# $WAVE Social Sentiment & Intelligence — 2026-08-28 19:20 UTC

> **Asset:** $WAVE  
> **Momentum Status:** Trending Up  
> **Timestamp:** 2026-08-28 19:20 UTC (2026-08-28T19:20:00Z)  
> **Canonical URL:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-08-28-19-20/crypto/WAVE  
> **Overview Brief:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-08-28-19-20/crypto.md  

---

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

---


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


---

## Cited Community Posts & Evidence


### Post #1 by @donnoh_eth
> **Author:** [@donnoh_eth](https://x.com/donnoh_eth)  
> **Metrics:** 24 likes · 3 retweets · 1 comments · 742 views  


> **Source Link:** [https://x.com/donnoh_eth/status/2093407080581353796](https://x.com/donnoh_eth/status/2093407080581353796)  


> **Visual Context:** A GitHub README titled "EIP-8130 × locked ERC-1271 wallet PoC" describes a proof-of-concept demonstrating a compatibility hazard where EIP-8130 direct call dispatch bypasses a timelocked ERC-1271 wallet's `execute()` lock, allowing token spending without triggering the locked function.  

> 
> "i’ve built a minimal PoC showing how to bypass the timelock of a timelocked smart wallet using eip-8130. before 8130 it cannot be bypassed. to me it looks like a vulnerability, or at least something to be very careful about. tested on base testnet, link in the comments"




---


## Contributing Accounts

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