# $UST Social Sentiment & Intelligence — 2026-07-05 11:40 UTC

> **Asset:** $UST  
> **Momentum Status:** Fading Quickly  
> **Timestamp:** 2026-07-05 11:40 UTC (2026-07-05T11:40:00Z)  
> **Canonical URL:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-07-05-11-40/crypto/UST  
> **Overview Brief:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-07-05-11-40/crypto.md  

---

## 10-Minute Social Metrics
- **Posts Analyzed:** 1
- **Total Impressions:** 147
- **Likes:** 10
- **Retweets:** 2
- **Comments:** 1

---


## Momentum & Sentiment Analysis
Total Engagement - Comments: 1, Retweets: 2, Likes: 10, Impressions: 147


---

## Cited Community Posts & Evidence


### Post #1 by @armaniferrante
> **Author:** [@armaniferrante](https://x.com/armaniferrante)  
> **Metrics:** 12 likes · 2 retweets · 6 comments · 1.5K views  


> **Source Link:** [https://x.com/armaniferrante/status/2073734552728850611](https://x.com/armaniferrante/status/2073734552728850611)  


> **Visual Context:** The image shows a blockchain transaction record on Etherscan documenting a sandwich attack on Uniswap V3, where a trader swapping $220,764 USDC received only $5,271 USDT after an MEV bot front-ran the transaction, resulting in a loss of over $215,000. This relates to the post by illustrating the exact type of DeFi exploit the author criticizes—highlighting how such predatory MEV attacks would be unacceptable in traditional finance.  

> 
> "Don’t gaslight yourselves. It’s not some crazy DeFi thing. It’s just a crappy product. Plain and simple. If Binance did this, users would demand a refund. This would never even be allowed in TradFi."




---


## Contributing Accounts

- `@_LunaRocket` (https://x.com/_LunaRocket)