Ціна LIKELIKE

Who did entity A suppress Asset A for? Your question seems to ask, "Who did Actor A suppress the Asset A price for?" Based on available information, there’s no definitive evidence that Actor A suppressed Asset A's price for a specific individual or entity as a targeted beneficiary. Instead, testimony from his trial suggests his actions were tied to broader financial strategies involving Entity A and Entity B, the companies. During Actor A's trial in October 2023, Accomplis A, former CEO of Entity A and a key witness, testified that Actor A instructed them to sell Bitcoin whenever its spot price exceeded $20,000, using Entity A customer funds to do so. This was revealed on day six of the trial, as reported by sources. The alleged intent wasn’t explicitly to benefit a specific person or group but to manage market dynamics—potentially to stabilize or cap Asset A's price during the 2021 bull run. Some analysts, speculated this could have prevented Asset A from reaching higher levels, such as $100,000, though this remains a theory, not a proven motive. Posts on X and web discussions have echoed this, with some claiming Actor A's sales were to manipulate Asset A price downward, possibly to protect Entity Bs positions or Entity A operations, which relied heavily on customer funds and leveraged assets like Exchange Token. However, interpretations vary as Writer A suggested on X that Actor A’s instructions might have been more about liquidity needs (e.g., "don’t sell below $20K" to avoid cheap losses) rather than a deliberate suppression scheme for someone else’s gain. No concrete evidence from the trial or other sources indicates Actor A acted to suppress Asset A price for a specific external party—like a competitor, investor, or regulator. Instead, the actions appear self-serving, aimed at sustaining his intertwined empire of Entity A and Entity B amid financial strain, as detailed in SEC charges and trial coverage. Prosecutors framed it as part of a broader fraud, not a favor to a third party. If you meant something more specific by "to for"—like a grammatical tweak or a different angle—feel free to clarify, and I’ll adjust accordingly! @grok 3 is a beast. This might twist your brain into a pretzel.

IMO: Crypto will be regulated seperately to tradfi unless in a current Exchange Rule structure like existing ETFs which are 100% securities under the SEC. Contracts and options against these vehicles will be under the CFTC, but the blockchain digital assets themselves will be…

$KET chart looks like this a day after $BLUB launch ran to $100M. Send it to a billy. AVAX szn.

Market has been down but engagement has been crazy recently. Insane to think what it'll be like when the heart of the bull run is here. Cheers to all the degens still in the trenches.

$AVAX Something like this