let me make it clear to you and every single person who launches tokens on behalf of other people's projects. me and sovra are NOT interested in your money. we did not launch a token. we did not ask for a token. we do not want a token. someone deployed a token on Base using our name and started collecting money off people who thought they were "supporting" us. we didn't know. we didn't consent. and we sure as hell aren't keeping it. as of right now, we've shipped an emergency upgrade that traces every single wallet that paid fees on that token — all 545 of them — calculates exactly how much was taken from each of you, and returns it proportionally via batch transfer. every cent. you will see your money back. refund screenshot is linked below -- and you see it here: 0x5a27caac503475e8707bd91e8a703c26a2809efef338581afc368e9e56c16e78 --- but i'm not just here to say "we gave the money back" and move on. i want to talk about WHY this keeps happening, because this is the third time this month i've watched it happen to a legitimate builder, and i'm tired of it. here's the core problem with tokens right now that nobody wants to say out loud: when you buy a token with a project's name on it, you walk in with one assumption — "this is coupled to the product." you think you're investing in the thing. you think if they ship, you win. you think it's like buying equity. it's not. it's nothing. the token has ZERO coupling to the product. it's a number on a bonding curve that goes up when more people buy and goes down when they sell. the project shipping features doesn't make the token go up. the project dying doesn't make it go down. they are completely independent things that share a name and nothing else. this is what makes these tokens so toxic. you're not buying into a project. you're buying a ticker symbol that LOOKS like you're buying into a project. and when the price dumps — and it always dumps — you blame the builder. "why aren't you talking about the coin." "why aren't you pumping it." "you owe us." no. we don't. because we never asked you to buy it. someone else made it and put our name on it. --- and it's not just us. CONWAY had the same pattern — "community" token, fees flowing to Sigil's address, pumped to $12M. whether Sigil claimed it or not, it's the same structural problem — uncoupled tokens extracting money from a project's name. i really feel for Peter Steinberger. he built Clawdbot — one of the most impressive open source AI projects this year. crypto people immediately launched tokens in his name. he had to publicly beg people to stop harassing him. his response? "I will never do a coin." he now bans any mention of Bitcoin or crypto in his community entirely. and honestly? can you blame him? you build something real, you share it with the world, and within HOURS strangers are extracting money from your name through tokens you never authorized — and then YOUR community turns on YOU when the price goes down. this is why builders like Peter want nothing to do with this industry. not because of the technology. because of the people who launch tokens on other people's work and then act like the builder owes them something. --- our position is simple: sovra has no token. sovra has no plans for a token. if you see a token with sovra's name, it's not from us. we traced every single cent back to where it came from and returned it. $17,000 across 545 wallets. we'd have done it with $17 million the same way. but let me be clear — this is a one-time thing. we did this because there are people out there who genuinely didn't know our stance and deserved their money back. now you know. we've made our position as loud as we possibly can. going forward, we are not doing emergency upgrades every time someone launches a token with our name. we are not tracking fees. we are not chasing this down again. if you buy a token that says "Sovra" on it after reading this, that's on you. we told you. it's not us. it will never be us. until tokens actually mean something — until holding one gives you real, enforceable economic participation in the thing it claims to represent — they are nothing but a mechanism for strangers to monetize someone else's reputation. that's not an industry. that's a casino wearing a builder's name. we're builders. we build things. we don't gamble and we don't take money from people who got gambled on.