Listen to this Post
A New Ransomware Claim Raises Fresh Concerns
Ransomware attacks rarely arrive with a warning. By the time an alleged victim appears on a threat actor’s leak site or is reported by a threat-intelligence platform, the underlying intrusion may already have happened—or the claim may be nothing more than an attempt to create fear and pressure. That uncertainty is exactly why new ransomware listings deserve careful scrutiny.
A new report attributed to the ThreatMon Threat Intelligence Team claims that a ransomware actor identified as “ransomw” has added two major organizations to its alleged victim list: TRUST PAYMENTS and MICHELIN. The claims appeared on social media on August 31, 2026, with timestamps indicating September 1, 2026 in UTC+3, creating an unusual date discrepancy that should be considered when assessing the original post.
The two names immediately stand out. TRUST PAYMENTS operates in the payments and financial-technology ecosystem, while MICHELIN is a globally recognized industrial and consumer brand. If the claims were eventually confirmed as genuine compromises, the potential consequences could extend far beyond a single company’s internal network.
At this stage, however, the information should be treated as an allegation rather than a confirmed breach. The material supplied for this article does not include evidence such as stolen files, sample databases, screenshots of internal systems, ransom notes, technical indicators of compromise, or independent confirmation from either organization.
What the Original Report Claims
The original social-media report says that ThreatMon detected dark-web ransomware activity involving an actor labeled “ransomw.” According to the post, TRUST PAYMENTS was added to the group’s alleged victim list at approximately 01:32 UTC+3 on September 1.
A second entry appeared only moments later, stating that MICHELIN had allegedly been added to the same actor’s victim list at approximately 01:33 UTC+3.
The extremely close timing is notable. Two organizations being listed within roughly a minute of one another could indicate a coordinated publication event, automated victim-list updating, or simply the way the monitoring platform recorded separate observations.
TRUST PAYMENTS Becomes an Alleged Target
The appearance of TRUST PAYMENTS on an alleged ransomware victim list deserves particular attention because organizations operating around payment infrastructure can possess highly valuable information.
Payment-related companies may handle or interact with sensitive business information, customer records, transaction-related data, authentication information, and operational systems. Even when payment-card data itself is strongly protected, attackers can still seek corporate credentials, employee information, documents, contracts, API credentials, infrastructure configurations, and other data that can be monetized.
However, the listing alone does not establish that TRUST PAYMENTS suffered a successful intrusion.
A ransomware actor can claim a victim without providing convincing evidence. Threat groups have repeatedly used alleged victim announcements as psychological weapons, sometimes publishing exaggerated claims to increase pressure on organizations and attract attention.
MICHELIN Is Another High-Value Name
MICHELIN is an even larger potential target, with a global operational footprint and extensive corporate infrastructure.
A successful ransomware intrusion against a multinational manufacturer could theoretically affect corporate IT environments, production-support systems, employee services, logistics, procurement, research, and other connected operations.
Industrial organizations are particularly attractive to ransomware operators because operational disruption can create significant financial pressure. A company that depends on continuous manufacturing and global supply chains may face enormous costs when critical systems become unavailable.
Still, the same warning applies: being listed by an alleged ransomware actor is not proof that MICHELIN’s systems were compromised.
Why Threat Actors Publicize Victims
Ransomware groups do not necessarily publish victim names simply to report successful attacks.
The public listing itself is part of the extortion mechanism.
When an organization appears on a ransomware
This is why ransomware operations increasingly resemble sophisticated pressure campaigns rather than conventional malware attacks.
The Psychology Behind a Ransomware Listing
A ransomware claim creates uncertainty before it creates evidence.
Employees may begin asking whether systems were compromised. Customers may wonder whether their information is exposed. Business partners may demand explanations. Security teams may have to investigate urgently, even when the original claim eventually turns out to be false.
That uncertainty has value for attackers.
The less information a victim can publicly provide, the more room an attacker has to control the narrative.
Why the “ransomw” Label Matters
The actor name “ransomw” is itself something that requires additional verification.
The supplied report does not provide enough information to establish whether “ransomw” represents a mature ransomware operation, a temporary alias, a monitoring label, or an identifier used by ThreatMon for a particular threat actor.
This distinction matters because ransomware groups frequently change names, infrastructure, affiliates, leak sites, and communication channels.
An apparent new group can sometimes be a rebrand of an existing operation.
The Dark Web Is Not Automatically Proof
References to the dark web can make a cybersecurity report sound definitive, but the location of a claim does not automatically make the claim true.
Threat actors can create websites, victim pages, countdown timers, sample files, and announcements without proving the full scope of an intrusion.
The strongest confirmation normally comes from multiple independent sources: the victim organization, forensic evidence, reputable threat-intelligence reporting, leaked data that can be independently validated, or technical indicators connected to the alleged compromise.
The Importance of Independent Confirmation
A ransomware allegation becomes substantially more credible when independent evidence begins to converge.
For example, investigators might discover unusual authentication events, suspicious data transfers, malicious tooling, compromised credentials, encrypted systems, or infrastructure associated with the attacker.
Likewise, an organization may eventually acknowledge a cybersecurity incident even if it does not confirm every detail claimed by the attacker.
Until that happens, responsible reporting should preserve the distinction between “claimed” and “confirmed.”
A Potential Double-Extortion Scenario
If these claims eventually prove legitimate, the incidents could potentially involve more than encryption.
Modern ransomware campaigns frequently combine system disruption with data theft. Attackers steal information before deploying encryption or threatening operational damage.
This model is commonly known as double extortion.
The attacker can therefore maintain leverage even if the victim has reliable backups. Restoring systems may solve the availability problem, but it does not automatically prevent stolen information from being published.
Why Backups Alone Are No Longer Enough
Traditional ransomware defenses often focused heavily on restoring encrypted systems.
That remains important, but it is no longer sufficient.
Organizations must also protect sensitive information against unauthorized extraction. Network segmentation, identity controls, privileged-access management, endpoint detection, data-loss monitoring, immutable backups, and incident-response preparation all play different roles.
A company can successfully restore its servers and still suffer a serious breach if attackers copied sensitive data before encryption.
Payment Companies Face a Different Risk Profile
The alleged TRUST PAYMENTS incident highlights a broader problem for financial and payment-related organizations.
Attackers may not need to reach the most sensitive financial systems to cause serious damage. Compromising an employee account, development environment, cloud platform, remote-access system, or third-party supplier can create another route into the organization.
The modern attack surface is therefore much larger than the traditional corporate network.
Manufacturers Face Their Own Challenges
MICHELIN’s alleged appearance on the list highlights another ransomware challenge: the convergence of IT and operational technology.
Manufacturing environments increasingly rely on interconnected digital systems. Enterprise networks, production monitoring, maintenance platforms, supply-chain applications, cloud services, remote-access technologies, and industrial environments can interact in complex ways.
That connectivity improves efficiency—but it can also increase the potential impact of a cyberattack.
The Supply Chain Could Become the Real Pressure Point
A major company does not exist in isolation.
It depends on suppliers, logistics providers, technology vendors, contractors, cloud platforms, software providers, and business partners.
A ransomware campaign affecting one organization can therefore create secondary risks for others.
Even if a company successfully contains an incident, compromised credentials or stolen information could potentially be used against suppliers and partners later.
The Timing Raises an Important Question
The supplied post was published on August 31, 2026, while the incident timestamps shown in the text are September 1, 2026 at UTC+3.
That does not necessarily mean the report is false. Time-zone conversion, platform timestamps, scheduling, monitoring delays, or formatting issues can create apparent discrepancies.
Nevertheless, the mismatch should be checked before treating the timestamps as definitive evidence of when the alleged events occurred.
What Security Teams Should Do When Named
Organizations should not wait for an attacker to publish evidence before beginning an investigation.
If an organization discovers that it has been named by a ransomware actor, security teams should immediately review authentication activity, endpoint alerts, privileged-account usage, remote-access connections, unusual outbound traffic, cloud activity, and signs of unauthorized data access.
The objective is not to prove the attacker wrong.
The objective is to determine whether the organization has actually been compromised.
Evidence Should Drive the Investigation
Incident responders should prioritize evidence over speculation.
Relevant evidence can include endpoint telemetry, firewall logs, identity-provider records, VPN activity, cloud audit logs, email-security events, DNS queries, unusual administrative actions, and file-access patterns.
Organizations should also preserve relevant forensic data because ransomware investigations can quickly become complicated once systems are rebooted, isolated, restored, or overwritten.
The Human Element Remains Critical
Even sophisticated ransomware campaigns often depend on stolen credentials or social engineering.
An attacker who obtains legitimate credentials may appear to security systems as an authorized user.
That makes identity security one of the most important components of ransomware defense.
Multi-factor authentication, phishing-resistant authentication, privileged-access controls, short-lived credentials, strong account monitoring, and rapid credential revocation can substantially reduce an attacker’s ability to move through an environment.
Ransomware Has Become an Extortion Business
Today’s ransomware ecosystem increasingly resembles an organized criminal economy.
Different participants may specialize in initial access, credential theft, malware development, data exfiltration, negotiation, infrastructure, or monetization.
This specialization allows attackers to move faster and reuse successful techniques across multiple victims.
It also means that defenders cannot focus exclusively on identifying a particular ransomware executable.
The intrusion chain matters more than the
Reputation Can Become Part of the Attack
For global companies, ransomware can create reputational damage even before stolen data is proven authentic.
A viral claim can generate headlines, social-media discussion, customer questions, and investor concerns.
This is why communication strategy should be considered part of incident response.
Organizations need a careful balance: communicate enough to prevent misinformation, but avoid releasing unverified technical details that could help attackers or mislead the public.
The Two Alleged Victims Show the Breadth of the Threat
The reported combination of TRUST PAYMENTS and MICHELIN is particularly interesting because the organizations represent very different parts of the global economy.
One is associated with payments and financial technology.
The other is a multinational industrial and consumer brand.
If the same ransomware operation genuinely targeted both, it would demonstrate how ransomware groups can pursue victims across unrelated sectors based on opportunity rather than industry alone.
Ransomware Groups Follow Opportunity
Attackers often look for weaknesses rather than specific industries.
An exposed remote-access service, stolen administrator credential, vulnerable internet-facing application, compromised supplier account, or poorly secured cloud environment can make an organization attractive.
This means every internet-connected organization should assume it could become a target.
The Most Dangerous Phase May Come Before Encryption
One of the biggest mistakes in ransomware defense is treating encryption as the beginning of the incident.
In many sophisticated attacks, encryption is closer to the final stage.
Attackers may spend days or weeks moving laterally, escalating privileges, locating valuable information, disabling defenses, and preparing for maximum disruption.
By the time files are encrypted, the compromise may already be extensive.
Detection Speed Can Change the Outcome
Early detection can dramatically alter the economics of a ransomware incident.
If defenders detect suspicious behavior before attackers obtain privileged access or exfiltrate large amounts of data, they may be able to isolate affected systems and invalidate stolen credentials before the operation reaches its final stage.
This is why behavioral detection and identity monitoring are increasingly important.
Zero Trust Becomes More Practical Under Pressure
A zero-trust security model is particularly relevant to ransomware because it assumes that access should be continuously evaluated rather than automatically trusted.
Users should have only the permissions they need.
Devices should be assessed.
Privileged operations should receive additional scrutiny.
Sensitive systems should be segmented.
And unusual access patterns should trigger investigation.
Backups Must Be Tested, Not Merely Created
A backup that cannot be restored is not a reliable ransomware defense.
Organizations should regularly test restoration procedures, isolate backup infrastructure, protect backup credentials, and maintain recovery copies that attackers cannot easily modify or delete.
Recovery planning should also identify which systems must return first.
Not every server has equal business importance.
Incident Response Needs a Prewritten Playbook
When ransomware strikes, organizations lose valuable time if every decision has to be made from scratch.
A strong playbook should establish who has authority to isolate systems, who coordinates forensic investigations, who handles legal obligations, who communicates with customers, who works with insurers, and who makes business-continuity decisions.
Preparation turns a chaotic event into a controlled response.
Organizations Should Not Automatically Trust Ransomware Claims
The opposite mistake is equally dangerous.
Security teams should not assume that every ransomware listing represents a confirmed intrusion.
Threat intelligence is valuable because it provides leads.
But a lead is not the same thing as forensic confirmation.
Organizations should investigate objectively and allow evidence to determine the conclusion.
The Broader Lesson for 2026
The alleged TRUST PAYMENTS and MICHELIN listings arrive at a time when ransomware continues to demonstrate its ability to affect organizations of very different sizes and industries.
The lesson is increasingly clear: cybersecurity cannot be reduced to antivirus software or perimeter firewalls.
Modern ransomware defense requires identity security, continuous monitoring, segmentation, resilient backups, supply-chain security, incident-response preparation, and strong governance.
Deep Analysis
Command 1: Verify Before Amplifying
The first command for analysts is simple: verify the claim before treating it as a breach.
The supplied material identifies ThreatMon as the source of the detection, but it does not contain independent confirmation from TRUST PAYMENTS or MICHELIN.
That means the correct editorial classification is an alleged ransomware claim.
Command 2: Separate the Actor From the Evidence
The label “ransomw” should not automatically be treated as the confirmed identity of a ransomware organization.
Analysts should determine whether the name corresponds to a known operation, affiliate, rebrand, monitoring identifier, or newly observed actor.
Attribution should follow evidence, not precede it.
Command 3: Examine the Publication Pattern
Two alleged victims appearing approximately one minute apart could be significant.
If both listings originated from the same infrastructure, analysts could examine whether they were published through an automated system.
If the entries appeared independently, the timing may be coincidental.
The publication pattern therefore deserves investigation.
Command 4: Search for Technical Indicators
The next step should be identifying indicators associated with the alleged intrusion.
Investigators should look for malicious domains, IP addresses, file hashes, unusual authentication events, suspicious PowerShell or command-line activity, abnormal administrative accounts, and unexpected data transfers.
Without such indicators, a victim listing remains largely a reputational signal rather than technical proof.
Command 5: Investigate Identity Abuse
Credential compromise should be high on the investigation list.
Attackers increasingly use legitimate credentials instead of noisy malware whenever possible.
Security teams should examine impossible-travel events, unfamiliar devices, abnormal login locations, unusual privilege escalation, newly created accounts, and suspicious authentication-token activity.
Command 6: Inspect Data Exfiltration
If the ransomware claim involves stolen information, defenders should investigate outbound traffic and cloud-storage activity.
Large transfers are not always obvious because attackers can slowly remove information over extended periods.
Data staging directories, compressed archives, unusual database queries, and unexpected cloud synchronization can all provide clues.
Command 7: Examine Lateral Movement
A compromised endpoint does not necessarily mean the entire environment was compromised.
Investigators should map movement between systems and determine whether attackers accessed file servers, domain controllers, cloud environments, databases, development infrastructure, or administrative platforms.
This establishes the actual scope of the incident.
Command 8: Validate Any Leaked Samples
If the alleged ransomware group publishes samples, analysts should verify whether the files are genuine.
Authenticity can sometimes be established by comparing documents against known corporate information, metadata, internal terminology, document structures, or publicly unavailable data.
Fake or recycled samples should be treated with caution.
Command 9: Watch for Reused Infrastructure
Threat actors often reuse infrastructure.
Domains, hosting providers, certificates, command-and-control patterns, malware configurations, and cryptocurrency infrastructure can connect apparently unrelated campaigns.
Infrastructure correlation can therefore reveal whether “ransomw” is genuinely new or connected to an existing ecosystem.
Command 10: Assess Business Impact
A ransomware investigation should not stop at determining whether malware was present.
Security leaders should determine which business functions could be affected.
For TRUST PAYMENTS, investigators would logically pay particular attention to payment-related services, customer-facing systems, identity infrastructure, and third-party integrations.
For MICHELIN, attention would also extend to corporate IT, manufacturing-support systems, supply-chain platforms, logistics, and operational environments.
Command 11: Protect the Recovery Environment
If an intrusion is confirmed, defenders must assume attackers may attempt to destroy recovery capabilities.
Backup accounts and management consoles should therefore be treated as high-value assets.
Recovery credentials should be protected separately, and restoration should begin only after defenders have sufficient confidence that attackers no longer maintain access.
Command 12: Treat the Incident as an Intelligence Opportunity
Every confirmed ransomware attack provides information that can improve future defenses.
Security teams should document initial access, privilege escalation, persistence, lateral movement, data theft, encryption behavior, and attacker infrastructure.
The objective is not simply to recover.
It is to prevent the same path from being exploited again.
What Undercode Say:
A Claim Is Not a Confirmation
The most important distinction in this story is between an alleged ransomware victim listing and a confirmed breach.
At the time represented by the supplied material, there is not enough evidence here to state that either organization was definitively compromised.
TRUST PAYMENTS Deserves Close Attention
The alleged targeting of a payment-related organization is particularly significant because financial ecosystems are attractive to cybercriminals.
However, the sector alone does not validate the claim.
Evidence must establish whether unauthorized access actually occurred.
MICHELIN Represents a Potentially Larger Attack Surface
A multinational industrial organization can have a vast digital footprint.
That footprint can include corporate systems, manufacturing-support infrastructure, suppliers, contractors, remote-access services, and cloud platforms.
A confirmed compromise could therefore have consequences extending beyond traditional office IT.
The Actor Identity Needs More Research
“ransomw” should be regarded as an attribution label until stronger evidence establishes exactly who or what is behind it.
Ransomware branding can change rapidly.
A new name does not necessarily mean a new criminal organization.
The Timing Is Interesting
The two alleged victim additions were recorded only seconds apart.
That could suggest automated publication or monitoring.
It could also be a reporting artifact.
Analysts should not infer coordination without additional evidence.
The Timestamp Deserves Verification
The supplied social-media post is dated August 31, while the embedded event timestamps show September 1 in UTC+3.
That discrepancy does not prove manipulation.
It simply means the timestamps should be independently checked before being used as definitive chronology.
Dark-Web Intelligence Has Value
Threat-intelligence monitoring can provide early warnings.
A victim appearing in underground ransomware infrastructure can give defenders an opportunity to investigate before an incident becomes public.
But intelligence should generate an investigation—not replace one.
Ransomware Claims Can Be Weaponized
Attackers can use claims themselves as an extortion tactic.
Even an unverified announcement can create reputational pressure.
That makes responsible reporting especially important.
The Defensive Priority Is Evidence
Organizations should focus on authentication logs, endpoint telemetry, network activity, cloud audit trails, and data-access records.
These sources can determine whether an actual intrusion occurred.
Identity Security Is Central
Stolen credentials remain one of the most powerful weapons available to attackers.
Strong authentication and privileged-access controls can make ransomware operations considerably harder.
Segmentation Can Limit Damage
Network segmentation can prevent attackers from turning one compromised workstation into an organization-wide disaster.
Sensitive systems should not automatically trust every internal connection.
Recovery Must Be Resilient
Reliable and isolated backups remain essential.
But organizations should test them regularly rather than discovering during a crisis that restoration is incomplete.
Supply Chains Cannot Be Ignored
A company can be attacked indirectly through a supplier or technology partner.
Third-party access should therefore receive the same scrutiny as direct employee access.
Manufacturing Needs Special Protection
Industrial environments cannot always be secured exactly like office networks.
Availability and safety requirements create unique constraints.
Manufacturers need security strategies that account for both IT and operational environments.
Payment Infrastructure Requires Strong Controls
Financially connected organizations must carefully protect credentials, APIs, administrative interfaces, and third-party integrations.
Attackers may seek access to supporting systems rather than directly attacking core payment infrastructure.
Public Communication Matters
If either allegation becomes confirmed, carefully controlled communication will be critical.
Silence can fuel speculation, but premature statements can create additional confusion.
Customers Need Facts
Organizations should provide verified information when appropriate.
They should avoid repeating unverified attacker claims as if those claims were established facts.
Security Teams Should Hunt Proactively
Waiting for encryption is a dangerous strategy.
Defenders should hunt for abnormal authentication, privilege escalation, lateral movement, and data staging before ransomware deployment occurs.
Threat Intelligence Should Become Actionable
The value of a monitoring service is greatest when its alerts trigger concrete defensive activity.
An alert should lead to investigation, validation, containment, or intelligence correlation.
Attribution Should Remain Conservative
Threat actors frequently reuse infrastructure and tactics.
Attribution requires multiple independent indicators.
Ransomware Is Now a Business Model
Modern ransomware operations combine intrusion, surveillance, data theft, extortion, public pressure, and monetization.
Defending against them therefore requires more than malware detection.
The Real Target Is Business Continuity
Attackers want organizations to feel that continuing normal operations is impossible.
Resilience reduces that leverage.
Preparation Changes the Economics
The faster an organization can detect, isolate, investigate, and recover, the less power an attacker has.
Security Investment Should Follow Criticality
Not every system deserves identical protection.
Organizations should identify the systems whose compromise would cause the greatest operational or financial damage and protect them accordingly.
Human Behavior Remains Important
Phishing, credential theft, social engineering, and accidental exposure continue to create opportunities for attackers.
Technology cannot eliminate the human attack surface.
Ransomware Claims Should Trigger Questions
When a company appears on a leak site, defenders should ask: What evidence exists? How was the claim published? Is data available? Is the data authentic? Are there technical indicators? Has the organization confirmed an incident?
The Current Evidence Is Incomplete
The supplied report provides a useful warning but not enough information to establish a confirmed breach of either TRUST PAYMENTS or MICHELIN.
The Story Could Develop Quickly
Ransomware investigations can change rapidly.
A claim that begins with a simple victim listing can later be followed by samples, technical evidence, an organizational statement, or a complete denial.
Responsible Reporting Matters
The safest conclusion at this stage is that a ransomware actor identified as “ransomw” has allegedly listed TRUST PAYMENTS and MICHELIN as victims, according to the supplied ThreatMon report.
That wording preserves the significance of the development without presenting an unverified allegation as fact.
The Bigger Warning
Whether these particular claims prove true or false, the broader ransomware threat remains real.
Organizations across financial services, manufacturing, technology, healthcare, government, and other sectors continue to face attackers who can monetize stolen access and information.
The Undercode Assessment
The story should therefore be watched closely, but not sensationalized.
The next meaningful development will be independent evidence confirming or disproving the alleged compromises.
Until then, the correct cybersecurity posture is alert, skeptical, and evidence-driven.
✅ Accurate: The supplied source explicitly attributes the victim listings to ThreatMon’s threat-intelligence monitoring and identifies TRUST PAYMENTS and MICHELIN as alleged victims of an actor labeled “ransomw.”
❌ Unconfirmed: The supplied material does not independently establish that TRUST PAYMENTS or MICHELIN suffered a successful ransomware intrusion, and no verified stolen-data evidence is provided.
⚠️ Requires verification: The source contains August 31 publication information alongside September 1 UTC+3 timestamps, so the exact chronology should be independently checked before treating those timestamps as definitive.
Prediction
(-1) If the claims are genuine, the situation could escalate quickly. Ransomware operators commonly follow victim listings with additional pressure, stolen-data samples, negotiations, or publication threats.
(-1) A confirmed compromise could create secondary risks. If credentials, corporate documents, supplier information, or other sensitive material were stolen, attackers could potentially use the information for additional intrusion or extortion attempts.
(+1) Early detection could significantly reduce the damage. If the victim organizations or their security partners are already investigating the listings, they may be able to identify unauthorized access before attackers achieve their full objectives.
(+1) The claims may ultimately prove exaggerated or incorrect. Without independent evidence, there is a real possibility that one or both listings could be inaccurate, misleading, or based on an unsuccessful intrusion attempt.
(+1) The most important next signal will be independent confirmation. Statements from the organizations, credible forensic findings, authenticated leaked information, or strong technical indicators would substantially change the assessment.
(-1) Ransomware groups are likely to continue targeting organizations across unrelated industries. The alleged combination of a payment-related company and a multinational manufacturer illustrates how attackers can pursue opportunities wherever valuable access or information exists.
(+1) Organizations with mature identity security, segmentation, monitoring, and tested recovery plans have a stronger chance of containing ransomware before it becomes a major operational crisis.
Replace repetitive analysis with decisive takeaways
▶️ Related Video (76% Match):
🕵️📝Let’s dive deep and fact‑check.
🎓 Live Courses & Certifications:
Join Undercode Academy for Verified Certifications
🚀 Request a Custom Project:
Secure, high-velocity infrastructure and disruptive technological engineering. Contact our engineering team for high-tier development and proprietary systems:
[email protected]
💎 Smart Architecture | 🛡️ Secure by Design | ⭐ Trusted by Thousands
References:
Reported By: x.com
Extra Source Hub (Possible Sources for article):
https://www.github.com
Wikipedia
OpenAi & Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
🔐JOIN OUR CYBER WORLD [ CVE News • HackMonitor • UndercodeNews ]
📢 Follow UndercodeNews & Stay Tuned:
𝕏 formerly Twitter 🐦 | @ Threads | 🔗 Linkedin | 🦋BlueSky | 🐘Mastodon | 📺Youtube
