets hit 5 million. Monthly $PIXEL spending reached roughly $2.4M. The homepage now claims over 10 million players. Those numbers don't belong to a project nobody touched. That's a real user base that moved through a real economy.
Now here's where I get more careful, because the current market data forces you to be.
PIXEL is trading around $0.008153. Market cap sits at $6.27M. Twenty-four hour volume is $14.38M more than twice the market cap, which is a ratio worth pausing on. Fully diluted valuation is $40.64M. And here's the number that changes everything: only 15.42% of the total 5 billion supply is currently unlocked about 771 million tokens.
That market cap / FDV ratio of 0.15 is the real story. You're not pricing a mature token. You're pricing a fraction of what eventually hits circulation. Vesting runs through 2029. The next unlock lands May 19, 2026, releasing 91.18M PIXEL worth roughly $743K, split across Advisors, Ecosystem Rewards, Private Sale Investors, the Team, and Treasury. That's not catastrophic in a single event, but multiply that pattern across three more years and the supply pressure is a permanent variable in this trade.
The allocation structure tells you where the tension lives. Ecosystem Rewards hold 34%, Treasury 17%, Private Sale Investors 14%, Team 12.5%, Advisors 9.5%. That's a lot of supply still sitting behind cliff vesting schedules. The bull case requires real in-game demand growing faster than unlock pressure. That's not impossible. It's just a specific condition, not a general vibe.
So what creates that demand? The utility layer is more concrete than most people realize.
PIXEL is used to create and join guilds, mint pets, and unlock VIP perks including the ability to withdraw BERRY to your Ronin Wallet, which is a meaningful permission gate. VIP itself is a monthly membership paid in PIXEL, giving extra backpack slots, 1,500 reputation points, VIP lounge energy, VIP-only tasks, and marketplace listing slots. Tiers scale based on how much PIXEL you spend. That structure turns the token into a recurring consumption asset, not just something you hold and hope appreciates.
Staking adds another layer. You can stake PIXEL into different game projects, influence which ones receive development support, and earn rewards. The ecosystem frames this as players having genuine input over where the economy grows. That's either a compelling retention mechanism or marketing language depending on whether the staking decisions actually move anything. Worth watching closely.
The chart has already absorbed the most painful part of this story. PIXEL hit an all-time high of $1.02. It's now roughly 99.2% below that peak. Most of the post-launch mania got wrung out long ago. What's left is a $6M market cap token with $14M daily volume, real product surfaces, and a vesting schedule that creates friction for the next three years.
The question isn't whether Pixels can revisit launch euphoria. It can't, and chasing that framing is how traders lose money on fundamentally decent projects. The real question is whether pixel spend on VIP, guild creation, and staking compounds enough to absorb supply as it unlocks. If players treat the environment like a place worth staying in not just farming and extracting then the token has a structural demand case. If they don't, it becomes a slow-bleed dilution story regardless of how good the game design looks.
I think about my friend from that coffee shop sometimes. He eventually sold his position at a loss because he never understood what the project was actually doing. He was trading a ticker. The people who'll do better with PIXEL are probably the ones watching guild activity, VIP subscription patterns, and monthly PIXEL spend data not just waiting for a candle.
The game built something real. Whether the market prices that correctly over the next unlock cycle is a different conversation entirely.
What's your read does the utility layer actually justify holding through the dilution, or does the supply schedule make this a trade rather than a position?
#pixel @Pixels
#BinanceLaunchesGoldvs.BTCTradingCompetition
#BTCSurpasses$79K
#MarketRebound
#StrategyBTCPurchase
$ORCA $LUMIA

I didn’t expect a farming game to make me question monetary policy, but that’s exactly what happened to me inside Pixels.

I was standing in front of the Task Board in Chapter 2, half-focused, half on autopilot. I had just finished a farming loop and was thinking the usual Web3 thought: stack, hold, repeat. That quiet assumption we all carry from traditional games more grinding equals more stored value.

But something felt off.
I clicked into a task expecting a simple reward cycle. Instead, I noticed the system wasn’t rewarding accumulation, it was demanding participation in a kind of controlled depletion. I had to give up Tier 3 resources assets I had been slowly stacking to unlock the next reward.

That moment stuck with me. It didn’t feel like a marketplace. It felt like a system correcting me.
I paused and watched more closely.
The Task Board wasn’t just assigning quests, it was recalibrating the economy in real time. The inputs (my resources) and outputs (rewards) weren’t static. They were shifting based on something deeper, almost like the game was measuring pressure.

And then I saw it happen.
A brief delay less than a second. Around 0.3 to 0.6 seconds. That was the time it took for the system to adjust burn requirements. The next task suddenly required more scarce inputs. Not randomly. Precisely.
It hit me: this isn’t a reward system. It’s a balancing engine.
And that’s where pixel started to make more sense.
As of April 26, 2026, pixel is trading around $0.008145, with a market cap of about $27.55M and a 24-hour volume of $15.96M. Fully diluted valuation sits near $40.72M, with a total supply of 5 billion tokens and roughly 3.38 billion in circulation. What’s interesting is that supply data varies slightly across aggregators, which already tells you one thing precision matters in how you interpret this economy.

Now here’s the part most people overlook.
Pixels isn’t designed for passive accumulation. It’s designed for active consumption.
The token isn’t just sitting in wallets, it’s constantly being pulled back into the system. Whether it’s minting land, speeding up builds, unlocking pets, boosting energy, or even completing quests like “Reputable Banker,” pixel acts as a required input. Not optional. Required.

I tested this myself. I tried to play “efficiently” minimize spending, maximize storage. But the system subtly pushed back. Progress slowed. Access narrowed. Reputation gains stalled.

That’s when I realized: hoarding in Pixels isn’t optimal, it’s counterproductive.
And the data backs this up.
The game has crossed 1 million daily active users, and recent reports show monthly pixel consumption exceeding 10 million tokens, the highest ever recorded. Earlier, 4.4 million tokens were burned in a 30-day period. That’s not small. That’s a continuous absorption mechanism.

Think of it like this: instead of inflation being managed by limiting production, Pixels allows production but aggressively manages removal.
It’s not stopping players from creating value, it’s ensuring excess doesn’t survive unchecked.
But here’s where things get more complicated.

Token unlocks are still ongoing. According to Tokenomist, about 771 million pixel (15.42% of total supply) is currently unlocked, with more scheduled through 2029. The next unlock hits on May 19, 2026. Allocations are spread across ecosystem rewards (34%), treasury (17%), private investors (14%), team (12.5%), and others.

So the system is doing two things at once:
1. Introducing new supply through vesting
2. Removing supply through in-game consumption

The question is whether the second can consistently outpace the first.
From what I observed inside the game, the burn mechanism isn’t reactive, it’s anticipatory. When inflation pressure rises (more players producing, more assets entering circulation), the system increases the “cost” of progression. Higher-tier resources get pulled in. Tasks become more demanding.

It doesn’t ask players how they feel about it. It just adjusts.
That’s what makes it feel almost mechanical like a thermostat for supply.
But I’m not fully convinced it’s foolproof.
Here’s my skepticism.
If player growth slows, or engagement drops, the burn engine weakens. Less activity means fewer tokens being consumed. Meanwhile, unlock schedules don’t pause. Supply continues to enter the market regardless of in-game demand.

That imbalance could reintroduce downward pressure.
And the price history reflects that risk.
Pixel hit an all-time high of $1.02. Today, it’s down about 99.2%. That’s not just market volatility, that’s a full repricing of expectations. Launch hype, dilution concerns, and execution risk are already baked into the chart.

So where does that leave us?
From my experience, Pixels is one of the few Web3 games that actually treats its token like an economic variable, not just a reward. The burn mechanism isn’t cosmetic, it’s structural.

But structure alone isn’t enough.
Here’s what I’m watching now:
Whether monthly token consumption keeps rising alongside user activity
How effectively the system absorbs upcoming unlocks
Whether new gameplay loops introduce additional burn sinks
And most importantly, whether players continue to accept this “consume to progress” model
Because that’s the real shift here.
We’re moving from ownership-driven economies to participation-driven ones.
And I’m still deciding how I feel about that.

I noticed myself hesitating before spending pixel the last time. Not because I didn’t want the reward but because I realized I wasn’t accumulating anymore. I was feeding a system designed to stay balanced, not to let me win indefinitely.
So I’ll leave you with this:
Are we ready for game economies where burning is not a loss, but a requirement?
And more importantly, do you trust a system that protects value by constantly asking you to give some of it back?
#pixel @Pixels $PIXEL
#EthereumFoundationUnstakes$48.9MillionWorthofETH #ShootingIncidentAtWhiteHouseCorrespondentsDinner #TetherFreezes$344MUSDTatUSLawEnforcementRequest #CanTheDeFiIndustryRecoverQuicklyFromAaveExploit? $ZBT $D

I remember the first time I tried to withdraw $PIXEL from the game. It wasn’t a big amount, just something I’d earned casually over a few weeks of logging in after work, watering crops, experimenting with crafting. I clicked withdraw, expecting a small network fee at most. Instead, I saw a noticeably larger cut taken out. My first thought wasn’t “this is a clever anti-bot mechanism.” It was simple: why am I being charged this much to take out what I earned?

That moment stuck with me, because it perfectly captures the gap between Pixels’ intention and player experience.
On paper, the farmer fee is elegant. It’s framed as an ecosystem mechanism: a withdrawal fee that scales with reputation, redistributing value to stakers and discouraging short-term extraction. High-reputation players, those deeply engaged pay less. Low-reputation players assumed to be less committed pay more. The logic is clean, almost textbook tokenomics design.

But like most systems that look perfect in theory, the reality is messier.
Reputation in Pixels isn’t arbitrary. It’s built from activity: how long you’ve played, what you own, how often you farm, craft, engage with land, even whether you’ve invested on-chain. Over time, this creates a layered score that reflects commitment. That part works. I’ve seen it myself, play consistently, and your reputation climbs.

The issue is who starts at the bottom.
New players. Casual players. People like me when I first joined.
And that’s where things get uncomfortable.
Because the system doesn’t actually know why you have low reputation. It only knows that you do. A bot account farming aggressively for a week and a real player learning the game over that same week look identical through the lens of reputation. Both are “low rep.” Both get hit with the highest withdrawal fee.

That’s not behavioral targeting. That’s structural grouping.
Pixels designed the farmer fee to combat bots and to be fair, the reasoning holds. Bots operate with low reputation and high extraction volume. Increasing their withdrawal cost can kill profitability. That’s smart.

But the unintended side effect is that beginners absorb the same friction.
And beginners are the hardest users to acquire.
Pixels has done something genuinely impressive here. Millions of players, strong onboarding funnels, meaningful activity metrics. At one point, the ecosystem reported over a million daily active users and millions more monthly. Even more telling, there were over 100,000 paying wallets and millions of PIXEL tokens being spent monthly inside the game. That’s real engagement, not just speculative noise.

Which is why the farmer fee deserves closer scrutiny.
Because if your growth depends on new users, but your system taxes them the hardest at their first moment of value realization the first withdrawal, you introduce friction exactly where trust is still forming.

I’ve seen this pattern before in other systems. The first transaction always matters more than the tenth. It shapes perception.
And right now, the perception risk is real.
Let’s zoom out to the token itself.
As of April 25, 2026, PIXEL is trading around $0.008216, with about $22.26 million in daily volume, a market cap of $6.33 million, and a fully diluted valuation of $41.02 million. The market cap to FDV ratio sits around 0.15, which tells you most of the supply is still locked. Only about 771 million tokens roughly 15.4% of the total 5 billion supply are currently circulating.
That matters.
Because the system isn’t just dealing with player behavior, it’s also managing long-term emission pressure. The next unlock, scheduled for May 19, 2026, will release over 91 million tokens across multiple categories like team, investors, and ecosystem rewards. And this continues all the way through 2029.

So the farmer fee isn’t just about bots. It’s part of a broader balancing act: ensuring enough demand and sink mechanisms exist to absorb ongoing supply.
And to Pixels’ credit, there are real sinks.
I’ve used PIXEL for VIP access, pet minting, and small quality-of-life upgrades. There are guild mechanics, staking incentives, and planned governance features. These aren’t theoretical, they’re active. Historical data shows millions of tokens being spent monthly, with a measurable return-on-rewards ratio. That’s rare in this space.

But here’s the tension.
The farmer fee redistributes value upward from low-reputation users to stakers, who are typically high-reputation, high-holding players. Economically, this reinforces commitment. Socially, it risks creating a divide.
It’s not inherently wrong. But it needs to be acknowledged clearly.
When I look at the system today, I don’t think the farmer fee is broken. I think it’s incomplete.
Reputation alone isn’t precise enough yet.
What’s missing is context time in game, behavior patterns, session diversity. A player who logs in sporadically over 30 days behaves very differently from a bot running continuous loops. That difference should matter.
Right now, it doesn’t.
And that’s where improvement feels both necessary and achievable.
A tiered system that factors in player age could immediately soften the impact on newcomers. Even a simple buffer period lower fees for the first 30 days regardless of reputation would align experience with intent. Beyond that, deeper behavioral analysis could refine targeting over time.
Pixels has already shown it can build complex systems. The infrastructure is there. This is more about calibration than reinvention.
From an investment perspective, the market has already priced in a lot of risk. PIXEL is down over 99% from its all-time high of $1.02. The early hype is gone. What remains is a question: can real in-game demand and utility sustain the token through years of unlocks?
That answer won’t come from tokenomics alone. It will come from player experience.
And systems like the farmer fee sit right at that intersection.
So I keep coming back to that first withdrawal moment.
If a new player feels punished instead of protected, is the system really aligned?
And if you were that player, just starting out, testing the waters would that experience make you stay, or quietly step away?
#pixel @Pixels
#TetherFreezes$344MUSDTatUSLawEnforcementRequest #CanTheDeFiIndustryRecoverQuicklyFromAaveExploit? #BalancerAttackerResurfacesAfter5Months #SoldierChargedWithInsiderTradingonPolymarket
$HYPER $ORCA

最初はただの「土地からカットを得る」メカニズムだと思っていたのに、こんなに深く引き込まれるとは予想していなかった。
そのモデルは前にも見たことがある。土地を買って、待って、収集する。ゲームプレイに見せかけたパッシブイールド。
でも、今回は違うと感じた。そして、現実の何かを思い出させる小さな瞬間を通じて、それに気づいた。

数年前、友人が農地を相続したんだ。彼は農業のことを知らなかったし、時間もなかった。それを売る代わりに、誰かに土地を耕してもらって、収穫を分けることにした。最初は簡単そうに聞こえた。でも時間が経つにつれて、気づいたんだ: 価値はただの土地じゃなくて、土地がどう管理されているか、どんなツールが利用できるか、そしてその取り決めがどれだけ信頼できるかにあった。農家はその仕組みが機能しているから残っていた。オーナーはそのシステムが理にかなっているから稼いでいた。

以前は、Pixelsのペットを他のゲームのスキンと同じように扱っていました。持っていると嬉しいけど、無視しやすい存在でした。しかし、ある日、私の視点を変える小さなミスをしました。収穫中にストレージが満杯になり、何度も往復する羽目になり、完全に流れが壊れました。その後、無視していたペットをアクティブにしたら、突然…物事がスムーズに感じられました。劇的ではなく、ただスムーズに。これが、ペットが実際に何をしているのかを誤解していたことに気づいた瞬間でした。

ほとんどの人はペットをコレクションとして見ます。しかし、Pixelsがそれを作る方法では、ペットは徐々にアクセスを得るためのツールのように感じます。ペットを手に入れることも一瞬ではありません。イベントやミントから通常ペットカプセルが必要です。そして、それを自分の土地の成長ラボで孵化させる必要があります。そのプロセスだけでも、ポーションをクラフトするために時間とリソースを要求し、約30個を使用し、待つ必要があります。「なんでこんなに遅いの？」と思ったことを覚えています。しかし、それを経て気づいたのは、その摩擦がペットを得たという感覚を与えるということです。

初めてピクセルの中で何かを感じた瞬間を覚えている。単にプレイするだけじゃなく、それを信じていた。作物を植え、待って、戻って、ツールをアップグレードし、ゲーム内の誰かと話した。それは良い意味で遅いと感じた。稼いだ。時間をただ消費しているのではなく、自分のものになる何かを築いているようだった。

その感覚は強力だ。これは、許可なしのWeb3所有権の核心的な約束だ。しかし、長くいるうちに、無視できない何かに気づき始めた。

ある日、こんなことがあった：資産を移動しようとしたら、ネットワークが少し遅くなった。劇的なことではなく、ただの遅延だ。しかし、それが私に立ち止まらせた。遅延自体のせいではなく、私の所有権を可能にしている何かを制御していないことに気づいたからだ。私が持っていた全ては、基盤となるシステムが正確に機能することに完全に依存していた。

私は昨年、Web3ファーミングゲームに深くハマった友人のことを思い出します。彼はゲームプレイには全く興味がありませんでした。彼はゲーム内で何かを作る前にスプレッドシートを作成しました。私は彼が最適なルート、日々の報酬ループ、トークンの排出量を計算するのを見ていましたが、ゲームが実際に楽しいかどうかは気にしていませんでした。数週間の間、それはうまくいきました。彼はお金を稼ぎました。しかし、トークンが下落し、報酬が調整され、1か月以内に彼はログインをやめました。徐々にではなく完全に。

そのパターンは私に残りました。そして、それがまさにPixelsが異なると感じる理由です…しかし、免疫があるわけではありません。

正直に言うと、最初に『Stardew Valley』と『Pixels』を同じ文で見たとき、それは人々が注目を集めるためにする比較の一つのように感じました。それは無理に聞こえました。
その後、実際にPixelsの中で時間を過ごしました。
そして、興味深いことが起こりました。

すぐにはではなく、徐々にその比較がどこから来ているのかを見始めました。ゲームが同じだからではなく、似たようなものを追い求めているから…そして非常に異なる方法でそれを逃しているからです。

長い一日の後、Pixelsにログインした夜を覚えています。私は自分に、すぐに作物を確認するだけだと言いました。それだけでした。5分だけ。しかし、その後、今どれが最も良い収穫をもたらすか、どれがよく売れるか、次に何を作るべきかを計算し始めました。気がつくと、30分が経過していて、全くリラックスしていませんでした。私は最適化していました。

私はPixelsについてのこの小さな詳細に何度も戻ってきており、それが良い意味で私を悩ませています。それが複雑だからではなく、ほぼ単純すぎて、ほとんどのスペースがそれを避けているからです。

彼らはDAUを前面に出しません。彼らはトークン価格チャートを見せません。代わりに、彼らは静かに彼らがRORSリターン・オン・リワード・スペンドと呼ぶものを指摘します。

最初は私はそれを無視しました。私は暗号の中で「新しい指標」を十分に見てきたので、そのパターンを知っています：それは本当に洞察に満ちているか、または弱い基本からの気を散らすものであるかのどちらかです。しかし、私はそれに座っている時間が長くなるにつれて、それは実際にノイズを切り抜ける指標の稀なケースの1つのように感じ始めました。