# $PPUFFINS Social Sentiment & Intelligence — 2026-08-31 11:40 UTC

> **Asset:** $PPUFFINS  
> **Momentum Status:** Heating Up  
> **Timestamp:** 2026-08-31 11:40 UTC (2026-08-31T11:40:00Z)  
> **Canonical URL:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-08-31-11-40/crypto/PPUFFINS  
> **Overview Brief:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-08-31-11-40/crypto.md  

---

## 10-Minute Social Metrics
- **Posts Analyzed:** 1
- **Total Impressions:** 1.9K
- **Likes:** 35
- **Retweets:** 3
- **Comments:** 19

---


## Momentum & Sentiment Analysis
Total Engagement - Comments: 19, Retweets: 3, Likes: 35, Impressions: 1914


---

## Cited Community Posts & Evidence


### Post #1 by @CorySwan
> **Author:** [@CorySwan](https://x.com/CorySwan)  
> **Metrics:** 0 likes · 0 retweets · 1 comments · 1.2K views  


> **Source Link:** [https://x.com/CorySwan/status/2094378846069956853](https://x.com/CorySwan/status/2094378846069956853)  


> **Visual Context:** This chart, titled "BITCOIN POWER LAW: THE OUT-OF-SAMPLE TEST," displays a phase median metric comparing out-of-sample R² validation against random walks across different lookback windows (from 90 days to 7 years). It shows mostly positive predictive values (ranging from +0.478 to +0.995) for windows between 1-7 years, contrasted with a negative value of -1.181 at 90 days, supporting the post's argument that choosing regressions based on historical fit doesn't necessarily translate to genuine predictive power for future Bitcoin price movements.  

> 
> "There are millions of regressions you can choose based on data up through a date in the past, like 2016.  One of them will fit the data from 2017-2026 better than the others.  It still does not predict what comes after 2026.

We proved this back in 2022 to debunk S2F modelloooors"




---


## Contributing Accounts

- `@BigAbdulWeb3` (https://x.com/BigAbdulWeb3)