We need to talk about @bootstrapliq and $coin. Over the last day or so, a project called Bootstrap has appeared with a thesis that will sound very familiar if you've been following LIQUIDIOT. Creator fees routed into liquidity instead of the dev's wallet. A compounding loop where more volume generates more fees which deepens liquidity which attracts more volume. Framing liquidity as the architecture problem that kills tokens after launch. Language like "reward belief, penalize extraction" and "deeper pools equal stronger floors equal longer runs." The overlap with what we've already built and been talking about publicly is significant. To be clear, the idea that creator fees should compound into liquidity instead of being extracted is a good idea. We think it's the right idea. That's why we built LIQUIDIOT around it. It's also not a unique idea in itself. Routing fees back into liquidity has been done before. What is unique is what we actually did with it. We deployed over 50% of the token supply into a supplemental LP within minutes of launch, creating deep structural support from the first trade. And we built a real-time dashboard that tracks every mechanical LP swap as it happens, something that has never been done before. The idea isn't what sets LIQUIDIOT apart. The execution and transparency is. So when brand new X accounts and admins appear promoting a project with nearly identical language and framing, it's worth paying attention to where that language came from and what's actually been built behind it. Here's what concerns me. $coin currently has no website or main X. No dashboard. No real-time reporting. No transparency layer showing what the LP is doing or where fees are going. The entire pitch is a promise of future tek. If you've been in this space long enough, you know that playbook well. Hype first, promise of product later, and by the time people realize nothing was built, the opportunity to exit has already passed. That may not be what's happening here, but with zero verifiable infrastructure in place, there's no way to know. And that's the point. Now let's talk about the structural differences, because they matter more than the shared language. Bootstrap's model adds fees directly back into the pumpfun AMM pool. That's the same pool that was generated at graduation. Whatever they add to it is unlocked and boosts the existing pool's depth. On the surface that sounds fine, but think about what that actually means. You're adding liquidity into the same pool where every seller is already routing. That added liquidity is essentially providing exit liquidity for anyone looking to dump. It pads the pool on the way down. A separate supplemental pool, like LIQUIDIOT's Orca position, competes against the normal pool for bids. It's an independent source of buy pressure that actively rebalances and accumulates tokens on dips rather than just cushioning exits in the same pool everyone is already selling into. By the numbers: $coin's total LP including all supplemented fees is about $31K right now, all in one pool. LIQUIDIOT's supplemental Orca LP alone is larger than that, and it exists on top of our locked pumpfun pool. That's two layers of liquidity support versus one, with the supplemental layer operating independently and compounding through mechanical rebalancing. The structural depth isn't comparable. This is the first prominent imitation of the LIQUIDIOT model and it won't be the last. That's fine. The concept working well enough to copy is validation. But pay close attention to who actually builds the infrastructure, who provides real transparency, and who sticks it out when the attention fades. We've been here since day one with a live dashboard tracking every LP transaction in real-time. The structure either works or it doesn't, and that's verifiable right now, not promised for later.