GM CT If you’re not operating with a pro grade terminal, you’re trading at an information disadvantage. @TheARCTERMINAL positions itself as a bridge between retail access and institutional grade tooling, integrating real time capital flow monitoring, low latency execution, and native alignment with the $ARC ecosystem. Shift from reactive execution to structured, intelligence assisted positioning. #DeFAI #ARCTerminal #CryptoTrading

Name & Symbol: AI Rig Complex ($arc)
Address: 61V8vBaqAGMpgDQi4JcAwo1dmBGHsyhzodcPqnEVpump

$ASTER is down almost 50% from the top. But is it time to buy? Ran a full on-chain, semantic, and technical analysis with Unhosted AI. Want the full report? RT + comment “UNHOSTED” and we will DM it. 💌 Must be following* https://t.co/WrtG02YXIo

Name & Symbol: Aster ($ASTER)
Address: 0x000ae314e2a2172a039b26378814c252734f556a

Meet the scammers from @HeyElsaAI team and especially the scammer founder @TheDhawalS who are behind the biggest info-fi scam till date Elsa team and Dhawal scammed the entire @wallchain community by breaking the agreement (where it was specifically agreed that 0.3%+0.3% = 0.6% of total $elsa supply will be given to the top 500 quackers on Wallchain Leaderboard Instead they completely dismissed the entire Wallchain info-fi campaign , robbing the entire 0.6% of supply from the Wallchain community !!

Name & Symbol: HeyElsa ($ELSA)
Address: 0x29cc30f9d113b356ce408667aa6433589cecbdca

An Open Letter To Dhawal Shah @TheDhawalS Founder of @HeyElsaAI Formerly listed publicly as Co-Founder & BD Lead at @FrontierDotXYZ (later @selfchainxyz) HeyElsa publicly partnered with @wallchain_xyz to run an InfoFi / mindshare campaign. The communications around this campaign were explicit & repeated. The stated incentive was: Allocation of token supply Publicly stated as 0.30% per epoch Two epochs = 0.6% total ~6 million $elsa tokens At ATH ($0.429 on 22 Jan) that allocation implied a value of ~$2.57M. At the current price (~$0.17 at time of writing ), still represents ~$1.02M. Creators participated in good faith based on those representations. Yet post-TGE, contributors who placed on the Wallchain leaderboard received no such allocation. Your justification references opaque anti-sybil filtering & onchain activity requirements that were not disclosed as eligibility conditions during the campaign, resulting in a retroactive alteration of communicated terms. Onchain activity was framed as a multiplier or boost, not a baseline eligibility requirement or gate. Crucially, HeyElsa’s own communications clearly distinguished between: 1. Wallchain leaderboard participation 2. Separate onchain activity boosts Additional concerns raised include: 1. Tokenomics later introducing long vesting schedules that were not disclosed during the campaign 2. Despite tokenomics referencing 8% allocated to community, very little appears to have been distributed at TGE 3. Public statements in X spaces that Quackhead NFT holders would receive a 'reward', later stated by Wallchain as elsa allocation, yet holders report receiving nothing 4. A reported compensation offer in place of the originally communicated allocation, which bears no reasonable relationship to the commitment made and is quite frankly an insult. Given the scale of coordination involved, it is reasonable to assume further internal documentation & backend comms ('receipts') exist. The request is clear: 1. Honor the campaign as it was communicated, in full & without compromise. 2. Or publish the agreements/contracts (or a redacted summary) between Elsa and Wallchain demonstrating that these restrictions were disclosed and agreed in advance. Where participants act based on public representations that are later materially altered, this raises serious concerns commonly discussed in law under principles such as misrepresentation and unfair or deceptive commercial practice. Separately, in the interest of transparency, you have previously been publicly associated in senior leadership roles with @FrontierDotXYZ which raised $3.7mill from notable private investors and a public round, later rebranding as @selfchainxyz. That ecosystem experienced disputes around distribution, governance & leadership decisions, including public allegations raised around OTC fraud by its founder, failure to pay investors tokens & other executive misconduct. Many real people have invested time, energy, reputation & opportunity into this ecosystem in good faith. That impact deserves acknowledgment, not dismissal. This issue also goes beyond a single project. If campaigns across Web3 are allowed to retroactively change terms without transparency or accountability, the entire incentive model collapses. Recent & future campaigns operating in similar ways should not assume they will be immune from scrutiny or escalation. If everything is sound, external review should not be a concern. I welcome independent scrutiny from @BurwickLaw and onchain research into current & past activity by sleuths such as @zachxbt. I encourage Elsa’s investors, ecosystem partners and listing platforms, including @cbventures @M31Capital @coinbase @Official_Upbit @binance, to review this situation and support a transparent & fair resolution in the interest of longterm trust. Web3 only survives if transparency applies to all. - A campaign participant, wallchain holder & Ex-Elsa user advocating for higher standards in Web3.

Name & Symbol: HeyElsa ($ELSA)
Address: 0x29cc30f9d113b356ce408667aa6433589cecbdca