History of SNT
The History of SNT: Status Network Token’s Evolution in the Crypto Space
Status Network Token (SNT) was introduced as the native utility token for Status, a decentralized communication platform built on the Ethereum blockchain. Conceptualized during the early stages of Ethereum's growth, SNT emerged from an ambition to create a censorship-resistant and permissionless ecosystem where users could communicate securely and interact seamlessly with decentralized applications (dApps). Its history is intertwined with the broader development of Ethereum and the evolving use cases of ERC-20 tokens.
The SNT token was first unveiled during its Initial Coin Offering (ICO) in June 2017, an era widely regarded as the peak of ICO mania. Raising nearly $100 million in Ether, it was one of the most significant token sales of its time, cementing its position as a prominent Ethereum-based project early on. However, Status attracted criticism during its ICO due to the overwhelming demand, which led to network congestion and delays in the transaction confirmation process. This became one of the first high-profile cases showcasing the scalability challenges of the Ethereum network, a problem that still persists for many projects.
Post-ICO, the Status team faced the challenge of transitioning from concept to execution. The token's vision revolved around empowering users in the Status ecosystem. SNT was designed to govern features such as community-based decision-making, incentivized sticker markets, and decentralized push notifications. However, the ambitious scope raised concerns about product rollout timelines and execution complexities.
Another notable moment in the token's history was the security breach the project suffered in 2017. The Status messaging services fell victim to vulnerabilities common among early projects, leading to increased scrutiny over its code integrity and the overall security infrastructure of platforms using blockchain-based messaging.
An important milestone in SNT’s history was its ongoing emphasis on decentralization. Status sought to differentiate itself by avoiding centralization pitfalls, such as reliance on centralized server infrastructure or overly restrictive policies. However, this commitment to decentralization posed difficulties in user experience (UX) design, which became a recurring challenge in onboarding mainstream users unfamiliar with cryptocurrency wallets or private keys.
Over the years, the community around SNT has remained niche but highly engaged. While the project has actively prioritized transparency and open-source development, its history has not been without obstacles, including questions about its sustainability and functionality relative to competitors offering similar decentralized communication tools.
How SNT Works
How SNT Works: Exploring the Decentralized Architecture of Status
The Status Network Token (SNT) powers the Status Network, a decentralized ecosystem aiming to grant users control over their digital communication and financial interactions. At its core, SNT operates as a utility token within the Status mobile and desktop application, offsetting centralized control and enabling direct governance and economic participation among its users.
Status relies on a peer-to-peer architecture, eliminating intermediaries and ensuring that no single point of failure exists within its ecosystem. At the technological level, the Status app acts as a browser and messenger built atop the Ethereum blockchain, with SNT as the key enabler for accessing and customizing its suite of decentralized services. By leveraging a combination of Whisper, Swarm, and Ethereum protocols, Status ensures end-to-end encrypted communication, decentralized storage, and trustless financial transactions.
One of SNT’s primary utilities lies in its governance functionality. Token holders gain the ability to participate in decision-making processes, including proposals about development priorities and resource allocation within the network. This level of token-based governance ensures that the community collectively decides Status's trajectory, though the system is not without challenges—low voter turnout and governance apathy can limit the effectiveness of the model, raising concerns about the concentration of tokens among whales influencing outcomes.
SNT also facilitates an opt-in mechanism for custom user-generated content on the platform. To ensure minimal spam and noise in chat groups or discussions, users need to stake SNT to create public group names. This staking mechanism introduces digital scarcity, although critics argue that access to such features could be restricted for individuals with limited financial resources, potentially reinforcing barriers to entry for less economically privileged users.
Another major functionality tied to SNT is the Status Teller Network (a decentralized marketplace for exchanging fiat and cryptocurrencies). Here, SNT holders can accrue added utility by acting as arbiters or offering peer-to-peer exchanges. However, this reliance on individual participants introduces issues regarding liquidity, regional access disparities, and the potential for disputes that could complicate adoption in underregulated markets.
Through enabling peer-to-peer financial interactions, decentralized governance, and encrypted communications, SNT forms the backbone of Status’s decentralized vision. However, scalability challenges—and its reliance on Ethereum’s ecosystem—remain critical considerations, especially under high transaction loads, which might lead to bottlenecks or elevated costs for token users.
Use Cases
Exploring the Use Cases of SNT (Status Network Token)
The Status Network Token (SNT) serves as the native utility token powering the ecosystem within the Status decentralized, Ethereum-based communication platform. SNT’s use cases revolve around creating a more private, user-driven, and censorship-resistant interaction model. Below are the key functional areas where SNT plays a critical role, along with some potential challenges.
Governance and Decision-Making Rights
One of the core utilities of SNT is its role in governance within the Status ecosystem. Token holders can participate in voting processes on key decisions, such as feature implementations or how network funds should be allocated. Unlike centralized platforms, where decisions are dictated from the top down, SNT-based governance helps distribute control to the community. However, as with many token-based governance models, the potential for voting power to concentrate among large token holders remains a concern, potentially undermining the principle of decentralization.
Sticker Market and Digital Assets
SNT enables users to purchase digital assets within the Status app, such as stickers for use in chats. This gives users the freedom to customize their communication experience. By transacting in SNT rather than fiat, the ecosystem avoids central intermediaries. On the downside, the niche focus on stickers may seem limited in utility compared to broader incentive mechanisms commonly found in other crypto platforms. Additionally, volatile token value can deter casual users from adopting this use case.
ENS Username Registration
SNT is required to register human-readable Ethereum Name Service (ENS) usernames within the Status network. This feature simplifies wallet addresses and enhances user experience. However, it’s worth noting that ENS itself is not exclusive to Status; other platforms also offer ENS integrations, which could dilute this utility’s competitive advantage.
Incentivizing Network Growth
SNT allows users to create economic incentives for node operators and other participants in the Status DApp ecosystem. This helps foster the infrastructure needed for a decentralized network. However, scaling participation to global levels can be challenging as it relies heavily on sufficient token adoption, liquidity, and developer engagement.
Role in Public and Private Messaging
Privacy-focused decentralized messaging is a core component of Status, and SNT supports the creation of specialized features, such as private group channels or premium content areas. Still, competing with major incumbents in the messaging space—even with added decentralization benefits—can be an uphill battle, particularly when user bases are relatively small.
Token utility within the Status ecosystem is clear but not without its hurdles. SNT’s adoption largely hinges on the platform’s ability to bridge the gap between strong technical features and user-oriented growth.
SNT Tokenomics
Tokenomics of Status Network Token (SNT): A Deep Dive
The tokenomics of the Status Network Token (SNT) is intricately designed to align with the decentralized ethos of the Status ecosystem. Built as an ERC-20 token on the Ethereum blockchain, SNT serves as the native utility token that integrates with multiple dApps and services within the Status ecosystem. However, understanding its tokenomics requires a nuanced analysis of its supply distribution, utility, and governance mechanisms, as well as any economic challenges it may face.
Total Supply and Distribution
SNT launched with an initial supply cap of 6,804,870,174 tokens. A critical aspect of its distribution was its ICO model, which allocated a significant portion of tokens to participants while reserving smaller shares for the core development team, operational reserves, and community incentives. While this distribution aimed to promote decentralization, it has also raised questions about long-term concentration risks. Token allocations to early adopters and the team, though relatively common, can create potential centralization in decision-making or market dynamics over time.
Moreover, there is no fixed hard cap on the token supply, which introduces the potential for inflationary pressure in the future, depending on token minting policies. This is a notable factor for tokenomics-conscious investors and developers exploring the SNT ecosystem.
Multi-functional Utility Design
The utility of SNT is deeply embedded in creating incentives for dApp usability and decentralized participation. Key functionalities include voting on network governance proposals, token staking for features like curated lists and moderation within Status, and fee payments for registering unique usernames on the platform. These use cases promote the more active involvement of token holders and aim to minimize passivity or speculative hoarding.
However, while this multi-functional approach broadens the token's purpose, it also creates friction in onboarding new users. As the learning curve for non-crypto-native participants can be steep, some argue that the utility proliferation adds unnecessary complexity to a user’s experience of the Status ecosystem.
Challenges in Liquidity and Market Dynamics
Another key factor in SNT’s tokenomics is its liquidity profile. As with many ERC-20 tokens, SNT relies heavily on external market providers for trading activity, creating a dependency on Ethereum-based liquidity pools. This introduces susceptibility to network congestion, gas fees, and broader Ethereum ecosystem volatility. Additionally, long-term reliance on third-party exchanges poses risks to token valuation and access.
While its decentralized issuance design points to long-term decentralization goals, SNT’s broader tokenomics are not without operational and adoption hurdles, requiring continued monitoring and refinement.
SNT Governance
Governance Mechanisms Behind SNT: A Deep Dive into Decentralized Decision-Making
The governance structure of Status Network Token (SNT) lies at the heart of its mission to empower a decentralized user base. Critics and proponents alike agree that SNT’s utility in governance is an ambitious experiment, yet not without its challenges. Leveraging an open governance model, SNT allows stakeholders to directly influence key aspects of the ecosystem, from feature developments to management of community funds. However, while the ideals are robust, the practical implementation raises noteworthy considerations for token holders.
SNT’s governance is executed through a voting system that ties decision-making power to token ownership. This token-weighted model offers a straightforward mechanism for decentralization but is not without potential pitfalls. The most significant concern involves concentration risk. Large token holders inherently have disproportionate levels of influence, which can lead to governance outcomes favoring a minority over the majority. This structure risks creating centralized power dynamics within an ecosystem that markets itself as decentralized.
One of the most unique applications of SNT’s governance utility emerges in the Status core team’s development roadmap. Ecosystem participants holding SNT can propose changes or vote on upgrades to the Status app or other blockchain-based components. While this grants users meaningful input, the system currently faces challenges in user engagement. Voter apathy remains a critical issue, often resulting in low participation rates for governance proposals. Whether this stems from lack of awareness, the complexity of blockchain governance, or disinterest in decision outcomes remains a point of debate within the community.
The technical execution of SNT governance depends heavily on decentralized voting infrastructure, leveraging smart contracts. While this ensures transparency and immutability in vote counting, it also imposes barriers on usability. Gas fees, for example, can penalize smaller token holders, deterring their ability—or willingness—to participate in votes. Additionally, poorly designed proposals or lack of clearly outlined benefits can reduce voter confidence and the perceived value of governance activities.
Finally, governance frameworks using SNT remain under scrutiny for their efficiency in resolving disputes or implementing changes. In cases where a proposal is approved but execution lags or faces technical hurdles, the resulting frustration can erode trust in the governance process. The question arises whether further iterations or entirely novel mechanisms are required to address these inefficiencies and make SNT governance truly participatory for all stakeholders.
Technical future of SNT
Technical Roadmap and Innovations for SNT (Status Network Token)
Decentralized Communication: Advancing Status Messenger
SNT is fundamentally tied to the Status platform's mission of decentralized communication. One critical area of development is the ongoing upgrade of the Status Messenger. The introduction of Waku, a fork of the Whisper protocol, seeks to address scalability and performance limitations. Waku's focus on adaptive bandwidth usage and spam protection represents a technical pivot toward more robust and privacy-preserving communication. However, challenges like maintaining low-latency message delivery in decentralized environments remain. Further iterations aim to implement libp2p for improved peer-to-peer networking, though adoption is still a work in progress.
Progress in SNT Utility and dApp Ecosystem
SNT's role as a utility token hinges on its integration within Status's decentralized applications (dApps). Current technical blueprints reveal a push toward token-based governance through collective decision-making mechanisms such as voting dApps. These tools allow SNT holders to influence the platform’s development trajectory. Yet, participation levels and voter turnout have historically been a bottleneck, raising concerns about true decentralization in governance. Enhancements to streamline voting processes and integrate reputation systems may address these issues in the future.
Privacy and Identity: Advancing ENS Integration
SNT’s support for Ethereum Name Service (ENS)-based usernames highlights a focus on user-controlled identity within the ecosystem. Despite its innovative approach to decentralize identity, the reliance on Ethereum for ENS operations introduces technical constraints like gas fees during registration and updates. Developers are exploring layer-2 scaling solutions and account abstraction models to optimize these features without sacrificing decentralization. Improvements to multi-sig wallet integrations are another focal point, providing users with greater control and security when staking identity-related assets.
Wallet and Transaction Functionality Enhancements
The Status wallet remains a cornerstone of SNT’s utility as a multi-asset crypto wallet. Several upgrades emphasize enhanced user experience through better UIs, support for a wider range of ERC-20/ERC-721 tokens, and improved transaction privacy via zk-SNARK integrations. Nonetheless, incorporating zk-SNARK functionality presents computational overhead, which may affect mobile performance—a core use case for Status. Combatting this will likely involve architectural changes to offload computing requirements without compromising decentralization.
Waku NFT Chat Protocol
A notable experimental effort includes developing NFT-based chat protocols tied to SNT utility. By tokenizing access to exclusive communication channels, Status aims to bridge messaging and digital collectibles. While novel, adoption relies on a synergistic approach between wallet integrations, NFT standards, and user education, areas where development remains in exploratory phases.
Comparing SNT to it’s rivals
Comparing SNT to BAT: A Detailed Analysis
When comparing Status Network Token (SNT) to its rival Basic Attention Token (BAT), the core difference lies in the problem each project aims to solve. SNT is deeply focused on creating a decentralized communication ecosystem, whereas BAT tackles inefficiencies in digital advertising through its Brave browser. These differing missions naturally influence their technology, token utility, and community adoption profiles, revealing strengths and challenges unique to both.
Utility and Core Functionality
SNT is primarily designed to integrate with the Status app, providing decentralized messaging, peer-to-peer payments, and dApp browsing. Its utility encompasses features like governance participation, bounty staking, and network incentivization. In comparison, BAT is integrated into the Brave browser ecosystem, rewarding users for attention while providing advertisers a transparent platform for campaign management. The utility of BAT centers almost exclusively around its ad-driven model, while SNT supports a broader, communication-first infrastructure. One drawback for SNT is the steep learning curve associated with its features, which can deter less experienced crypto users. On the other hand, BAT benefits from Brave’s intuitive design, ensuring seamless integration for non-technical users.
Decentralization and Privacy
SNT emphasizes decentralization and privacy at its core, leveraging Whisper for messaging protocols and not storing user data on centralized servers. BAT, while aiming to protect user privacy through its ad model, still operates through semi-centralized components, like Uphold for token withdrawal—raising questions about how far its decentralization ethos extends. However, the privacy-first approach of SNT can also lead to usability challenges, such as slower transaction times and occasional bugs in its still-maturing infrastructure.
Market and Adoption
BAT’s adoption benefits heavily from Brave’s existing user base, which has grown significantly due to its ad-free, privacy-centric browser experience. This creates a natural environment for BAT to gain real-world usage without extra onboarding friction. SNT, on the other hand, faces hurdles in driving mass adoption as the Status app’s adoption is heavily reliant on users buying into both its decentralized messaging and dApp ecosystem. Unlike BAT’s plug-and-play functionality, SNT’s multi-purpose design may dilute its appeal to individuals seeking a focused, single-use crypto asset.
Strengths and Weaknesses
SNT shines in its broader vision for decentralized communication, combined with a governance model that empowers its users. Yet, this scope comes at the cost of usability and direct incentives for everyday crypto users. BAT’s singular focus on advertising allows it to avoid such complexities and achieve quicker network effects, but some argue that BAT has less application outside its browser ecosystem compared to the wider tools SNT offers. This leaves potential gaps in long-term competition.
SNT vs. GRT: A Detailed Comparison in Purpose, Utility, and Ecosystem Integration
When comparing Status (SNT) to The Graph (GRT), the most striking difference lies in their core functionalities and use cases within the blockchain ecosystem. SNT primarily acts as the utility token for the Status platform, an Ethereum-based decentralized chat and browsing application, whereas GRT powers The Graph, a decentralized indexing protocol critical for blockchain data querying. This stark divergence in purpose creates a significant distinction in their target audiences, technical demands, and ecosystem reliance.
Utility and Functionality Comparison
The Graph’s tokenomics and architecture rely heavily on its role as the native cryptocurrency incentivizing indexers, curators, and delegators who participate in maintaining accurate and efficient blockchain data indexing. The utility of GRT is deeply tied to its technical operation within the Web3 ecosystem, as it facilitates dApp developers’ ability to access blockchain data in a seamless and cost-effective manner.
In contrast, SNT focuses on user interaction tools. Its primary use cases serve Status’s decentralized communication and dApp interaction needs. Users can use SNT to register identities (via ENS usernames), participate in governance votes, and gain access to features like the creation of private group chats. While SNT's utility aligns with Status’s goal to decentralize social networking and messaging, its narrower scope makes it fundamentally different from GRT, which has entrenched itself as vital Web3 middleware rather than an end-user application token.
Technical Barriers and Ecosystem Penetration
Where GRT has seen rapid adoption due to The Graph’s integration by a vast number of dApps and protocols, SNT's adoption depends heavily on the growth of the Status application. This poses a unique challenge for SNT, as its success remains tied to the network effects of a single application ecosystem. By contrast, GRT benefits from a more generalized demand; developers of decentralized applications across blockchain platforms require data indexing irrespective of consumer-facing applications.
Overlap or Lack Thereof?
An interesting observation in comparing these two tokens is the minimal functional overlap. GRT occupies a more niche yet critical infrastructure role in blockchain ecosystems, while SNT targets decentralization at the user communication and governance level. This lack of overlap may explain why SNT struggles to compete in the broader market share against tokens tied to universally critical infrastructure projects like GRT.
Limitations Highlighted
Notably, SNT faces scalability concerns in terms of adoption. Since the Status platform’s primary offering—peer-to-peer messaging—faces stiff competition from both traditional centralized applications and emerging Web3-based messaging alternatives, SNT’s growth could be hampered. Conversely, while GRT has successfully established itself, its reliance on Ethereum data indexing might limit versatility as blockchain ecosystems further diversify.
SNT vs. CVC: A Detailed Comparison of Decentralized Identity and Communication Protocols
In analyzing the competitive landscape between Status Network Token (SNT) and Civic (CVC), both projects position themselves in the blockchain ecosystem with distinct yet overlapping utilities. SNT focuses on decentralized communication through its messaging and browsing platform, while Civic aims to revolutionize identity management. Despite the shared ethos of decentralization, their diverging approaches create a significant basis for comparison, particularly for privacy-focused, crypto-native users.
Core Use Case: Communication vs. Identity Verification
SNT operates within the Status app, enabling secure peer-to-peer messaging, decentralized browsing, and a token-powered governance model. On the other hand, CVC’s primary function is to facilitate secure identity verification. The Civic ecosystem allows users to verify their identities in a way that avoids the need for centralized databases, using blockchain to streamline authentication for businesses and consumers.
While SNT’s focus is more expansive, offering tools to interact across Web3 without relying on traditional systems, some may argue that this broader scope dilutes its output in comparison to CVC’s single-target focus on identity. CVC's narrowly defined utility might make it more immediately actionable for enterprises looking for a specific solution like ID management, but it sacrifices the flexibility SNT provides to users aiming to interact across various decentralized services.
Privacy and Security: Approaches and Perceived Trade-offs
Both projects champion user privacy, but their mechanisms highlight key differences. SNT’s Whisper protocol ensures encrypted peer-to-peer communication. However, challenges such as potential scalability limitations with Whisper can impact the seamless experience for users during high traffic or complex multi-sig transactions.
CVC, while prioritizing data minimization in identity storage, does depend on trusted identity verification partners upfront. This reliance creates a potential dependency on centralized entities, which may sit uneasily with users seeking absolute decentralization. In this regard, SNT’s self-contained ecosystem might appeal more to the purists within the crypto community.
Token Role: Governance vs. Utility
The SNT token powers governance on the Status network, empowering users to have a voice in development decisions. This participatory element emphasizes community-driven evolution. Conversely, CVC is a utility token used to facilitate identity requests within the ecosystem. The functional nature of CVC is clear-cut, but its role lacks the participatory allure that decentralization advocates might find compelling in SNT’s model.
A parallel concern arises regarding adoption. Civic’s enterprise-targeted identity services require wide-scale participation from businesses to unlock its full potential, whereas SNT’s tools are more user-centered day-one, creating fewer adoption dependencies. However, this enterprise-first focus makes CVC better positioned for institutions, assuming they buy into blockchain-based ID solutions.
Closing Notes on Development Tension
While SNT’s multi-layered ecosystem earns points for flexibility, it inevitably carries the challenge of maintaining focus. Meanwhile, CVC's singular focus on decentralized identity offers clarity but remains reliant on a web of external partners. These distinctions highlight the differing philosophies behind the projects and how they cater to their respective user bases within the evolving Web3 landscape.
Primary criticisms of SNT
Primary Criticisms of SNT: Identifying Key Challenges
Limited Use Case Adoption
One prominent criticism of SNT (Status Network Token) lies in its struggle to achieve widespread adoption beyond its ecosystem. While the underlying ideal of a decentralized, censorship-resistant communication platform is compelling, the real-world utility of SNT remains confined. Many argue that the token itself appears to lack a clear incentive structure strong enough to drive non-crypto natives to engage meaningfully. Furthermore, the necessity for SNT as a medium for accessing features like decentralized governance or ENS usernames may not be as persuasive to users accustomed to seamless, fee-free centralized solutions.
Governance Participation Issues
The theoretical appeal of token-based governance within the Status ecosystem often clashes with practical reality. A recurring critique involves the relatively low levels of user participation in governance-related initiatives. Many token holders either fail to engage or do not care enough about the proposals, fostering sentiments of apathy within the community. This limited engagement with the governance process raises questions about the actual decentralization of decision-making power in the ecosystem, as well as the effectiveness of a tokenized governance model at scale.
Network Bloat Concerns
As a utility token, SNT introduces additional layers of complexity to an already intricate ecosystem. Critics argue that these auxiliary mechanisms, such as requiring SNT to use features like the Sticker Market and Status Voting DApps, could create unnecessary friction for users. This design choice may also contribute to ‘network bloat,’ in which features requiring the token exist more as mechanisms to legitimize the token itself rather than solving real user pain points. This friction could deter mainstream users who prefer more streamlined experiences.
Liquidity Fragmentation
Another substantive criticism revolves around liquidity and usage fragmentation. Unlike broader utility tokens with clear, defined application in multiple scenarios, SNT’s reliance on niche applications, such as payment for Status Premium usernames, arguably works against it. This limited scope hampers liquidity also, reducing average trade volumes and raising questions about the sustainability of this tokenized system in the long term.
Competition From Similar Solutions
Lastly, SNT faces tough competition from other decentralized messaging and governance platforms, many of which operate without relying on a native token or with alternative monetization strategies. Critics emphasize that Status must demonstrate an unambiguous advantage over these alternatives, both in terms of user adoption and technical capability, to avoid stagnation in its adoption curve. Despite efforts to differentiate itself, comparisons with more frictionless competitors have remained a sticking point for many in the crypto space.
Founders
The Founding Team Behind SNT (Status Network Token)
The Status Network Token (SNT), the native utility token of the Status platform, owes its inception to the vision and efforts of two co-founders: Jarrad Hope and Carl Bennetts. Both founders have a history rooted in software development and entrepreneurship, having worked side by side on projects prior to Status. Their goal to decentralize communication and offer an open-source, peer-to-peer application laid the foundation for Status as a mobile Ethereum client and decentralized messenger system.
Jarrad Hope, one of the key figures behind SNT, is often regarded as an advocate for privacy-focused technologies. His background includes early experimentation with decentralized systems, and his deep-seated passion for reducing centralized control is visible in Status’s mission. However, Hope’s previous projects have faced critiques for their ambitious goals that sometimes lacked timely execution, reflecting a broader pattern seen in the crypto space—balancing vision with deliverability.
Carl Bennetts, the second powerful force behind SNT and Status, brings extensive experience in marketing alongside technical competence. Prior to Status, Bennetts was involved in startup incubation efforts and has long emphasized the importance of community engagement and grassroots adoption strategies. His marketing prowess is seen as a key pillar in Status’s early fundraising successes. Nevertheless, some in the crypto community have suggested that Status’s user base has plateaued due to insufficient follow-through in evolving its communication tools into mainstream accessibility.
Together, Hope and Bennetts launched Status and SNT via an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) that was met with significant enthusiasm in the Ethereum ecosystem, raising over $100 million in ETH during its campaign. This robust funding provided the team with substantial resources but also set a high bar for expectations. Critics have occasionally pointed out that while the project’s ideals are noble and its tech stack impressive, the level of adoption Status has achieved compared to its early financial windfall has left some underwhelmed.
An important consideration when evaluating the team's stewardship is also the slow pace of certain developmental milestones. Crypto-savvy audiences have frequently debated whether the co-founders’ uncompromising vision for true decentralization—an ethos highly aligned with Ethereum's principles—may, in fact, hinder practicality and expedite innovation. This tension continues to define public opinion on Status and SNT.
Authors comments
This document was made by www.BestDapps.com
Sources
https://status.im/whitepaper.pdf
https://statusnetwork.com/
https://github.com/status-im/status
https://github.com/status-im
https://docs.status.im/
https://status.im/blog/
https://etherscan.io/token/0x744d70fdbe2ba4cf95131626614a1763df805b9e
https://defillama.com/protocol/status
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/status/
https://messari.io/asset/status
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/status
https://status-im.github.io/server/
https://status-im.github.io/specifications/
https://www.nansen.ai/protocols/status
https://cryptoslate.com/coins/status/
https://dappradar.com/connections/status-network
https://medium.com/status-im
https://discuss.status.im/
https://support.status.im/
https://status.im/security/
