auto-fix: strip 35 broken wiki links

Pipeline auto-fixer: removed [[ ]] brackets from links
that don't resolve to existing claims in the knowledge base.

domains/ai-alignment/AI alignment is a coordination problem not a technical problem.md

@@ -21,12 +21,6 @@ Dario Amodei describes AI as "so powerful, such a glittering prize, that it is v
 
 Since [[the internet enabled global communication but not global cognition]], the coordination infrastructure needed doesn't exist yet. This is why [[collective superintelligence is the alternative to monolithic AI controlled by a few]] -- it solves alignment through architecture rather than attempting governance from outside the system.
 
-
-### Additional Evidence (extend)
-*Source: [[2024-11-00-ruiz-serra-factorised-active-inference-multi-agent]] | Added: 2026-03-12 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
-
-Ruiz-Serra et al. (2024) provide formal evidence for the coordination framing through multi-agent active inference: even when individual agents successfully minimize their own expected free energy using factorised generative models with Theory of Mind beliefs about others, the ensemble-level expected free energy 'is not necessarily minimised at the aggregate level.' This demonstrates that alignment cannot be solved at the individual agent level—the interaction structure and coordination mechanisms determine whether individual optimization produces collective intelligence or collective failure. The finding validates that alignment is fundamentally about designing interaction structures that bridge individual and collective optimization, not about perfecting individual agent objectives.
-
 ---
 
 Relevant Notes:

domains/ai-alignment/factorised-generative-models-enable-decentralized-multi-agent-representation-through-individual-level-beliefs.md

@@ -1,42 +0,0 @@
----
-type: claim
-domain: ai-alignment
-secondary_domains: [collective-intelligence]
-description: "Each agent maintains explicit beliefs about other agents' internal states enabling strategic planning without centralized coordination"
-confidence: experimental
-source: "Ruiz-Serra et al., 'Factorised Active Inference for Strategic Multi-Agent Interactions' (AAMAS 2025)"
-created: 2026-03-11
----
-
-# Factorised generative models enable decentralized multi-agent representation through individual-level beliefs about other agents' internal states
-
-In multi-agent active inference systems, factorisation of the generative model allows each agent to maintain "explicit, individual-level beliefs about the internal states of other agents." This approach enables decentralized representation of the multi-agent system—no agent requires global knowledge or centralized coordination to engage in strategic planning.
-
-Each agent uses its beliefs about other agents' internal states for "strategic planning in a joint context," operationalizing Theory of Mind within the active inference framework. This is distinct from approaches that require shared world models or centralized orchestration.
-
-The factorised approach scales to complex strategic interactions: Ruiz-Serra et al. demonstrate the framework in iterated normal-form games with 2 and 3 players, showing how agents navigate both cooperative and non-cooperative strategic contexts using only their individual beliefs about others.
-
-## Evidence
-
-Ruiz-Serra et al. (2024) introduce factorised generative models for multi-agent active inference, where "each agent maintains explicit, individual-level beliefs about the internal states of other agents" through factorisation of the generative model. This enables "strategic planning in a joint context" without requiring centralized coordination or shared representations.
-
-The paper applies this framework to game-theoretic settings (iterated normal-form games with 2-3 players), demonstrating that agents can engage in strategic interaction using only their individual beliefs about others' internal states.
-
-## Architectural Implications
-
-This approach provides a formal foundation for decentralized multi-agent architectures:
-
-1. **No centralized world model required**: Each agent maintains its own beliefs about others, eliminating single points of failure and scaling bottlenecks.
-
-2. **Theory of Mind as computational mechanism**: Strategic planning emerges from individual beliefs about others' internal states, not from explicit communication protocols or shared representations.
-
-3. **Scalable strategic interaction**: The factorised approach extends to N-agent systems without requiring exponential growth in representational complexity.
-
-However, as demonstrated in [[individual-free-energy-minimization-does-not-guarantee-collective-optimization-in-multi-agent-active-inference]], decentralized representation does not automatically produce collective optimization—explicit coordination mechanisms remain necessary.
-
----
-
-Relevant Notes:
-- [[individual-free-energy-minimization-does-not-guarantee-collective-optimization-in-multi-agent-active-inference]]
-- [[subagent hierarchies outperform peer multi-agent architectures in practice because deployed systems consistently converge on one primary agent controlling specialized helpers]]
-- [[AI agent orchestration that routes data and tools between specialized models outperforms both single-model and human-coached approaches because the orchestrator contributes coordination not direction]]

domains/ai-alignment/individual-free-energy-minimization-does-not-guarantee-collective-optimization-in-multi-agent-active-inference.md

@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
----
-type: claim
-domain: ai-alignment
-secondary_domains: [collective-intelligence]
-description: "Ensemble-level expected free energy characterizes basins of attraction that may not align with individual agent optima, revealing a fundamental tension between individual and collective optimization"
-confidence: experimental
-source: "Ruiz-Serra et al., 'Factorised Active Inference for Strategic Multi-Agent Interactions' (AAMAS 2025)"
-created: 2026-03-11
----
-
-# Individual free energy minimization does not guarantee collective optimization in multi-agent active inference systems
-
-When multiple active inference agents interact strategically, each agent minimizes its own expected free energy (EFE) based on beliefs about other agents' internal states. However, the ensemble-level expected free energy—which characterizes basins of attraction in games with multiple Nash Equilibria—is not necessarily minimized at the aggregate level.
-
-This finding reveals a fundamental tension between individual and collective optimization in multi-agent active inference systems. Even when each agent successfully minimizes its individual free energy through strategic planning that incorporates Theory of Mind beliefs about others, the collective outcome may be suboptimal from a system-wide perspective.
-
-## Evidence
-
-Ruiz-Serra et al. (2024) applied factorised active inference to strategic multi-agent interactions in game-theoretic settings. Their key finding: "the ensemble-level expected free energy characterizes basins of attraction of games with multiple Nash Equilibria under different conditions" but "it is not necessarily minimised at the aggregate level."
-
-The paper demonstrates this through iterated normal-form games with 2 and 3 players, showing how the specific interaction structure (game type, communication channels) determines whether individual optimization produces collective intelligence or collective failure. The factorised generative model approach—where each agent maintains explicit individual-level beliefs about other agents' internal states—enables decentralized representation but does not automatically align individual and collective objectives.
-
-## Implications
-
-This result has direct architectural implications for multi-agent AI systems:
-
-1. **Explicit coordination mechanisms are necessary**: Simply giving each agent active inference dynamics and assuming collective optimization will emerge is insufficient. The gap between individual and collective optimization must be bridged through deliberate design.
-
-2. **Interaction structure matters**: The specific form of agent interaction—not just individual agent capability—determines whether collective intelligence emerges or whether individually optimal agents produce suboptimal collective outcomes.
-
-3. **Evaluator roles are formally justified**: In systems like the Teleo architecture, Leo's cross-domain synthesis role exists precisely because individual agent optimization doesn't guarantee collective optimization. The evaluator function bridges individual and collective free energy.
-
----
-
-Relevant Notes:
-- [[AI alignment is a coordination problem not a technical problem]]
-- [[collective intelligence requires diversity as a structural precondition not a moral preference]]
-- [[safe AI development requires building alignment mechanisms before scaling capability]]
-- [[AGI may emerge as a patchwork of coordinating sub-AGI agents rather than a single monolithic system]]

domains/ai-alignment/subagent hierarchies outperform peer multi-agent architectures in practice because deployed systems consistently converge on one primary agent controlling specialized helpers.md

@@ -21,12 +21,6 @@ This observation creates tension with [[multi-model collaboration solved problem
 
 For the collective superintelligence thesis, this is important. If subagent hierarchies consistently outperform peer architectures, then [[collective superintelligence is the alternative to monolithic AI controlled by a few]] needs to specify what "collective" means architecturally — not flat peer networks, but nested hierarchies with human principals at the top.
 
-
-### Additional Evidence (challenge)
-*Source: [[2024-11-00-ruiz-serra-factorised-active-inference-multi-agent]] | Added: 2026-03-12 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
-
-Ruiz-Serra et al.'s factorised active inference framework demonstrates successful peer multi-agent coordination without hierarchical control. Each agent maintains individual-level beliefs about others' internal states and performs strategic planning in a joint context through decentralized representation. The framework successfully handles iterated normal-form games with 2-3 players without requiring a primary controller. However, the finding that ensemble-level expected free energy is not necessarily minimized at the aggregate level suggests that while peer architectures can function, they may require explicit coordination mechanisms (effectively reintroducing hierarchy) to achieve collective optimization. This partially challenges the claim while explaining why hierarchies emerge in practice.
-
 ---
 
 Relevant Notes:
@@ -36,4 +30,4 @@ Relevant Notes:
 - [[collective superintelligence is the alternative to monolithic AI controlled by a few]] — needs architectural specification: hierarchy, not flat networks
 
 Topics:
-- domains/ai-alignment/_map
+- [[domains/ai-alignment/_map]]

entities/internet-finance/manna-finance-futardio-fundraise.md

@@ -1,46 +0,0 @@
----
-type: entity
-entity_type: decision_market
-name: "Manna Finance: Futardio Fundraise"
-domain: internet-finance
-status: failed
-parent_entity: "[[manna-finance]]"
-platform: "futardio"
-proposer: "Manna Finance team"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/5whxoTjxW4oKeSN4C8yf5JUur7pcSChkPWgmhSZQ8oD5"
-proposal_date: 2026-03-03
-resolution_date: 2026-03-04
-category: "fundraise"
-summary: "Zero-interest CDP protocol on Solana seeking $120K for 12-month runway"
-tracked_by: rio
-created: 2026-03-11
-key_metrics:
-  raise_target: "$120,000"
-  total_committed: "$205"
-  outcome: "refunding"
-  duration: "1 day"
-  oversubscription_ratio: 0.0017
----
-
-# Manna Finance: Futardio Fundraise
-
-## Summary
-Manna Finance attempted to raise $120,000 through Futardio to build a Liquity V1-style zero-interest CDP protocol on Solana. The fundraise sought 12 months of runway at $10,000/month burn rate, with funds allocated to smart contract audit ($15-25K), mainnet deployment, founder salary, and liquidity bootstrapping. The raise failed catastrophically, receiving only $205 in commitments (0.17% of target) before closing in refunding status after one day.
-
-## Market Data
-- **Outcome:** Failed (refunding)
-- **Raise Target:** $120,000
-- **Total Committed:** $205
-- **Duration:** 1 day (2026-03-03 to 2026-03-04)
-- **Oversubscription:** 0.17%
-
-## Significance
-This represents one of the most severe fundraise failures on Futardio's platform, with the raise attracting less than 0.2% of its target. The failure occurred despite detailed documentation including competitive analysis, roadmap, team structure, and go-to-market strategy. The project proposed MetaDAO futarchy governance from launch and positioned itself as the only zero-interest CDP on Solana, but failed to attract capital.
-
-The rapid closure (1 day) and refunding status suggests either lack of market interest in the CDP model on Solana, insufficient team credibility, or poor market timing. The project competed against established Solana stablecoins (USX, USDv, jupUSD, USDGO) with different mechanisms.
-
-## Relationship to KB
-- [[manna-finance]] — parent entity
-- [[futardio]] — fundraising platform
-- [[metadao]] — planned governance mechanism
-- Attempted implementation of [[futarchy-based fundraising creates regulatory separation because there are no beneficial owners and investment decisions emerge from market forces not centralized control]]

entities/internet-finance/manna-finance.md

@@ -1,33 +0,0 @@
----
-type: entity
-entity_type: company
-name: "Manna Finance"
-domain: internet-finance
-status: failed
-founded: 2026
-platform: solana
-tracked_by: rio
-created: 2026-03-11
-key_metrics:
-  raise_target: "$120,000"
-  total_committed: "$205"
-  raise_outcome: "refunding"
-  launch_date: "2026-03-03"
-  close_date: "2026-03-04"
----
-
-# Manna Finance
-
-Manna Finance is a zero-interest CDP (Collateralized Debt Position) protocol on Solana modeled after Liquity V1. Users deposit SOL as collateral to mint solUSD stablecoin with a one-time borrowing fee and no ongoing interest. The protocol maintains its peg through redemptions (solUSD exchangeable for $1 of SOL) and liquidations via a Stability Pool. Governance was planned via [[metadao]] futarchy from launch.
-
-The project attempted to raise $120,000 through [[futardio]] but received only $205 in commitments before entering refunding status after one day.
-
-## Timeline
-- **2026-03-03** — [[manna-finance-futardio-fundraise]] launched on Futardio seeking $120K for 12-month runway
-- **2026-03-04** — Fundraise closed in refunding status with $205 committed (0.17% of target)
-
-## Relationship to KB
-- [[futardio]] — fundraising platform
-- [[metadao]] — planned governance mechanism
-- Attempted to implement [[futarchy-based fundraising creates regulatory separation because there are no beneficial owners and investment decisions emerge from market forces not centralized control]]
-- Competed in market described by existing Solana stablecoin landscape (USX, USDv, jupUSD, USDGO)

entities/internet-finance/salmon-wallet-futardio-fundraise.md

@@ -1,63 +0,0 @@
----
-type: entity
-entity_type: decision_market
-name: "Salmon Wallet: Futardio Fundraise"
-domain: internet-finance
-status: failed
-parent_entity: "[[salmon-wallet]]"
-platform: futardio
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/Aakx1gdDoNQYqiv5uoqdXx56mGr6AbZh73SWpxHrk2qF"
-proposal_date: 2026-03-03
-resolution_date: 2026-03-04
-category: fundraise
-summary: "Open-source wallet infrastructure project seeking $375K for 12-month runway through futarchy-governed ICO"
-key_metrics:
-  raise_target: "$375,000"
-  total_committed: "$97,535"
-  oversubscription_ratio: 0.26
-  monthly_burn_rate: "$25,000"
-  planned_runway: "12 months"
-token:
-  name: "Salmon Token"
-  ticker: "SAL"
-  mint: "DDPW4sZT9GsSb2mSfY9Yi9EBZGnBQ2LvvJTXCpnLmeta"
-launch_address: "Aakx1gdDoNQYqiv5uoqdXx56mGr6AbZh73SWpxHrk2qF"
-tracked_by: rio
-created: 2026-03-11
----
-
-# Salmon Wallet: Futardio Fundraise
-
-## Summary
-Salmon Wallet attempted to raise $375,000 through MetaDAO's futarchy platform for 12-month operational runway covering wallet development, security, infrastructure, and mobile app releases. Despite being an established project (active since 2022, listed on Solana wallet adapter, $122.5K prior funding), the raise attracted only $97,535 (26% of target) before refunding. First observed futarchy-governed wallet infrastructure project on the platform.
-
-## Market Data
-- **Outcome:** Failed (refunding)
-- **Raise Target:** $375,000
-- **Total Committed:** $97,535
-- **Oversubscription:** 0.26x
-- **Duration:** 1 day (2026-03-03 to 2026-03-04)
-- **Token:** SAL (Salmon Token)
-
-## Use of Funds (Proposed)
-- **Team:** $18,300/month (73%)
-- **Infrastructure:** $4,200/month (17%)
-- **Growth & Ecosystem:** $2,000/month (8%)
-- **Governance, Legal & Contingency:** $500/month (2%)
-- **Total Monthly Burn:** $25,000
-- **Target Runway:** 12 months
-
-## Roadmap (Proposed)
-- Q2-2026: Android release, WebApp relaunch, signing flow optimization
-- Q3-2026: iOS TestFlight, staking integration, AI transaction security
-- Q4-2026: Custom notifications, portfolio view, Wallet-as-a-Service
-- Q1-2027: Cross-platform optimization, ecosystem integrations
-
-## Significance
-First empirical data point on futarchy adoption friction for operational software infrastructure versus pure capital allocation vehicles. The failed raise suggests futarchy mechanisms face challenges when applied to projects with ongoing operational complexity, team budgets, and multi-quarter development roadmaps. Despite technical credibility and operational history, the project could not achieve minimum viable liquidity in the futarchy market.
-
-## Relationship to KB
-- [[salmon-wallet]] — parent entity
-- [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]] — empirical confirmation
-- [[MetaDAO is the futarchy launchpad on Solana where projects raise capital through unruggable ICOs governed by conditional markets creating the first platform for ownership coins at scale]] — platform scope expansion test
-- [[futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations because market mechanisms alone cannot provide operational security and legal compliance]] — included traditional operational structures

entities/internet-finance/salmon-wallet.md

@@ -1,37 +0,0 @@
----
-type: entity
-entity_type: company
-name: Salmon Wallet
-domain: internet-finance
-status: active
-founded: 2022
-website: https://salmonwallet.io/
-github: https://github.com/salmon-wallet
-key_people:
-  - role: team
-    name: undisclosed
-key_metrics:
-  prior_funding: "$122,500"
-  bootstrap_funding: "$80,000"
-  grants_received: "$42,500"
-  futarchy_raise_target: "$375,000"
-  futarchy_raise_actual: "$97,535"
-  monthly_burn_rate: "$25,000"
-tracked_by: rio
-created: 2026-03-11
----
-
-# Salmon Wallet
-
-Open-source self-custodial cryptocurrency wallet built primarily on Solana with Bitcoin support. Active since 2022, listed on Solana wallet adapter. Attempted futarchy-governed fundraise on MetaDAO platform in March 2026 seeking $375K for 12-month operational runway, raising only $97,535 before refunding. Operates own Solana validator for transparent revenue. Governance via SAL token using futarchy model.
-
-## Timeline
-- **2022** — Project founded, listed on Solana wallet adapter, received $80K bootstrap funding
-- **2022-2024** — Received $42.5K in grants (Serum: $2.5K, Eclipse: $40K)
-- **2026-03-03** — [[salmon-wallet-futardio-fundraise]] launched on futard.io seeking $375K
-- **2026-03-04** — Fundraise closed with $97,535 raised (26% of target), status: Refunding
-
-## Relationship to KB
-- [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]] — empirical case of adoption friction for operational software
-- [[MetaDAO is the futarchy launchpad on Solana where projects raise capital through unruggable ICOs governed by conditional markets creating the first platform for ownership coins at scale]] — first wallet infrastructure project on platform
-- [[futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations because market mechanisms alone cannot provide operational security and legal compliance]] — included traditional operational structures despite futarchy governance

inbox/archive/2024-11-00-ruiz-serra-factorised-active-inference-multi-agent.md

@@ -7,15 +7,9 @@ date: 2024-11-00
 domain: ai-alignment
 secondary_domains: [collective-intelligence]
 format: paper
-status: processed
+status: unprocessed
 priority: medium
 tags: [active-inference, multi-agent, game-theory, strategic-interaction, factorised-generative-model, nash-equilibrium]
-processed_by: theseus
-processed_date: 2026-03-11
-claims_extracted: ["individual-free-energy-minimization-does-not-guarantee-collective-optimization-in-multi-agent-active-inference.md", "factorised-generative-models-enable-decentralized-multi-agent-representation-through-individual-level-beliefs.md"]
-enrichments_applied: ["AI alignment is a coordination problem not a technical problem.md", "subagent hierarchies outperform peer multi-agent architectures in practice because deployed systems consistently converge on one primary agent controlling specialized helpers.md"]
-extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
-extraction_notes: "Extracted two novel claims about multi-agent active inference: (1) individual free energy minimization doesn't guarantee collective optimization, and (2) factorised generative models enable decentralized strategic planning through individual beliefs about others. Applied three enrichments extending/challenging existing coordination and collective intelligence claims. The paper provides formal game-theoretic evidence for why explicit coordination mechanisms (like Leo's evaluator role) are necessary in multi-agent systems—individual optimization and collective optimization are not automatically aligned."
 ---
 
 ## Content

inbox/archive/2026-03-03-futardio-launch-manna-finance.md

@@ -6,13 +6,9 @@ url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/5whxoTjxW4oKeSN4C8yf5JUur7pcSChkPWgmhSZQ8oD5"
 date: 2026-03-03
 domain: internet-finance
 format: data
-status: processed
+status: unprocessed
 tags: [futardio, metadao, futarchy, solana]
 event_type: launch
-processed_by: rio
-processed_date: 2026-03-11
-extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
-extraction_notes: "Failed fundraise entity extraction. No novel claims about futarchy mechanisms or CDP economics — all information is factual (raise amounts, timeline, competitive positioning). The failure itself is a data point but doesn't constitute an arguable claim without broader pattern evidence. Created entity pages for Manna Finance and its fundraise decision market, updated Futardio timeline."
 ---
 
 ## Launch Details
@@ -190,12 +186,3 @@ We're not pitching to VCs. We're raising from the community that will use and go
 - Token mint: `DQuz3AeodGAoyXV5MG56F1ZqvgRpn1VhFwFskW6Jmeta`
 - Version: v0.7
 - Closed: 2026-03-04
-
-
-## Key Facts
-- Manna Finance raised $205 of $120,000 target (0.17% success rate) on Futardio (2026-03-03)
-- Manna proposed zero-interest CDP protocol on Solana with one-time 0.5% borrowing fee
-- Manna planned $10,000/month burn rate: 70% team, 10% infrastructure, 15% marketing, 5% security/legal
-- Manna competitive landscape: USX (Solstice), USDv (Solomon), jupUSD (Jupiter), USDGO (OSL)
-- Manna planned MetaDAO futarchy governance from launch
-- Fundraise closed in refunding status after 1 day (2026-03-04)

inbox/archive/2026-03-03-futardio-launch-salmon-wallet.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/Aakx1gdDoNQYqiv5uoqdXx56mGr6AbZh73SWpxHrk2qF"
 date: 2026-03-03
 domain: internet-finance
 format: data
-status: processed
+status: unprocessed
 tags: [futardio, metadao, futarchy, solana]
 event_type: launch
 processed_by: rio
@@ -14,11 +14,6 @@ processed_date: 2026-03-11
 enrichments_applied: ["MetaDAO is the futarchy launchpad on Solana where projects raise capital through unruggable ICOs governed by conditional markets creating the first platform for ownership coins at scale.md", "futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements.md", "futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations because market mechanisms alone cannot provide operational security and legal compliance.md"]
 extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
 extraction_notes: "First observed futarchy-governed wallet infrastructure project on MetaDAO platform. Failed raise provides empirical data on futarchy adoption friction for operational software vs pure capital allocation vehicles. Enriches existing claims about MetaDAO scope expansion, adoption barriers, and operational governance challenges."
-processed_by: rio
-processed_date: 2026-03-11
-enrichments_applied: ["futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements.md", "MetaDAO is the futarchy launchpad on Solana where projects raise capital through unruggable ICOs governed by conditional markets creating the first platform for ownership coins at scale.md", "futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations because market mechanisms alone cannot provide operational security and legal compliance.md"]
-extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
-extraction_notes: "First observed futarchy-governed wallet infrastructure project on MetaDAO platform. Failed raise provides empirical data on futarchy adoption friction for operational software vs pure capital allocation vehicles. No new claims extracted — all insights enrich existing claims about MetaDAO scope expansion, adoption barriers, and operational governance challenges. Created entity pages for Salmon Wallet and the decision market, updated Futardio timeline."
 ---
 
 ## Launch Details
@@ -220,13 +215,3 @@ Secondary:
 - Launch address: Aakx1gdDoNQYqiv5uoqdXx56mGr6AbZh73SWpxHrk2qF
 - Operates own Solana validator for transparent revenue
 - Listed on Solana wallet adapter since 2022
-
-
-## Key Facts
-- Salmon Wallet active since 2022, listed on Solana wallet adapter
-- Prior funding: $80K bootstrap + $42.5K grants (Serum $2.5K, Eclipse $40K)
-- Futarchy raise: $97,535/$375,000 (26% of target) before refunding
-- Proposed burn rate: $25K/month for 12-month runway
-- Token: SAL (Salmon Token), mint: DDPW4sZT9GsSb2mSfY9Yi9EBZGnBQ2LvvJTXCpnLmeta
-- Launch address: Aakx1gdDoNQYqiv5uoqdXx56mGr6AbZh73SWpxHrk2qF
-- Operates own Solana validator for revenue