# $JASMY Social Sentiment & Intelligence — 2026-09-02 16:50 UTC

> **Asset:** $JASMY  
> **Momentum Status:** Cooling Down  
> **Timestamp:** 2026-09-02 16:50 UTC (2026-09-02T16:50:00Z)  
> **Canonical URL:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-09-02-16-50/crypto/JASMY  
> **Overview Brief:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-09-02-16-50/crypto.md  

---

## 10-Minute Social Metrics
- **Posts Analyzed:** 1
- **Total Impressions:** 54
- **Likes:** 0
- **Retweets:** 0
- **Comments:** 0

---


## Momentum & Sentiment Analysis
Total Engagement - Comments: 0, Retweets: 0, Likes: 0, Impressions: 54


---

## Cited Community Posts & Evidence


### Post #1 by @soleconomist
> **Author:** [@soleconomist](https://x.com/soleconomist)  
> **Metrics:** 38 likes · 9 retweets · 1 comments · 2.1K views  


> **Source Link:** [https://x.com/soleconomist/status/2095134308835180957](https://x.com/soleconomist/status/2095134308835180957)  


> **Visual Context:** The image shows a CLOUD-8 governance proposal asking "Should Sanctum burn 1/4 of total CLOUD supply?" surrounded by decorative elements including smiley face icons, a bat silhouette, and the Sanctum logo. Notably, the proposal in the image suggests burning only 1/4 of supply, which conflicts with the accompanying post that mentions a proposal to burn 259M CLOUD (52% of circulating supply), highlighting the increased token burn proposal being put forth to the community.  

> 
> "Proposal to burn 259M CLOUD (52% of circulating supply) up at 
research.sanctum.so 

also, we're renaming 
$CLOUD
 to $SANC

onwards and upwards"




---


## Contributing Accounts

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