.png)
.png)
Rugs… too many in just a short period of time.
Well, people got experience from other blockchains and came on BSC for quick cash as it should’ve been expected.
The number of rugs has slowed down a bit in the last couple of days, but is it over? No, and rugs will never stop appearing.
But can we learn how to spot sketchy aspects of a project?
Yes! And that’s what we’re going to be discussing today.
I will try to explain in great detail the points I made clear in the tweet above, along with others that I deem necessary.
Okay, I’m taking too long, here is a table of contents:
When it comes to a new project I have a list in mind of what I should look for. I’ll first give you the list here and then we can discuss each one in particular.
Keep in mind that those are just potential red flags that should alarm you, but that doesn’t mean the project is 100% safe or a scam. I'll explain the point above in the "The most important thing" part.
This will be the first red flag I’m going to be discussing today.
Rushed projects appear overnight and in less than 12 hours (most of the time) they have:
I also notice that the domains are registered just hours before launch, a major red flag for me, since it obviously takes more time to prepare a great project, but it only takes a few hours to fork an existing one.
This one is easy.
Just go to whois.domaintools.com, paste the link in the search bar, and then scroll down to “dates” to check how old a domain is.
Here we’ll have to check the contracts.
Most often than not fly-by projects don’t even edit their forked contracts properly, leaving clues that the project is rushed and the developers are careless.
The example above is taken from the infamous WineSwap rug-pull, where the MasterChef contract wasn’t even fully edited and the developers left in the main names of the Sushi functions.
Maybe the first thing that comes to mind to most people is to check contracts, but I like to do that as the last task.
Checking how the overall website looks gives me an idea about how much the developers have actually worked on the project before release.
Here I can even decide if it is worth investing in the project or not.
I tend to take a brief look around the website, mainly checking for:
Let’s take this random project I found on Twitter as an example.
I’ve found this project on Twitter after I was tagged by CryptoDeus in a post related to it, where he makes clear his concerns about it and warns people it might not be that safe to enter.
I’ll be honest with you, after checking out the website I feel the need to wash my hands…
It isn’t mainly about it looking bad, but more about the fact that it is clearly rushed, and when you rush something you’re clearly only looking for the end-goal, ignoring the path along the way.
In this step, we’ll take a look at how social media is handled by the team.
Because I like to be extra-careful and cherry-pick the projects I join I’ll also take a look at the overall appearance.
Let’s compare one of the first tweets of PancakeSwap to the first tweets of “Phoinikas”.
You can see:
Overall a nice tweet. I like it.
Also, the airdrop (at least for me) is kinda sketchy. Trying to market the project even before it is released.
Airdrops are a common thing projects do, especially new ones. But for me it can be a red flag. I'd like to encourage you to form your own opinion about everything. You have to decide what is a red flag for you and what isn't.
Tons of questions that were not responded to, some people were even asking “when rug?” and people that sent their wallet addresses (for the airdrop) were being banned.
Here comes my favorite thing, social media proof.
When it comes to a new project I can forgive the not-so-appealing website appearance and maybe try to not be too harsh on the social media management, but I’ll never forgive fake social media proof (fake likes, fake followers, fake Telegram members, etc).
Buying Twitter followers and Telegram members is extremely cheap, especially if you buy directly from providers and not from resellers (Not gonna teach you how, don’t even ask. Never buy fake social proof, it only hurts your growth).
As you can see, you can buy 5,000 Twitter followers and 5,000 Telegram members for a whopping $20.30 USD.
Let’s first learn how a fake Twitter account (a bot) looks like.
Fake accounts are easy to spot, especially the really cheap ones as stated in the disclaimer above.
Fake Telegram members are also semi-easy to spot.
As you can see there is a similarity here:
Let’s also see an example from WineSwap’s Telegram group.
These are higher quality.
In the example above you can see that after mass-joining the fake accounts only typed “hi” and “hello”, clearly not natural.
But, what makes spotting fake social media proof extremely easy is checking the followers list as a whole.
It is easier to see batches of fake accounts rather than trying to pick them individually.
Let me show you.
Let’s take a look at Phoinikas.Finance’s social media.
Seems like they have 1,796 Twitter followers and 1,841 Telegram members.
Okay, it doesn’t seem like much, does it? Well, it kinda is if you ask me, but not as much to raise immediate red flags.
WineSwap raised so many red flags at first because in their first day they had over 5,000 followers on Twitter and over 5,000 Telegram members.
But, let’s check them as a whole, should we?
Let’s take a quick look at the accounts that follow Phoinikas.Finance on Twitter.
Okay… well, I think that’s obvious enough and doesn’t need to be explained.
Let’s check who liked their posts, those must be real people!
Okay… there is still hope on their Telegram!
Please be real people…
I think I just lost faith in humanity at this point.
I need to do something real quick…
I’m back, had to wash my hands a second time.
It is extremely obvious that the project bought fake Twitter followers, likes, and Telegram members.
Also, you can see a discrepancy when it comes to the engagement on their Twitter posts.
There is a clear discrepancy between the engagement the giveaway had and their other posts. Yes, a giveaway is supposed to get more engagement, but not that much.
Tip: If a random project that's one or two days old already has thousands of followers it should immediately be a red flag for you and you should start looking into it.
Anyway, at this point, I think it is clear that the above project bought some fake stuff to make it look more legitimate.
Let’s move on to other things you should look for.
Well…
I just came back home, looking forward to continuing writing the article only to see that the website “phoinikas.finance” now redirects to a clone of “turing.finance” (whatever that project is) and that they rugged.
Imagine rugging while an article about “how to spot a potential rug” is using you as an example of a potential rug.
Man, this world is wild.
This one is a bit harder to come through, but I felt like including it here.
Intrusive marketing is when projects use bots and/or fake accounts to “spread the word” about a project on Twitter on random people’s posts and/or tag a massive amount of people in a project’s post.
Let’s take both situations at a time.
As you can see in the picture above this fake account is trying to silently shill WineSwap in CryptoBethany’s posts.
This is a silent way of making people aware that the project exists, and believe it or not many people ape into random projects on Twitter, so this strategy is working.
Mass tagging is quite straight forward. Just a bot tagging random people in the replies of the project’s posts.
You can’t really save yourself from being tagged by bots as they tag people that follow another project or people that liked a certain tweet (since people that liked the tweet tend to be more active on social media).
Anyway, mass tagging isn’t as bad on Twitter as it is on Instagram.
Many thanks to Defi Khaled for helping me write this part.
Now, here we come to the real deal.
You can fake anything, but you can’t fake code.
When it comes to contracts there are four main things I look for:
Let’s take each one at a time and explain it.
A contract is verified only when you can see the green check-marks on its bscscan.com page.
When a contract is verified it means that the developer added a human-readable version that’s an exact match of the actual code.
Nothing more, nothing less. It just means that the contract you see it’s the real one.
You should immediately run from YF MasterChef contracts:
If you see the above, you can’t read it.
While every project has unverified contracts at some point (especially the ones with runtime logic such as games) you have to be very careful with it.
The MasterChef contract and other main contracts of a project should always be verified.
The same applies to non-verified contracts that are readable.
If a contract has the human-readable version but it isn’t verified it means that what’s shown to you isn’t the actual code, so the developers might be trying to hide something from you.
Here is how a mint function looks like on BSCScan’s UI.
And here it’s how it looks like in code.
A mint function allows the contract owner to create more tokens “out of thin air”.
The rugging method using the _mint function is when the owner gives himself a bunch of tokens and then sells them, bringing the price of the token to almost $0.00 USD and screwing everyone over.
No, absolutely not.
A mint function is needed, especially when tokens are minted every block for rewards (in the case of yield farms such as PancakeSwap, Thugs, Narwhalswap, etc)
Well, this is a tough one.
Always make sure there is a need for it.
Yield Farms and other projects with unlimited supply will always have a mint function because that’s what their project relies on, but if you’re trading a token that is supposed to have a maximum supply but it has a _mint function then it should raise a red flag.
A wonderful thing for tokens that have a maximum supply is when the developers set the owner of the contract to the dead address (0x00…dead) like beefy.finance did with their $BIFI token.
A time-lock delays the function’s orders for the time specified in the time-lock, and the call will be public on BSCScan until the execution of said orders.
Yes and no.
Don’t let Timelock be a buzzword; they’re only as effective as their usage, not inherent safety.
While yes, the calls will be public until the execution and anybody can read them you’ll also need someone to be constantly checking for changes.
Set up an alert on the time-lock contract.
You can do it by adding the contract to your watch-list within BSCscan and you’ll be notified via e-mail every time the time-lock does a transaction.
A developer can set the ownership address of a contract to the dead address (0x000…dead) and make the contract completely untouchable, but remember that this also means everything has to be perfectly done before the execution and that in case of an emergency the developers can’t help since they don’t have access to it themselves.
I prefer a trustworthy team and a time-lock rather than an untouchable contract.
The decentralized world might look scary at first glance.
It can be complicated, it requires a lot of research and most of the time there are going to be risks that come with it.
But should that discourage you from joining new projects?
Absolutely not.
Taking safety precautions and investing only what you can afford to lose is the way to go.
The thing that gets people stuck in rugs is greed. It is the idea of getting rich quick, going all-in in a one-hour old project thinking they will have those x100 gains overnight.
Be safe out there.
Stop dreaming about overnight success and focus on continuously growing instead.
Let’s re-cap what you should look for when considering joining a new project.
This is how I personally check out the projects.
On top of what I already said, as a final note, ask yourself the following: Is it too good to be true?
If the answer is yes, take a step back, and analyze the situation, assign yourself some limits, and try to be careful with it.
Stay safe!
You might also want to read: How To Keep Your Funds SAFE — MetaMask Guide
—
The Ape 🦍
Follow: Twitter
Ethereum celebrated an anniversary Friday, July 30. The world-changing blockchain that brought us smart chain technology and major innovations in crypto like decentralized finance and non-fungible tokens, turns six years old.
From the depths of Berlin in 2015, the blockchain built to change the world is on the verge of potentially its most important blockchain forks -- London Hard Fork.
As of late 2020, Ethereum has grown too big even for itself. The anticipation around crypto could not be higher for the upcoming fork. The first mentions of these changes came in 2019.
As the confetti settles from the birthday bash, Ethereum is set to make major changes in the functionality of its blockchain. On August 4th, Ethereum will complete its hard fork and take a critical step toward an overarching scalability upgrade of the network. But while all of crypto waits with bated breath, the Ethereum team appears unphased.
“Originally we envisioned something more like a big grant event where all the good things would happen at the same time and [Ethereum] would be a new blockchain and it would be a new protocol and people would have to take a lot of efforts to migrate over but later we've slowly changed the roadmap over to something that's much more incremental,” Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, told the Lex Fridman Podcast in June.
The hard fork results in a new transaction validation system due to the EIP 1559 proposal that passed. The chain will utilize a proof-of-stake system, allowing for more scalability and environmentally friendly consensus.
“Proof of stake happens kind of overtime, and then sharding is added over time, and all of these features get added over time. And so the experience for just a regular Ethereum user will still feel very seamless. It's maybe a little bit more complex than the hard forks that we've already done, but from a user's point of view not by that much,” Vitalik continued.
The updates will incorporate cutting-edge blockchain technology like sharding and move the chain from proof-of-work versus a proof-of-stake. The implications of these changes could bring a more efficient, secure, and sustainable Ethereum blockchain.
The hard fork will integrate five immediate updates called EIPs (Ethereum Improvement Proposals). Each change aims at optimizing and improving the network.
The most controversial and anticipated upgrade, dubbed "London," is EIP 1559. The EIP 1559 will make Ethereum less inflationary and is controversial because it will begin burning fees that previously went to miners.
This upgrade is the central improvement in an attempt to generate greater bandwidth and reduce transaction fees on the chain and is critical to the changeover to Proof-of-Stake.
“I like proof of stake. And I've liked proof of stake for many years, basically because it just requires much less ongoing resource consumption.” Buterin explained to Fridman. And about the benefits of adding validators, Vitalik added: “This is good for a few reasons: one is the kind of environmental rationale that you're not breaking the environment. The second is that you're not taking away electricity and other resources from other people.”
The hard fork does not come without criticism. There is the issue with miners losing their fees and the questions around Miner Extractable Value (MEV) remain unanswered.
Some argue that proof-of-stake will increase the centralization of the chain as well. Vitalik celebrates the environmental benefits of the overall transition and the preferred long-term benefits of the updates.
He welcomes the criticisms as good problems to have and looks forward to solutions. Despite being ‘controversial’ it is still likely the most anticipated fork in crypto history.
As Vitalik told Fridman on the podcast, the user will not see too many changes in how Ethereum will work––the major changes come behind the scenes. The Ethereum chain has fought hard in seeking to solve major scalability issues like congestion and latency.
Throughout, it still holds strong as the second most important blockchain, and rightfully deserved. But if it wants to keep competing, it will need to try and catch up to the speeds and transactions of newer chains like Binance Smart Chain and Solana.
The new updates and their incremental applications should make the next few months––and years––an exciting race for the top crypto and blockchain.
ApeSwap has shifted the date for its seventh Initial Ape Offering (IAO) with play-to-earn protocol, Dragonary, following a change in IAO vesting process enacted by community votes.
BSC.News earlier reported ApeSwap’s partnership with Dragonary on July 29th to collaborate for its seventh Initial Ape Offering (IAO 007). The Decentralized Exchange (DEX) protocol scheduled the IAO for August 2nd. However, due to some quality changes that arose from the new IAO vesting proposal, the ApeSwap team has decided to postpone IAO 007, according to its Tweet, from 30th July.
“With that in mind, we will be delaying IA0 007. The new date for Dragonary’s IAO is set for August 7th at 16:00 UTC,” read the official ApeSwap Twitter communication.
An IAO is a unique innovation created by the Binance Smart Chain-based DEX, ApeSwap. It was designed to support promising projects with fundraising by listing their tokens.
Projects like ApeRocket, Bitfresh, Hifi DeFi, JediYield, HyperuleSwap, and Bishares have shown massive development since utilizing ApeSwap’s IAO platform. Dragonary is the latest to join.
The new vesting process requires that 25% of tokens will be distributed immediately and the remaining 75% of tokens will be distributed over three months.
Notably, the change was provoked by community votes after many ApeSwap users proposed a change in the vesting process. Users voted on a new token claim structure, and the campaign lasted for five days (July 17 to July 21).
To satisfy the needs of its users, the ApeSwap team has created a whole new set of smart contracts. The new smart contracts come with new audits to ensure that users' funds are safe and secure. According to the update, the date for completing the audits has been set, but there will be a need to test, review, and possibly re-audit codes if necessary.
Therefore, the postponement of the IAO is attributed to the fact that the ApeSwap team wants to make sure that the new smart contract codes, including audits, are working effectively. In essence, they want to have enough time to test the smart contracts before launching the IAO with Dragonary.
With this, ApeSwap ensures that the safety of the community is its number one priority. In addition, users can anticipate a flawless IAO for Dragonary.
ApeSwap is a top name in the BSC network. It is the leading DEX on the BSC, which offers users the best trading experience. ApeSwap is a blend of a decentralized exchange, yield farming, staking, and an automated market maker (AMM). ApeSwap users are urged to partake in its liquidity pool offerings via yield farming to earn its native BANANA token. What's more, these earned tokens can be used to stake and earn other tokens and unlock deluxe features.
For more information about ApeSwap, visit the platform's media links:
Let’s talk about how to spot a potential rug.
Rugs… too many in just a short period of time.
Well, people got experience from other blockchains and came on BSC for quick cash as it should’ve been expected.
The number of rugs has slowed down a bit in the last couple of days, but is it over? No, and rugs will never stop appearing.
But can we learn how to spot sketchy aspects of a project?
Yes! And that’s what we’re going to be discussing today.
I will try to explain in great detail the points I made clear in the tweet above, along with others that I deem necessary.
Okay, I’m taking too long, here is a table of contents:
When it comes to a new project I have a list in mind of what I should look for. I’ll first give you the list here and then we can discuss each one in particular.
Keep in mind that those are just potential red flags that should alarm you, but that doesn’t mean the project is 100% safe or a scam. I'll explain the point above in the "The most important thing" part.
This will be the first red flag I’m going to be discussing today.
Rushed projects appear overnight and in less than 12 hours (most of the time) they have:
I also notice that the domains are registered just hours before launch, a major red flag for me, since it obviously takes more time to prepare a great project, but it only takes a few hours to fork an existing one.
This one is easy.
Just go to whois.domaintools.com, paste the link in the search bar, and then scroll down to “dates” to check how old a domain is.
Here we’ll have to check the contracts.
Most often than not fly-by projects don’t even edit their forked contracts properly, leaving clues that the project is rushed and the developers are careless.
The example above is taken from the infamous WineSwap rug-pull, where the MasterChef contract wasn’t even fully edited and the developers left in the main names of the Sushi functions.
Maybe the first thing that comes to mind to most people is to check contracts, but I like to do that as the last task.
Checking how the overall website looks gives me an idea about how much the developers have actually worked on the project before release.
Here I can even decide if it is worth investing in the project or not.
I tend to take a brief look around the website, mainly checking for:
Let’s take this random project I found on Twitter as an example.
I’ve found this project on Twitter after I was tagged by CryptoDeus in a post related to it, where he makes clear his concerns about it and warns people it might not be that safe to enter.
I’ll be honest with you, after checking out the website I feel the need to wash my hands…
It isn’t mainly about it looking bad, but more about the fact that it is clearly rushed, and when you rush something you’re clearly only looking for the end-goal, ignoring the path along the way.
In this step, we’ll take a look at how social media is handled by the team.
Because I like to be extra-careful and cherry-pick the projects I join I’ll also take a look at the overall appearance.
Let’s compare one of the first tweets of PancakeSwap to the first tweets of “Phoinikas”.
You can see:
Overall a nice tweet. I like it.
Also, the airdrop (at least for me) is kinda sketchy. Trying to market the project even before it is released.
Airdrops are a common thing projects do, especially new ones. But for me it can be a red flag. I'd like to encourage you to form your own opinion about everything. You have to decide what is a red flag for you and what isn't.
Tons of questions that were not responded to, some people were even asking “when rug?” and people that sent their wallet addresses (for the airdrop) were being banned.
Here comes my favorite thing, social media proof.
When it comes to a new project I can forgive the not-so-appealing website appearance and maybe try to not be too harsh on the social media management, but I’ll never forgive fake social media proof (fake likes, fake followers, fake Telegram members, etc).
Buying Twitter followers and Telegram members is extremely cheap, especially if you buy directly from providers and not from resellers (Not gonna teach you how, don’t even ask. Never buy fake social proof, it only hurts your growth).
As you can see, you can buy 5,000 Twitter followers and 5,000 Telegram members for a whopping $20.30 USD.
Let’s first learn how a fake Twitter account (a bot) looks like.
Fake accounts are easy to spot, especially the really cheap ones as stated in the disclaimer above.
Fake Telegram members are also semi-easy to spot.
As you can see there is a similarity here:
Let’s also see an example from WineSwap’s Telegram group.
These are higher quality.
In the example above you can see that after mass-joining the fake accounts only typed “hi” and “hello”, clearly not natural.
But, what makes spotting fake social media proof extremely easy is checking the followers list as a whole.
It is easier to see batches of fake accounts rather than trying to pick them individually.
Let me show you.
Let’s take a look at Phoinikas.Finance’s social media.
Seems like they have 1,796 Twitter followers and 1,841 Telegram members.
Okay, it doesn’t seem like much, does it? Well, it kinda is if you ask me, but not as much to raise immediate red flags.
WineSwap raised so many red flags at first because in their first day they had over 5,000 followers on Twitter and over 5,000 Telegram members.
But, let’s check them as a whole, should we?
Let’s take a quick look at the accounts that follow Phoinikas.Finance on Twitter.
Okay… well, I think that’s obvious enough and doesn’t need to be explained.
Let’s check who liked their posts, those must be real people!
Okay… there is still hope on their Telegram!
Please be real people…
I think I just lost faith in humanity at this point.
I need to do something real quick…
I’m back, had to wash my hands a second time.
It is extremely obvious that the project bought fake Twitter followers, likes, and Telegram members.
Also, you can see a discrepancy when it comes to the engagement on their Twitter posts.
There is a clear discrepancy between the engagement the giveaway had and their other posts. Yes, a giveaway is supposed to get more engagement, but not that much.
Tip: If a random project that's one or two days old already has thousands of followers it should immediately be a red flag for you and you should start looking into it.
Anyway, at this point, I think it is clear that the above project bought some fake stuff to make it look more legitimate.
Let’s move on to other things you should look for.
Well…
I just came back home, looking forward to continuing writing the article only to see that the website “phoinikas.finance” now redirects to a clone of “turing.finance” (whatever that project is) and that they rugged.
Imagine rugging while an article about “how to spot a potential rug” is using you as an example of a potential rug.
Man, this world is wild.
This one is a bit harder to come through, but I felt like including it here.
Intrusive marketing is when projects use bots and/or fake accounts to “spread the word” about a project on Twitter on random people’s posts and/or tag a massive amount of people in a project’s post.
Let’s take both situations at a time.
As you can see in the picture above this fake account is trying to silently shill WineSwap in CryptoBethany’s posts.
This is a silent way of making people aware that the project exists, and believe it or not many people ape into random projects on Twitter, so this strategy is working.
Mass tagging is quite straight forward. Just a bot tagging random people in the replies of the project’s posts.
You can’t really save yourself from being tagged by bots as they tag people that follow another project or people that liked a certain tweet (since people that liked the tweet tend to be more active on social media).
Anyway, mass tagging isn’t as bad on Twitter as it is on Instagram.
Many thanks to Defi Khaled for helping me write this part.
Now, here we come to the real deal.
You can fake anything, but you can’t fake code.
When it comes to contracts there are four main things I look for:
Let’s take each one at a time and explain it.
A contract is verified only when you can see the green check-marks on its bscscan.com page.
When a contract is verified it means that the developer added a human-readable version that’s an exact match of the actual code.
Nothing more, nothing less. It just means that the contract you see it’s the real one.
You should immediately run from YF MasterChef contracts:
If you see the above, you can’t read it.
While every project has unverified contracts at some point (especially the ones with runtime logic such as games) you have to be very careful with it.
The MasterChef contract and other main contracts of a project should always be verified.
The same applies to non-verified contracts that are readable.
If a contract has the human-readable version but it isn’t verified it means that what’s shown to you isn’t the actual code, so the developers might be trying to hide something from you.
Here is how a mint function looks like on BSCScan’s UI.
And here it’s how it looks like in code.
A mint function allows the contract owner to create more tokens “out of thin air”.
The rugging method using the _mint function is when the owner gives himself a bunch of tokens and then sells them, bringing the price of the token to almost $0.00 USD and screwing everyone over.
No, absolutely not.
A mint function is needed, especially when tokens are minted every block for rewards (in the case of yield farms such as PancakeSwap, Thugs, Narwhalswap, etc)
Well, this is a tough one.
Always make sure there is a need for it.
Yield Farms and other projects with unlimited supply will always have a mint function because that’s what their project relies on, but if you’re trading a token that is supposed to have a maximum supply but it has a _mint function then it should raise a red flag.
A wonderful thing for tokens that have a maximum supply is when the developers set the owner of the contract to the dead address (0x00…dead) like beefy.finance did with their $BIFI token.
A time-lock delays the function’s orders for the time specified in the time-lock, and the call will be public on BSCScan until the execution of said orders.
Yes and no.
Don’t let Timelock be a buzzword; they’re only as effective as their usage, not inherent safety.
While yes, the calls will be public until the execution and anybody can read them you’ll also need someone to be constantly checking for changes.
Set up an alert on the time-lock contract.
You can do it by adding the contract to your watch-list within BSCscan and you’ll be notified via e-mail every time the time-lock does a transaction.
A developer can set the ownership address of a contract to the dead address (0x000…dead) and make the contract completely untouchable, but remember that this also means everything has to be perfectly done before the execution and that in case of an emergency the developers can’t help since they don’t have access to it themselves.
I prefer a trustworthy team and a time-lock rather than an untouchable contract.
The decentralized world might look scary at first glance.
It can be complicated, it requires a lot of research and most of the time there are going to be risks that come with it.
But should that discourage you from joining new projects?
Absolutely not.
Taking safety precautions and investing only what you can afford to lose is the way to go.
The thing that gets people stuck in rugs is greed. It is the idea of getting rich quick, going all-in in a one-hour old project thinking they will have those x100 gains overnight.
Be safe out there.
Stop dreaming about overnight success and focus on continuously growing instead.
Let’s re-cap what you should look for when considering joining a new project.
This is how I personally check out the projects.
On top of what I already said, as a final note, ask yourself the following: Is it too good to be true?
If the answer is yes, take a step back, and analyze the situation, assign yourself some limits, and try to be careful with it.
Stay safe!
You might also want to read: How To Keep Your Funds SAFE — MetaMask Guide
—
The Ape 🦍
Follow: Twitter
.jpg)
