Arcium
1624 Established
(@arcium OR $ARX) -is:retweet
1211
Neutral
↑ +40 above avg
avg ethos(72 never seen before)
1048
supporters
36.1/day· 54% above avg
92
skeptics
3.2/day· ≈ avg
2513
positive tweets
86.7/day· 54% above avg
163
negative tweets
5.6/day· 28% below avg
7099
tweets scanned
245/day· 63% above avg
2026-05-11 → 2026-06-08
window
29 days
Audience composition vs baseline(avg across 31 projects)
26%with reviews
↑ 12% above avg
68%no reviews
↓ 3% below avg
6%never seen
↓ 9% below avg
Sowyer 🎒 · 3.0K followers
- 25% split secured from the Stockpile! 🏆 Incredible work on the new 10.4.0 migration @zinc_cash @arcium — the performance and the rewards are unreal. Proud to be mining here. Thanks 🥳🙏🫶 https://t.co/YeeDeJcU582026-06-03♥ 16↻ 0sentiment 80%
- @LurkingDoom @zinc_cash @Arcium this will both drive down the coin price due to a loss of trust and ultimately destroy the system. You are solely focused on the burns and the money flowing into the system; you don't care about the future of the project at all.2026-06-02♥ 0↻ 0sentiment 80%
- @LurkingDoom @zinc_cash @Arcium I guess you don't know how the system works. Leaving aside the fact that they mine with fake volume, they are also cornering the pools with the bricks they collect. There is absolutely no chance for other users or other miners to win here. Moving f2026-06-02♥ 0↻ 0sentiment 75%
- @LurkingDoom @zinc_cash @Arcium What a ridiculous idea! Then the team might as well do the mining themselves. What is the profit for the miners—just losing money for nothing?2026-06-02♥ 0↻ 0sentiment 75%
- @zinc_cash @Arcium Your system is becoming less and less transparent. Stop dominating the pools. If the team is going to take over the pools with their own wallets, there will be no need for us as miners. As a miner, I will probably suffer a severe loss in the coming days2026-06-02♥ 4↻ 0sentiment 75%
Supporters · 1048
ranked by ethos (highest first) · click any face
Recognized · 285
12
2
3
3
2
4
13
4
2
6
14
20
5
2
6
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
6
6
4
4
2
4
6
6
2
2
7
4
2
3
5
4
2
2
2
5
5
7
2
2
36
4
3
6
3
3
14
13
3
12
13
4
3
2
2
3
3
2
6
2
2
4
7
6
2
3
3
15
3
5
2
2
2
2
10
7
3
2
2
4
6
10
5
2
2
7
4
4
3
3
17
4
3
2
2
7
30
3
3
30
5
3
2
2
34
6
10
4
2
6
4
4
3
2
2
2
4
4
6
3
2
10
9
6
2
2
8
3
No Ethos reviews · 702
lower signal
2
3
9
6
2
7
2
3
2
2
2
4
2
9
7
3
16
3
2
18
20
15
8
6
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
4
2
2
5
3
2
6
2
2
19
4
3
2
2
5
2
2
4
3
2
2
2
2
25
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
29
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
14
8
7
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
3
2
13
10
6
6
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
9
8
7
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
20
13
8
8
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
16
9
9
7
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
23
17
11
9
9
8
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
2
2
2
2
6
5
4
4
3
3
7
7
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Never seen before · 61
lowest signal
ethos:Untrusted< 800Questionable800–1199Neutral1200–1399Known1400–1599Established1600–1799Reputable1800–1999Exemplary2000–2199Distinguished2200–2399Revered2400–2599Renowned2600+Never seen before