# $WORLD Social Sentiment & Intelligence — 2026-09-06 21:10 UTC

> **Asset:** $WORLD  
> **Momentum Status:** Heating Up  
> **Timestamp:** 2026-09-06 21:10 UTC (2026-09-06T21:10:00Z)  
> **Canonical URL:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-09-06-21-10/crypto/WORLD  
> **Overview Brief:** https://cryptitalk.com/2026-09-06-21-10/crypto.md  

---

## 10-Minute Social Metrics
- **Posts Analyzed:** 1
- **Total Impressions:** 143
- **Likes:** 16
- **Retweets:** 1
- **Comments:** 7

---


## Momentum & Sentiment Analysis
Total Engagement - Comments: 7, Retweets: 1, Likes: 16, Impressions: 143


---

## Cited Community Posts & Evidence


### Post #1 by @wiz
> **Author:** [@wiz](https://x.com/wiz)  
> **Metrics:** 15 likes · 8 retweets · 1 comments · 1.8K views  


> **Source Link:** [https://x.com/wiz/status/2096706364206887049](https://x.com/wiz/status/2096706364206887049)  


> **Visual Context:** A block explorer interface displays a list of "Confidential" transaction IDs alongside details showing a peg-out of 3,996,019,349,922 LBTC with transaction fees of 0.00000177 LBTC, illustrating the controversial transaction that triggered a consensus split between the liquid.network and blockstream.info Elements node versions.  

> 
> "Yeah, my 
liquid.network nodes are running a different version of elements than 
blockstream.info, which is related to the consensus split: seems this is the “valid” transaction which caused the consensus split, which obviously should not have been allowed"




---


## Contributing Accounts

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