web3空投姐

Wait, Core has connected successfully, so why do I still have to wait before I can be matched with public tasks?

I thought I’d be able to start picking up tasks as soon as onboarding was complete.

But after checking the official Cargo docs, I found out there’s also a warmup period.

The official docs currently say that after a new Core connects, there’s a warmup period of up to 3 epochs, or about 4.5 hours.

Only after that period are you eligible for public task matching.

Note that this means you’re eligible to be matched—it doesn’t guarantee you’ll get a task as soon as the time is up.

That said, you’re not completely unable to run tasks while you wait.

Acurast also offers Instant Deploy (instantMatch), which lets developers specify a particular Processor to deploy to, bypassing the wait for public matching.

These are two separate paths and should be considered separately.

By the way, your phone can provide computing power to the Acurast network and participate in $ACU incentives according to the protocol rules.

But connecting successfully, becoming eligible for matching, actually receiving a task, and meeting the reward requirements are not all the same thing.

So if you’re planning to put an idle phone to work, first check when it connected and review the official warmup rules.

Don’t assume you’ll get public tasks immediately after connecting.

@Acurast

Official docs: https://docs.acurast.com/developers/getting-started/quickstart-cargo/

Personal participation link: https://hub.acurast.com/rebellion?ref=ikgnqo

#Acurast #ACU #DePIN #手机算力

Good afternoon, ladies!

Are phones really this powerful now? They can even run AI Agents—does that mean large language models are installed on phones too? 😂

When I saw @Acurast’s Hermes demo, I really wanted to get to the bottom of this. After reading the official documentation, I learned that they actually work separately.

Acurast’s phone Processor provides the runtime environment through Cargo, while Hermes handles the Agent’s tasks and workflows. When a large language model is needed, Hermes calls an external model service through OpenRouter. The official instructions even specifically require you to configure OPENROUTER_API_KEY.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense.

The phone does handle the actual work of running the AI Agent, but at least in this official Hermes example, model calls go through OpenRouter. So you shouldn’t assume that the large model’s weights are also deployed on the phone. Next time you see AI running on a phone, ask yourself: is it the Agent that’s running, or is the model itself running locally?

#Acurast hub.acurast.com/rebellion?ref=ikgnqo

Good afternoon, ladies!

Can you connect an idle phone to @Acurast, get it online, lock the screen, set it aside, and have it keep providing computing power indefinitely? Hold on—this is one thing we shouldn’t take for granted.

I took a close look at the official Processor 1.26.0 release notes and found that, at the time, both Lite and Core on Android followed a foreground-running rule. The app had to stay in the foreground to keep providing computing power. Once it was moved to the background or the screen was turned off, it would stop sending heartbeats and handling task assignments. Turns out, something as simple as locking the screen could affect how the phone works.

Acurast does let phones participate in a compute network and earn $ACU rewards under the protocol rules, including base Benchmark rewards and potentially Staked Compute rewards for staking computing power. But successfully registering a phone doesn’t mean it will continue to meet the operating requirements, and it certainly doesn’t mean you can just lock the screen and leave it to earn rewards.

That said, these are the rules set out for Android Processor 1.26.0. Version 1.27.2 later fixed some heartbeat issues that occurred while tasks were running. Checking the latest version, the stable release is now 1.28.0, but its release notes still don’t clearly say that the foreground requirement has been removed. I haven’t tested screen-locked operation on the current version myself, so I can’t say that all phones behave the same way.

If you’re planning to use an idle phone, it’s best to check the version you have installed and the latest operating requirements before deciding how to set up your phone. Factor in the rewards, but also consider the wear and tear on your phone—you don’t want to end up damaging the battery.

#Acurast Official release notes:

https://github.com/Acurast/acurast-processor-update/releases/tag/processor-1.26.0

https://github.com/Acurast/acurast-processor-update/releases/tag/processor-1.28.0

https://hub.acurast.com/rebellion?ref=ikgnqo

Good afternoon, everyone!

I used to think that if one Canary wallet managed five Processors and I wanted to move two of them to another wallet, it would work pretty much like transferring tokens: just select two and send them over. But after taking a closer look at @Acurast, I realized that’s not how it works at all 😅

Canary Processor Ownership transfers apply to the account as a whole.

When you transfer, all the Processors under that account move together. You can’t just pick one or two to transfer separately. And the recipient can’t be just any existing wallet—the official requirements say it must be a brand-new Canary account: one that has never been used, has a zero balance, and doesn’t already hold any Processors or tokens.

What makes it even more confusing is that Processors and cACU follow completely different transfer rules. cACU can be transferred in any amount within the Canary network, but you can’t split management rights for five Processors into, say, two and three. The machines are individual units, but under these rules, they have to move together with the entire account.

The original account needs attention too. If it still has active stake, you need to unstake first and wait for the cooldown to end before transferring. Otherwise, a sudden drop in computing power could put the original stake at risk of being slashed.

If you ever need to move multiple devices to a different management wallet, don’t rush to hit transfer. At least under Canary’s rules, first check whether the whole batch has to move, whether the recipient account meets the requirements, and whether there’s any active stake. Understanding this in advance can save you a lot of hassle.

@Acurast #Acurast #Canary提交莱特币ETF申请

https://hub.acurast.com/rebellion?ref=ikgnqo

Good afternoon, everyone!

If you ever find that your real device status in the Hub has suddenly changed to Revoked, you’ll probably be a little confused at first 😂

You haven’t done anything unusual, so why has your device certification been revoked?

After reading the latest official explanation from @Acurast, I realized that many people have misunderstood this: Revoked doesn’t mean your device is fake, nor does it automatically mean the user has cheated.

The team specifically explained the main reason innocent users can be affected: some older devices share factory attestation keys with other devices of the same model and production batch. If a key is leaked, or a security vulnerability is discovered in the corresponding model, Google may revoke that key, affecting all genuine devices that use it.

If this happens, you can try the standard steps recommended by the team: erase the device’s data, update to the manufacturer’s latest official system, make sure the device isn’t rooted and the bootloader is locked, then try onboarding again.

But there’s one crucial thing to keep in mind: this process isn’t a guaranteed fix.

The team also said that the outcome is uncertain—it may work, or your device may happen to belong to a batch whose key has already been revoked. In that case, even #Acurast can’t bypass the revocation.

So don’t panic if you see Revoked, and don’t rush to label your device as fake or yourself as a cheater. First, follow the official steps to check your device. If its key itself has already been revoked, repeatedly trying again won’t solve the problem.

https://hub.acurast.com/rebellion?ref=ikgnqo

You guys, I can’t believe how silly I was 🥲

When I first used the @Acurast Processor, I thought that as long as my phone showed “Connected,” it would stay online and run tasks reliably.

It wasn’t until I read the official website that I realized a successful connection only means the device has connected. The device sends a heartbeat roughly every 30 minutes, and the official instructions clearly state that you need a stable internet connection and the Processor App must keep running to receive and execute Deployments properly.

A lot of beginners get tripped up by two fields under Hub → Phones. “Last seen” shows when a heartbeat was last detected, while “Status” shows the number of Deployments currently running.

One tells you whether the device has checked in recently; the other tells you whether it has any tasks running right now. They’re completely different things.

#Acurast This was a real learning experience for me. A successful connection, a recent heartbeat, and a running Deployment are three entirely separate statuses—so don’t mix them up!

https://hub.acurast.com/rebellion?ref=ikgnqo

Girls, good evening!

When I saw that #Acurast Deploy Agent supports Base USDC, and it says "no ACU account needed," I was instantly confused. Wait, can you deploy directly with USDC? Is ACU not needed?

After reading the documentation, I finally understood.

@Acurast There were already multiple deployment routes: the CLI and SDK still go through ACU. The Deploy Agent separately opened an x402 / USDC channel—it's a completely independent set of entry points.

I had been mixing two things up. What you pay for deployment, and ACU’s role in the network, are absolutely not the same thing. All of ACU’s original use cases are preserved. Deployment fees, network fees, various rewards, and collator rewards are still there. So this entry point not requiring an ACU account doesn’t mean ACU has been phased out.

As for the underlying settlement after paying with USDC—whether it’s automatically converted, and how computation costs are calculated—there isn’t complete official clarification yet.

No wild guessing. I’ll keep waiting for the official follow-up disclosures.

https://hub.acurast.com/rebellion?ref=ikgnqo

Just saw Acurast’s 1B+ on-chain transaction data and I was like, wow—so impressive! It already ran a billion tasks?

But after looking closely at the website and the docs, I realized I misunderstood. The site lists Compute Deployments and On-chain Transactions separately—those two numbers are not the same thing.

These on-chain transactions can also include routine operations like processor heartbeats, deployment confirmations, and execution reporting. In the publicly available info, I also couldn’t find the exact breakdown of what makes up those 1B+ transactions—how much is heartbeat, how much is paid deployment-related transactions, etc. So it’s definitely not something you can just equate directly.

Anyway, I bumped into a small pitfall and learned my lesson. From now on, whenever I see a super huge number like this in Web3, I should probably ask first what exactly it’s counting—otherwise, even if you don’t misread the number, you might misunderstand the meaning.

This is also my first time participating, so I’ll just plug in my spare phone and try it. I’ll run it while keeping an eye on things.

https://hub.acurast.com/rebellion?ref=ikgnqo

@Acurast

Good evening, ladies!

Just finished reading the full rules for the Aster USD1 RWA event. Honestly, don’t just look at the numbers in the prize pool.

In the first phase, the two pools are settled separately: 125M $WLFI for qualified OI, and 6.25M $USD1 for qualified trading volume. If you meet the criteria, your trades can “win on both ends.”

The real difference in reward outcomes comes from the collateral method. For RWA perpetuals like SPCXUSD1, CLUSD1, and XAUUSD1—if you use USD1 as collateral, the OI reward weight is directly doubled. If you’re using a multi-asset mode, pay extra attention to the snapshots: it checks whether, over a period of time, the average share of USD1 in the collateral exceeds 50%. Don’t think it’s safe just because you open positions to “hit the number.”

The logic of these rules is actually pretty solid: the USD1 pool drives trading volume, while the WLFI pool holds positions. A 2x weight is basically guiding everyone to put their margin into USD1. In plain terms, they want USD1 to stay in the perpetual account for circulation—not to be used and then withdrawn right after the trading is done.

Oh, and don’t rush to open positions yet. The event runs until December 31, but the official prize calculation time hasn’t been announced. The snapshot frequency, how shares are calculated, and when rewards are distributed—these details still haven’t been fully released.

What you should do now is decide which market you’re going to trade and which collateral method you’ll use. It’s not too late to enter once everything is clear. Rewards won’t run away—just don’t let your positions race ahead.

Good afternoon, ladies!

When I saw the words “National Trust Bank,” I almost thought—would USD1 be turning into a bank deposit?

But after reading the OCC documents carefully, I realized that the most easily misread part this time is exactly the two characters: “bank.”

On August 14, the OCC conditionally granted World Liberty Trust Company, N.A. preliminary approval. This is certainly an important development, but there’s still a way to go before正式开业 (official opening), including pre-opening conditions such as minimum $20 million in Tier 1 capital, internal audit requirements, and more—ultimately also waiting for the OCC’s final approval.

As for ordinary USD1 holders, what’s practical right now hasn’t changed.

USD1 is still issued and custody-managed by BitGo. World Liberty Trust Company will only plan to take over USD1’s issuance, redemption, and reserve management after it officially opens.

You can celebrate this—however, preliminary approval does not mean the company has already opened, and USD1 is not an FDIC-insured deposit. What it received this time is a clearer federal regulatory pathway, not a kind of “bank deposit” insurance where someone steps in if something goes wrong.

Honestly, I think this is the real part of the news worth paying attention to.

What WLFI is doing isn’t suddenly giving USD1 a more prestigious identity. It’s moving the most basic components—issuance, custody, and redemption—step by step into a more clearly defined regulatory framework.

For institutions, these matters may be far more important than any single compliance buzzword. The clearer the responsibilities—who issues, who holds custody, who handles redemptions, and who to contact if something goes wrong—the more confident capital becomes.

Next, keep an eye on when the OCC grants final approval, and when the formal handover from BitGo to World Liberty Trust Company begins. Once these two things truly land, we can see exactly which door USD1 has crossed.

@worldlibertyfi #USDT #WLFI

Good afternoon, ladies!

I just saw that the OCC yesterday granted a conditional preliminary approval to World Liberty Trust Company, so I went to check the document details right away.

This time, it has indeed moved forward by a step, but it’s still not ready for official opening yet—the capital must be in place, along with other preconditions like internal audits. And in the end, we still have to wait for the final approval to be issued.

For us ordinary holders of USD 1, what’s more practical now is the issue and custody process—whether BitGo is still handling it. The OCC documents are very clear: BitGo Bank & Trust remains the exclusive issuer and custodian. World Liberty will only take over issuance, redemptions, and reserve management after the company is actually opened.

So the redemption path users are taking now won’t change immediately just because of this single preliminary approval. Zach Witkoff himself also said this is just a milestone in a multi-step process. The OCC also requires at least $20 million in Tier 1 capital—the threshold is right there.

The direction is right: pass through one regulatory gate after another. But it’s still not time to celebrate early. Next, we’ll see when the final approval is actually finalized, and when the transition arrangements between BitGo and World Liberty are officially announced. Once those two pieces are truly in place, it’ll be more reassuring to discuss what it means for holders.

@worldlibertyfi #USD1 #WLFI

. @flagshiptcg ’s event officially opens only on September 5, but @renaissxyz did something interesting ahead of time. Being an Early Supporter isn’t just about following an account—you also need to match the same X account with the Renaiss wallet.

After I read the rules, the first question I had was: why isn’t following enough? Then as I followed the mechanism further, I understood it. Following just shows that this X account took some action, but once the wallet is linked, this support truly gains an on-chain sense of belonging.

After that comes the snapshot at 10:30 PM on August 10 (UTC+8). Put together, it all makes perfect sense: your X posts record what you did, the wallet ties that action to a specific address, and the snapshot locks in the state at that time. With the three steps combined, I actually feel it’s more worth looking at than the SBT itself.

Renaiss has always used X Linker. This FLAGSHIP continues using the same logic, which also indicates this isn’t just a temporary extra hurdle. It’s more like gradually mapping the community identities inside the ecosystem to the wallet identity that will truly hold assets later—onto the same coordinate. On-chain identity doesn’t necessarily have to start from the first time you buy cards, top up, or transact. A real community action that can be clearly attributed to a specific wallet address can itself become part of the records for that address.

Of course, there are still some details the official hasn’t specified yet—for example, how the exact binding status is confirmed, when the SBT is issued, and whether canceling the follow or changing wallets after the snapshot would affect eligibility—so I won’t draw conclusions for the project in advance. Before the snapshot, I’ll only first confirm whether the X account currently linked to my Renaiss wallet is the same account as the one I follow, @flagshiptcg.

This time, what truly made me remember the Early Supporter SBT isn’t what you can get by following early, but the fact that Renaiss is trying to turn a very light, simple social action into a record with wallet attribution and a time coordinate. First make sure it belongs to whom, then leave it there—that idea is something I really like.

Vault has Earnings—why when I went to the Trade page of HertzFlow by @Hertzflow_xyz to Claim, I couldn’t find the same amount of money?

I read through Beginner’s Guide #2 and only then realized it’s not that the earnings haven’t arrived; it’s that we can easily look in the wrong place at the start. The official materials even specifically lists “Confusing yield with Claim” as a common beginner mistake.

When you deposit into a Pool, you receive HzLP; when you deposit into a Vault, you receive HzV. Changes in the value of the LP side are usually reflected directly in the share value. Fees and net trader PnL affect AUM, so even if your number of shares hasn’t changed, the corresponding value can still move—of course it may also go down.

The Claim on the Trade page follows a different logic. It corresponds to items that can be directly moved into your balance and then are waiting to be claimed. The exact source still depends on what you see on the current page. Earnings and Claim can look like the same “yield,” but they’re actually recorded in two different ledgers.

Some value is already written into the shares you hold.
Some balance is what you need to Claim.

I stared at the word “Claim” for a few seconds and it actually feels like this is where ordinary users are most likely to be confused. I really hope HertzFlow will separate Share Value and Claimable Balance more clearly in the future, and add one more sentence explaining where this value comes from. That way, people wouldn’t need to dig through documentation, and they also wouldn’t mistakenly assume there’s no LP value change just because there are no numbers under Claim.

So going forward, when I look at a Pool or Vault, I’ll first check share value. When I see Claim, I’ll confirm which kind of balance it corresponds to. This is still the testnet mechanism for now; after the mainnet launches, we’ll go by the official page and official rules.

Recently I’ve noticed everyone is paying attention to @velvet_capital’s Perps competition—75 million Gems, with the deadline on August 9.

Once the hype heats up, people tend to search for the Token first, then think about how they should act.

But after studying Velvet’s product structure several times, I realized the first question shouldn’t be which one to buy—it should be what this money is going to do right now.

If you want to directly own an asset, that corresponds to Spot. If you want to express a directional view over a period of time, that corresponds to Perps—you’re getting exposure, not spot holdings. If you want to place an asset into a yield strategy, that’s when Yield comes into play, and you also need to consider where the returns come from, when you can exit, and what risks the underlying positions must bear.

When I saw My Positions showing tokens, perpetual positions, and DeFi positions all together, I thought about it. What Velvet has aggregated isn’t just a bunch of Tokens anymore—it puts the different possible states that the same pool of capital could be in into a single product so users can see it.

This idea is actually more important than a lot of the features. A typical aggregator solves “where should I buy.” Velvet takes a step further and gets users to think through first what this money is meant to play: holding, expressing a direction, or entering a strategy.

Of course, a unified Portfolio doesn’t mean the funds are completely shared. Perps still has its own deposits and execution path, and Yield’s real-time returns, fees, and exit conditions also need to be brought back into the product to be confirmed again.

So often, the most common mistake with a piece of money isn’t failing to catch a trending Token—it’s not even thinking through what you intend for it to do. That’s why next time I open one of these full-stack terminals, I’ll ask first what role this money should play today. If the answer isn’t decided yet, don’t rush to search for Tokens first.

Renaiss @renaissxyz just announced the third round of community ambassador elections: China, Taiwan, and Vietnam will all participate, and the role rotates every two months.

When I saw this news, the first thing that came to mind wasn’t who would be elected—it was the unfinished issues from the previous term. Would they also be handed over and change along with the new cycle?

For ordinary users, the real trouble often isn’t big matters. It might just be that they didn’t understand the Chinese explanation, the event time doesn’t match, or they’re unsure who to ask about saving/withdrawing.

Having an ambassador reply in the group once doesn’t mean the problem is truly solved. If there’s no record, no status update, and no handover, then once the person changes, users may have to explain everything from scratch again. The early official definition of Community Supporter already included answering members’ questions and helping newcomers integrate—and that’s also what I think is most valuable about this whole mechanism.

I’d rather think of community ambassadors as a kind of regional help desk. We collect the local users’ language, scenarios, and real friction points for the project, then bring the project’s responses back to the community. People can rotate, but the problems shouldn’t reset back to zero.

At the moment, the official hasn’t published a fixed feedback channel, a way to check progress, or a formal handover process. So we can’t yet treat these as existing mechanisms. Once the nomination rules are out, I’ll first look at where issues can be submitted, whether people can check processing progress, and whether there’s a list of unfinished items at the time of the term change.

In a good ambassador system, what remains at the end shouldn’t be only a new name. It should also include those issues that have already been heard, are currently being handled, and have someone continuing to follow up.

I casually tied a Referral Code earlier—can I change it now?

In HertzFlow’s latest Beginner’s Guide #3, @Hertzflow_xyz says it very directly: yes. Under the current testnet rules, even codes that have already been bound can still be changed, and there’s no limit on the number of times.

Skipping the pop-up prompt the first time you connect doesn’t mean you won’t have any chances later. After that, you can still go to the Referral page to bind it manually. If you’ve already bound a code, you can also replace it with a new one.

What truly matters is how things are calculated after you change it. The new code only affects qualifying transactions that happen after the change. Discounts, commissions, and statistics that were generated before won’t be recalculated, and they won’t be reassigned into other referral relationships.

When I read this rule, what I cared about most wasn’t whether you can change it—it was what would change after you do, and what would not. The invitation code is more like a signpost that starts taking effect from now on, not something to erase past accounts with.

When the testnet was reset on July 29, the official also kept all referral records. Taken together, HertzFlow’s logic is very clear: users can change their future choices, but historical records that have already been created won’t drift along.

I hope future pages put the current code, the time of the change, when it will take effect in the future, and what history remains unchanged on the same confirmation card. Before a user signs, they can glance once and immediately know what was changed this time—and what wasn’t.

Before you proceed, you should still verify the operations on hertzflow.xyz, the current network, and what you’ve done in your wallet. These are the current testnet rules; whether the mainnet will continue to follow the same approach depends on the official page and documentation.

The market is promising, and you clearly have BNB Meme in your wallet—but somehow you don’t have BNB. When you try to sell, you can’t even get as far as submitting the transaction. Being stuck like this is even more frustrating than expensive Gas.

On July 29, @velvet_capital launched Gasless Trading. The very next day, it opened BNB Chain scenarios. When using an embedded wallet with Email or X login, if the native Gas is insufficient, VelvetX will handle the Gas for that transaction.

And if a user buys cross-chain and then plans to sell, as long as the wallet doesn’t have the target chain’s native asset, they don’t need to first exit the app, find a bridge, top up Gas, then come back to chase the price. After seeing this scenario, I genuinely felt relieved—when you’re stuck at the time of buying, you can wait. But when you’re stuck at the time of selling, the price won’t wait for you.

However, Gasless only ensures that the transaction can be sent out. Whether the route can be completed, whether liquidity is sufficient, whether slippage is acceptable, and whether the price changes—all of that still affects the final order outcome.

So it doesn’t guarantee a fill, and it doesn’t mean trades are truly free.

What it really removes is a very clumsy, yet critical, failure point: the asset is already in your hands, but the sell button becomes ineffective because you’re missing a native coin. For a trading product, it’s definitely important that users can enter smoothly. And when market conditions change, it’s even more telling whether the product can still send the exit action normally—this shows whether it has considered real-world usage scenarios.

Gasless is currently available for embedded wallets logged in via Email or X. External wallets still need to have Gas on hand. Public materials also haven’t clearly explained the subsidy limits, the page state after a failed transaction, or the retry path.

When facing a fast-moving market, you can first confirm what type of wallet you’re using, whether the current quote and slippage are still acceptable, and whether the order status provides clear feedback.

The day before yesterday, @renaissxyz opened Full Redemption to all users, and both the SBT and the phased-entry thresholds were removed.

I read through the official guidelines and terms side by side, and what I care about most is not how smoothly a normal redemption goes, but whether—after an address is entered incorrectly, a package is returned, or it gets stuck at customs—this asset can still be clearly received and handled.

Before submitting, the English address, email, phone number, and shipping options can all be double-checked repeatedly. But once you sign and confirm that the NFT will be permanently destroyed, the on-chain status has already moved forward; in the real world, the cards may not even be out of the warehouse yet, and at that point it’s hard to resolve everything with a single “withdraw.”

After that, the cards enter the vault and carrier processing workflow. The official terms are very direct: risks like an incorrect address, failed delivery attempts, customs delays, and so on are mainly borne by the user. Insurance provides only limited coverage and does not guarantee that all value will be covered.

When I got to this part, my heart really sank. Tight rules can be understood, but when something abnormal happens, what users most need to know is where the asset is now, who they should contact, and what to do next. And this responsibility map—based on currently public information—still isn’t complete enough.

What Renaiss is doing now is more like building a bridge between on-chain ownership and the real-world cards. If the bridge can run smoothly, it shows the functionality works. But when it gets blocked, returned, or lost, users should still be able to find the asset and the party responsible—that’s what shows the system can truly catch ordinary people.

So next, I’ll check whether the address can be changed after a few submissions, where to find order and logistics status, whether returned parcels should be handled by the vault or the carrier, and where to file an appeal when on-chain status and logistics status are out of sync.

The publicly supported contact email is support@renaiss.xyz. Once these abnormal scenarios and paths are explained clearly first, users will feel much more at ease before submitting for Full Redemption.

After logging in by email, is the wallet still really yours?

On July 29, @velvet_capital opened up Gasless transactions on the Robinhood Chain for embedded wallets using email or X login.

I believe VelvetX hasn’t taken the wallet away—it has simply moved it from the first onboarding lesson to behind the account.

In the past, for on-chain products you’d first download a wallet, back up your seed phrase, find the network, and get some gas. Before you even saw the product, half your attention had already been consumed by the tools. Now you log into your account first. Turnkey generates a non-custodial wallet in the background, and the gas in the supported scenarios is also handled by the product.

Email login is just the entry point. The assets are still executed from the user’s wallet. The team can’t directly use them. The key actions still require your authorization and signatures.

The account gets you in. The wallet ensures the assets still belong to you.

After reading this official path, the most exciting part for me is that users can finally understand what they want to do first, and then gradually understand how the wallet works. VelvetX is more like a trading room that hides complicated equipment inside the wall—clean desktop, and no control is secretly taken away.

#Gasless only applies to embedded wallets and supported scenarios. External wallets still need to supply their own gas. For product flows like recovery, changing devices, and exporting keys, there also needs to be clearer public documentation.

Before using it, I’ll only confirm whether I’m using an embedded wallet or an external one—and, when signing, exactly what I’m authorizing.