# $SECURITIZE Social Sentiment & Intelligence — 2026-07-07 08:00 UTC

> **Asset:** $SECURITIZE  
> **Momentum Status:** Cooling Down  
> **Timestamp:** 2026-07-07 08:00 UTC (2026-07-07T08:00:00Z)  
> **Canonical URL:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-07-07-08-00/crypto/SECURITIZE  
> **Overview Brief:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-07-07-08-00/crypto.md  

---

## 10-Minute Social Metrics
- **Posts Analyzed:** 1
- **Total Impressions:** 6.6K
- **Likes:** 98
- **Retweets:** 11
- **Comments:** 10

---


## Momentum & Sentiment Analysis
Total Engagement - Comments: 10, Retweets: 11, Likes: 98, Impressions: 6614


---

## Cited Community Posts & Evidence


### Post #1 by @SatoshiSound
> **Author:** [@SatoshiSound](https://x.com/SatoshiSound)  
> **Metrics:** 33 likes · 3 retweets · 6 comments · 1.2K views  


> **Source Link:** [https://x.com/SatoshiSound/status/2074287599187878146](https://x.com/SatoshiSound/status/2074287599187878146)  


> **Visual Context:** A tweet from Adam Back (@adam3us) dated 26.08.2015 proposing a block size increase of 2MB now, 4MB in 2 years, and 8MB in 4 years (similar to BIP 102), quoting Jeff Garzik's warning about a second "course correction" hard fork following any BIP 100/101/102/103 hard fork—historical context supporting the post's claim that BIP-110 would lead to another contentious fork like BCH.  

> 
> "Andy is a big blocker and Coretards try to claim we are making the next BCH with BIP-110…"




---


## Contributing Accounts

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