# $CONSO Social Sentiment & Intelligence — 2026-08-14 03:30 UTC

> **Asset:** $CONSO  
> **Momentum Status:** Cooling Down  
> **Timestamp:** 2026-08-14 03:30 UTC (2026-08-14T03:30:00Z)  
> **Canonical URL:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-08-14-03-30/crypto/CONSO  
> **Overview Brief:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-08-14-03-30/crypto.md  

---

## 10-Minute Social Metrics
- **Posts Analyzed:** 1
- **Total Impressions:** 8
- **Likes:** 1
- **Retweets:** 0
- **Comments:** 0

---


## Momentum & Sentiment Analysis
Total Engagement - Comments: 0, Retweets: 0, Likes: 1, Impressions: 8


---

## Cited Community Posts & Evidence


### Post #1 by @Greenpeace06_09
> **Author:** [@Greenpeace06_09](https://x.com/Greenpeace06_09)  
> **Metrics:** 38 likes · 11 retweets · 3 comments · 2.3K views  


> **Source Link:** [https://x.com/Greenpeace06_09/status/2088013424575787223](https://x.com/Greenpeace06_09/status/2088013424575787223)  


> **Visual Context:** A Vegas Node validator voted "Yes" 12 days ago with 10.74B voting stake (1.18% voting power) and the memo reading, "We can't ignore the wish of the community. If it works, nice if it doesn't work, community can move on to other strategies like mm2 or ustc staking etc..." The image supports the post's claim by showing the validator's active participation and reasoning for voting, which the poster interprets as evidence that Vegas supports strategies beyond Luna Classic that could benefit from its decline.  

> 
> "Wow.  Did Vegas purposely sabotage the Luna Classic chain by voting to increase the burn tax knowing it will hurt our volume?

Clearly he seems to be pro 2.0 and anti lunc.  

Wow.  Vegas exposed for purposely hurting the Luna classic chain so he can profit more from the 2.0"




---


## Contributing Accounts

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