SolidProof.io Official engagement report
@SolidProof_io - 140K followers on X
Measured over 20 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on September 26, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 10 interactions against 140K followers, an engagement rate of 0.007%. Measured over 20 original posts, its engagement rate beats 16% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size. That is a reason to look at how the audience behaves - reply depth, saves, whether the followers are recent - rather than a conclusion about it on its own. Posts are seen about 1.8K times each, and 0.539% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 1.26% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 1.2 post a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 60% of days. Most posts go out around 06:00 UTC, and Thursday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 20 posts sampled, 45% carry an image or video, 5% are part of a thread and 30% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 3.1K interactions, about 309x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #crypto, #lunc, #security.
Measured over 20 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on September 26, 2026. Recurring tags: #crypto, #lunc, #security.
Compared with accounts its own size
SolidProof.io Official's engagement rate beats 16% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 8 of 10)). A percentile is spread evenly by construction, so 50 really is the middle of that group and 90 really is its top tenth.
On engagement per impression rather than per follower it beats 27% of the same group. When those two numbers disagree, the gap is about how far its posts travel rather than how people react to them.
Where this sits in the catalog
At 0.007%, SolidProof.io Official sits above the 10th percentile of the 204,880 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the bottom 25% band, which runs below 0.024%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.004% |
| 25th percentile | 0.024% |
| 50th percentile | 0.143% |
| 75th percentile | 0.678% |
| 90th percentile | 2.55% |
| 99th percentile | 82.4% |
This ruler is the whole measured catalog, not a size-matched group: it shows where the raw rate falls across every account we can measure, all of which are large. For a like-for-like comparison, read the size-band percentile above instead. See how the bands are built
Posting timing
This account posts most often around 06:00 UTC, and Thursday is its busiest day of the week. The bars below are the catalog-wide pattern, with this account's own busiest slot marked. They do not show how this account performs at each hour: we keep one aggregate per account, not one per hour, so that measurement does not exist in our data.
Show engagement by hour posted, utc as a table
| Hour (UTC) | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00 UTC | -1% | 89K |
| 01:00 UTC | -2% | 90K |
| 02:00 UTC | -3% | 88K |
| 03:00 UTC | -4% | 94K |
| 04:00 UTC | -5% | 76K |
| 05:00 UTC | -4% | 75K |
| 06:00 UTC | -5% | 86K |
| 07:00 UTC | -5% | 93K |
| 08:00 UTC | -4% | 108K |
| 09:00 UTC | -4% | 124K |
| 10:00 UTC | -3% | 129K |
| 11:00 UTC | -3% | 141K |
| 12:00 UTC | -3% | 154K |
| 13:00 UTC | -3% | 167K |
| 14:00 UTC | -4% | 173K |
| 15:00 UTC | -2% | 176K |
| 16:00 UTC | -3% | 171K |
| 17:00 UTC | -3% | 159K |
| 18:00 UTC | -2% | 149K |
| 19:00 UTC | -2% | 141K |
| 20:00 UTC | -1% | 131K |
| 21:00 UTC | 0% | 116K |
| 22:00 UTC | -2% | 100K |
| 23:00 UTC | -1% | 90K |
Show engagement by day of week as a table
| Day | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| Sunday | +5% | 393K |
| Monday | +1% | 483K |
| Tuesday | -2% | 520K |
| Wednesday | -3% | 472K |
| Thursday | -2% | 430K |
| Friday | -3% | 447K |
| Saturday | +2% | 393K |
Formats this account uses
Its own posting mix on the left, and what each of those formats does across every account we track on the right. Only formats where the effect clears our publish test appear here, so an empty row is a format we could not measure rather than one that does nothing.
| Format | This account | Catalog effect | 95% interval | Accounts behind it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image or video | 45% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 30% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 45% of this account's sampled posts carry an image or video. Across the catalog, posts with an image or video run 111% above the same accounts' other posts.
- 30% of its posts carry a link off X. Across the catalog, posts with an outbound link run 41% below the same accounts' other posts.
- Its average post runs 285 characters, which falls in the over 280 characters band. Across the catalog, posts over 280 characters run 15% above the same accounts' other posts.
These are catalog-wide differences applied to this account's own posting mix, not a measurement of how each format performs for this account specifically. We keep one median per account, not one per format per account, so the second thing is not something this data can tell you.
Best tweets
- Aug 23, 2026309x their median
https://t.co/DyP7yGFZl7
- Aug 3, 2026111x their median
In 41 Minuten wurden 1.196 Bitcoin Wallets leergerĂ€umt. Niemand hat ein GerĂ€t angefasst, niemand hat auf einen Phishing Link geklickt, niemand hat seine 24 Wörter verraten. Der Fehler passierte fĂŒnf Jahre vorher, in der Sekunde, in der das GerĂ€t diese Wörter erzeugt hat. Betroffen ist die Coldcard des kanadischen Herstellers Coinkite, eine der meistgenutzten Hardware Wallets der Welt. Galaxy Research dokumentierte am 30. Juli den ersten Abfluss, seitdem sind es vier Wellen und rund 1.816 Bitcoin, beim aktuellen Kurs etwa 115 Millionen Dollar. Die Zuordnung lĂ€uft ĂŒber Muster in den Transaktionen, ohne Beweis fĂŒr jede einzelne Adresse. Der Angriff lĂ€uft weiter, wĂ€hrend du das hier liest. So ein GerĂ€t ist im Grunde ein Tresor, der nie ans Internet kommt. Das Zahlenschloss sind 24 Wörter. Wer sie hat, hat das Geld, egal wo auf der Welt er sitzt. Deshalb hat das GerĂ€t eine einzige wirklich wichtige Aufgabe, und es erledigt sie beim allerersten Einschalten: die Kombination auswĂŒrfeln. DafĂŒr sitzt darin ein Bauteil, das echten Zufall aus physikalischem Rauschen zieht. Die ganze Sicherheit hĂ€ngt an diesen paar Sekunden, und sie sind das Einzige, was der Nutzer selbst nie nachprĂŒfen kann. Bei Coldcard war dieser WĂŒrfel fĂŒnf Jahre lang gezinkt. Eine CodeĂ€nderung vom MĂ€rz 2021 ersetzte das Zufallsbauteil durch ein Rechenverfahren, das nur zufĂ€llig aussieht. In Wahrheit startete es aus der GerĂ€tenummer und dem Stand einer internen Uhr. Aus unvorstellbar vielen möglichen Kombinationen wurden so rund 1,1 Billionen. Ein handelsĂŒblicher Rechner geht diese Liste an einem Wochenende durch. Der Angreifer musste kein GerĂ€t stehlen und niemanden tĂ€uschen. Er rechnete die Liste durch, bildete die dazugehörigen Adressen und schaute, auf welchen davon Bitcoin liegt. Coinkite hat korrigierte Firmware veröffentlicht, doch das Update repariert keine bestehende Wallet. Die Wörter sind einmal gezogen worden und bleiben schwach, egal auf welches GerĂ€t man sie spĂ€ter ĂŒbertrĂ€gt. Betroffene mĂŒssen eine neue Wallet erzeugen und ihr Guthaben rĂŒberschicken. Bleibt die Frage, die seit Tagen durch jede Krypto Timeline lĂ€uft. Kann das bei Ledger oder BitBox auch passieren? Ledger erklĂ€rt, die eigenen GerĂ€te seien nicht betroffen. Der Zufall komme dort aus einem zertifizierten Spezialchip, geprĂŒft nach einer Methodik des deutschen Bundesamts fĂŒr Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik. Der Preis dafĂŒr ist Offenheit, denn genau dieser Teil der Software ist von auĂen nicht einsehbar. BitBox aus ZĂŒrich geht den umgekehrten Weg und ist ebenfalls nicht betroffen. Die Schweizer wĂŒrfeln eine neue Wallet aus fĂŒnf voneinander unabhĂ€ngigen Quellen. Mischt man guten Zufall mit schlechtem, bleibt das Ergebnis gut. Solange eine dieser fĂŒnf Quellen unvorhersehbar ist, bleibt die ganze Wallet unvorhersehbar. Coldcard war ebenfalls Open Source, der fehlerhafte Code stand fĂŒnf Jahre lang öffentlich im Netz, gefunden hat ihn trotzdem zuerst der Angreifer, laut Coinkite vermutlich mit Hilfe einer KI. Offener Code hilft nur, wenn ihn jemand tatsĂ€chlich liest. GeschĂŒtzt hat hier am Ende die Redundanz. Jede dieser Ăberweisungen war regelkonform, weil der Angreifer den passenden SchlĂŒssel besaĂ. Das Bitcoin Netzwerk hat exakt getan, wofĂŒr es gebaut wurde. Versagt hat die Firmware einer einzigen Firma.
- Aug 3, 2026101x their median
đš Over $100 Million in Bitcoin has now been stolen in the Coldcard hardware wallet hack. Really sad.
- Sep 25, 202640x their median
THORChain and Stolen Funds: The Industry Needs Answers After the $1.46B @Bybit_Official hack last year, nearly $1.2B in stolen funds was reportedly traced through @THORChain as the attackers moved assets across chains. Today, following another major security incident at @Bitget , we are once again observing Bitget Exploiter funds being sent into the THORChain for asset swaps and cross-chain transfers. The question is no longer: âDoes THORChain know these funds are associated with hackers?â The attacker addresses have already been publicly flagged and are being actively tracked by exchanges, blockchain security/aml firms, and the wider crypto industry. The real question is: When a protocol is aware that funds originate from a publicly identified major hack, yet continues to facilitate large-scale cross-chain swaps, how should the industry view this under the banner of âdecentralizationâ? Decentralization should not become a blanket excuse when dealing with known stolen funds. If, after every major crypto hack, attackers can continue using THORChain as a route to move funds from ETH â BTC, BNB â BTC, and across other chains, the industry needs to seriously ask: What responsibility should THORChain bear when handling known stolen funds? @GracyBitget @xiejiayinBitget @benbybit
- Sep 24, 20269.5x their median
Proposal #12228 for a Terra Classic blockchain security audit by SolidProof @Solidproof_io and approval for the implementation of fixes by OrbitLabs @orbit__labs is now up for vote. đ€ A link to track the governance vote is here: â ïž https://t.co/pyI10O6Uxf You can read all the details of the proposal here: đhttps://t.co/vDp71Bh3um
- Sep 16, 20268.4x their median
New proposal for a Terra Classic Security Audit by @SolidProof_io with fixes by @orbit__labs : Check it out below: đ https://t.co/if4SJYolzi #LUNC #USTC
- Aug 14, 20267.5x their median
All our plans finally came true! Were covered with work from now on until summer next year and filling up our capacity rn with well known people, friends and innovative projects only. Kicking off another audit for @JurisProtocol , a major one this time with a decent stack. Weâre coming back with a nice overview whatâs in the pipeline over there đ€đ«
- Sep 4, 20267.0x their median
Impulse audit report by @SolidProof_io is live. You can read the report and see for yourself that Impulse is a fully non-custodial wallet. Your keys are stored locally and there's no backend attached. Audit: https://t.co/qjzUf4IaJS https://t.co/F6L4KGTXY3
- Aug 25, 20265.6x their median
Happy Tuesday all! Itâs amazing how much is going on around us. Our clients are devâing like monsters. @JurisProtocol got listed on @WEEX_Official and is pushing the #LUNC community. New projects beeing onboarded here on a daily basisâŠâŠ #CryptoInvesting seems more fun than before.
- Sep 4, 20262.2x their median
Quick update: We're currently working on a detailed report about a mass scammer. #security #CryptoRegulation #crypto
Ranked by total interactions across everything we have tracked for this account, which is a longer history than the 30-day window the rates above use. The multiple compares each post to this account's own median.
Recurring topics
The most frequent hashtags in the sampled posts. They describe what this account writes about; they are not a performance signal, and the catalog-wide breakdown on the hub shows how little hashtag count moves.
Buy or sell Twitter (X) accounts - escrow-protected
PlayerSells is an escrow marketplace for Twitter (X) accounts. Every deal is protected, with no middleman risk.
Reading these numbers
A typical post picks up 10 interactions against 140K followers, an engagement rate of 0.007%. Measured over 20 original posts, its engagement rate beats 16% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size. That is a reason to look at how the audience behaves - reply depth, saves, whether the followers are recent - rather than a conclusion about it on its own. Posts are seen about 1.8K times each, and 0.539% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 1.26% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 1.2 post a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 60% of days. Most posts go out around 06:00 UTC, and Thursday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 20 posts sampled, 45% carry an image or video, 5% are part of a thread and 30% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 3.1K interactions, about 309x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #crypto, #lunc, #security.
- What is SolidProof.io Official's engagement rate on X?
- SolidProof.io Official (@SolidProof_io) has an engagement rate of 0.007%, based on the median interactions across 20 original posts from the last 30 days against 139,767 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.007%, SolidProof.io Official sits above the 10th percentile of the 204,880 accounts in this comparison. Those comparison accounts are all large ones, because our scanning cadence is weighted towards big accounts, so this is a ranking among peers of similar scale rather than a ranking across X.
- Does @SolidProof_io have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 16% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts), which puts it in the bottom quarter for its size group. Ranking inside a size band matters because engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly re-measure the follower count. It is a starting point for a look at follower quality, not a verdict on it.
- When does @SolidProof_io post?
- Most posts go out around 06:00 UTC, and Thursday is its busiest day, at roughly 1.17 posts per day across the measured window.