Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Release Changelogs, April 2 We nailed thru 100 bug sets and feature sets in March, with a few highlights this week: - Detail Page Order Pagination and Filters - Base Bonding Curve -> New/Almost/Graduated - Launchpad Social Links -> Pump/FourMeme/Virtual/Bankr/Clanker - Tooltip improvements - Auto-save preset advance trading strategy...

stambouli_o1's profile picture

Jerry Pan

40,611 subscribers

22,337 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

ANNOUNCING: The Floki Trading Bot Closed Beta Mainnet Launch We’re pleased to announce the launch of the Closed Beta of the Floki Trading Bot on the mainnets of the Ethereum, BNB, and Base blockchains! The beta is currently open to an initial 150 users on a first come first served basis. The Floki Trading Bot is an innovative multi-chain Telegram on-chain trading bot designed to provide a seamless trading experience. With just a few taps, you can buy and sell cryptocurrencies in seconds across different chains. Our aim is to advance the way you trade, making it faster, easier, and more efficient. The Floki Trading Bot charges a 1% fee on every trade and uses FLOKI as its main utility token: 50% of this fee buys and burns $FLOKI, while the rest goes to the Floki Treasury. This will enhance the utility of the FLOKI token while accelerating its deflation. The closed beta will run for a period of two weeks, after which we intend to release a public version of the bot to everyone. Why a Closed Beta? The Closed Beta allows us to create a controlled environment where we can: - Identify and fix early bugs (should there be any!) - Collect invaluable user feedback to improve user experience - Validate our market assumptions Closed Beta User Assignments: - Submit at least 2 feedback/bug reports every week - Trade at least 4 times every week - Submit the End of Beta Survey (we will share it near the end of Closed Beta) Reward: Participants who complete the assignments will receive a reward in their Floki Trading Bot primary wallet at the end of the Closed Beta period. Details about the reward will be communicated later. 🚨 Safety Notice: Be vigilant against scam links/pages below that may appear similar to ours. Do not trust any messages regarding airdrops or asking you to connect your wallet to any site. Stay safe and beware of fraudulent activities. Join the Closed Beta Waitlist To join the Closed Beta, please use the link below: You can read the Floki Trading Bot documentation here: We look forward to having you onboard and hearing your feedback as we continue to aggressively expand the Floki ecosystem and work toward becoming the world's most known and used cryptocurrency.
1:00

ANNOUNCING: The Floki Trading Bot Closed Beta Mainnet Launch We’re pleased to announce the launch of the Closed Beta of the Floki Trading Bot on the mainnets of the Ethereum, BNB, and Base blockchains! The beta is currently open to an initial 150 users on a first come first served basis. The Floki Trading Bot is an innovative multi-chain Telegram on-chain trading bot designed to provide a seamless trading experience. With just a few taps, you can buy and sell cryptocurrencies in seconds across different chains. Our aim is to advance the way you trade, making it faster, easier, and more efficient. The Floki Trading Bot charges a 1% fee on every trade and uses FLOKI as its main utility token: 50% of this fee buys and burns $FLOKI, while the rest goes to the Floki Treasury. This will enhance the utility of the FLOKI token while accelerating its deflation. The closed beta will run for a period of two weeks, after which we intend to release a public version of the bot to everyone. Why a Closed Beta? The Closed Beta allows us to create a controlled environment where we can: - Identify and fix early bugs (should there be any!) - Collect invaluable user feedback to improve user experience - Validate our market assumptions Closed Beta User Assignments: - Submit at least 2 feedback/bug reports every week - Trade at least 4 times every week - Submit the End of Beta Survey (we will share it near the end of Closed Beta) Reward: Participants who complete the assignments will receive a reward in their Floki Trading Bot primary wallet at the end of the Closed Beta period. Details about the reward will be communicated later. 🚨 Safety Notice: Be vigilant against scam links/pages below that may appear similar to ours. Do not trust any messages regarding airdrops or asking you to connect your wallet to any site. Stay safe and beware of fraudulent activities. Join the Closed Beta Waitlist To join the Closed Beta, please use the link below: You can read the Floki Trading Bot documentation here: We look forward to having you onboard and hearing your feedback as we continue to aggressively expand the Floki ecosystem and work toward becoming the world's most known and used cryptocurrency.

FLOKI

327,039 views • 2 years ago

WTF is OP_NET and WTF is If you’re looking for a REAL OPPORTUNITY during this cycle, then check this out👇 OP_NET (OP_NET) is a groundbreaking metaprotocol that brings advanced smart contract functionality to Bitcoin, overcoming the limitations of previous Bitcoin-based protocols like Ordinals and BRC-20. It leverages Tapscript and a custom virtual machine (OP_VM) to enable complex decentralized applications (dApps), DeFi, and NFTs directly on the Bitcoin, all while using Bitcoin as gas! This combination of programmability + unparalleled security and decentralization presents a UNIQUE INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY on Bitcoin. OP_NET has the potential to unlock significant amount of value ($1.3T+) by enabling the first fully programmable layer on the world's most secure blockchain. This means early investors in projects built on OP_NET, like could be in for a WILD ride in the next 12 months! So, WTF is is basically but on Bitcoin. It's easy: create your token-->complete the bonding curve-->have a liquidity pool automatically deployed on (at no cost to you!). Now, we know what you're thinking: "isn't Bitcoin like super slow?" Yeah, it is. Enter: "SlowFi." In case you haven’t heard, SlowFi, is the term people are using to describe the DeFi experience on Bitcoin, where you’ll likely be waiting around 10 minutes for transaction to settle. Here’s the twist, though: this slower pace isn’t a bug—it’s a feature! With more time to think, strategize, and plan your moves, you’re less likely to get caught up in the frantic FOMO that can lead to bad decisions. The slower transaction times give you a better shot at hitting those sweet spots on bonding curves, making it easier to see those curves through to completion. Less volatility = more orderly progress through the curve. This can make it easier for the bonding curve to reach its completion point, as participants have a clearer understanding of price trajectories. SlowFi Sounds Cool But I'm a Fast-Paced Degen, What Can Offer Me? We get it. Not everyone’s cut out for the deliberate, methodical world of SlowFi. If you’re itching for that fast-paced, adrenaline-fueled trading environment, no worries. We got you! will also be launching on Fractal (Fractal Bitcoin), Unisat's Bitcoin sidechain, which is designed for speed and agility (30 sec block times). So, if SlowFi sounds a bit boring to you, just flip the switch on the dashboard and head over to our Fractal iteration where you'll be able to play FAST! The Last Thing We'll Say is This👇 The real reason to get excited about is simple. Whether you’re playing on SlowFi or tearing it up on Fractal, $FUN token stakers are in for a treat. We’ll be sharing our platform's revenue directly with our stakers, meaning every transaction, every trade, every time someone dives into a bonding curve, stakers are getting their cut. This isn’t just about earning tokens; it’s about being a part of our success and growing your stack along with us! It’s a win-win, or better yet, its a fun-fun! 😀 Bitcoin season 2 (SlowFi season) is COMING! Make sure to check out some of the other projects leading the way: SLOHM Finance Stash UNGA (OP_NET) Pepe (OP_NET) Take the orange pill and let's play!!! 💊💊💊
0:35

WTF is OP_NET and WTF is If you’re looking for a REAL OPPORTUNITY during this cycle, then check this out👇 OP_NET (OP_NET) is a groundbreaking metaprotocol that brings advanced smart contract functionality to Bitcoin, overcoming the limitations of previous Bitcoin-based protocols like Ordinals and BRC-20. It leverages Tapscript and a custom virtual machine (OP_VM) to enable complex decentralized applications (dApps), DeFi, and NFTs directly on the Bitcoin, all while using Bitcoin as gas! This combination of programmability + unparalleled security and decentralization presents a UNIQUE INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY on Bitcoin. OP_NET has the potential to unlock significant amount of value ($1.3T+) by enabling the first fully programmable layer on the world's most secure blockchain. This means early investors in projects built on OP_NET, like could be in for a WILD ride in the next 12 months! So, WTF is is basically but on Bitcoin. It's easy: create your token-->complete the bonding curve-->have a liquidity pool automatically deployed on (at no cost to you!). Now, we know what you're thinking: "isn't Bitcoin like super slow?" Yeah, it is. Enter: "SlowFi." In case you haven’t heard, SlowFi, is the term people are using to describe the DeFi experience on Bitcoin, where you’ll likely be waiting around 10 minutes for transaction to settle. Here’s the twist, though: this slower pace isn’t a bug—it’s a feature! With more time to think, strategize, and plan your moves, you’re less likely to get caught up in the frantic FOMO that can lead to bad decisions. The slower transaction times give you a better shot at hitting those sweet spots on bonding curves, making it easier to see those curves through to completion. Less volatility = more orderly progress through the curve. This can make it easier for the bonding curve to reach its completion point, as participants have a clearer understanding of price trajectories. SlowFi Sounds Cool But I'm a Fast-Paced Degen, What Can Offer Me? We get it. Not everyone’s cut out for the deliberate, methodical world of SlowFi. If you’re itching for that fast-paced, adrenaline-fueled trading environment, no worries. We got you! will also be launching on Fractal (Fractal Bitcoin), Unisat's Bitcoin sidechain, which is designed for speed and agility (30 sec block times). So, if SlowFi sounds a bit boring to you, just flip the switch on the dashboard and head over to our Fractal iteration where you'll be able to play FAST! The Last Thing We'll Say is This👇 The real reason to get excited about is simple. Whether you’re playing on SlowFi or tearing it up on Fractal, $FUN token stakers are in for a treat. We’ll be sharing our platform's revenue directly with our stakers, meaning every transaction, every trade, every time someone dives into a bonding curve, stakers are getting their cut. This isn’t just about earning tokens; it’s about being a part of our success and growing your stack along with us! It’s a win-win, or better yet, its a fun-fun! 😀 Bitcoin season 2 (SlowFi season) is COMING! Make sure to check out some of the other projects leading the way: SLOHM Finance Stash UNGA (OP_NET) Pepe (OP_NET) Take the orange pill and let's play!!! 💊💊💊

op.fun (OP_NET)

16,418 views • 2 years ago

Padawans! We are excited to announce the return of Jediswap with concentrated liquidity, full audits, points, and incentives. Check it out at Since our last update two months ago, we have been working hard on a fresh new version of Jediswap, focused on bringing capital efficiency and the best price execution to our users. After two months of dedicated efforts, a full audit by Nethermind Starknet , and passing rigorous security tests, we are excited to announce the launch of Jediswap v2. Jediswap v2 significantly enhances user experience and performance while introducing new features and surprises. Our commitment to community and user growth remains strong, and we have exciting plans to expand the Jediswap ecosystem. Take a look at key updates coming with the launch. A points system that empowers genuine, loyal users: Jediswap's origins go back to early 2020 when we started our journey not as a product but as a community known as the Mesh community. Our mission was clear: bring Open Finance to billions of people. Recognising the strength of community-driven efforts, we understood that collective belief and collaboration, rather than individual or corporate endeavours, would be the most effective path forward. Early loyal users are the most crucial pillars of any community and product. This point system is Jediswap’s first step in recognising and rewarding the value each user has added to the protocol. We have prepared separate point systems for liquidity providers and traders. In short, as an LP, you can maximise your points by earning more fees on your LP positions and maintaining your liquidity in Jediswap over the long term. You can check out the complete math behind points here. For traders, use Jediswap when you genuinely need to swap tokens. There is no need to do any wash trading. We have published the points system for Jediswap v2 and will soon release points for all the activity that has occurred on Jediswap v1 to date with a boost. Check out the points logic on our docs: Improved performance and user experience: We have significantly enhanced Jediswap's performance, making it faster and more user-friendly. One notable improvement is the integration of pool analytics directly within the Pool page, eliminating the need for users to navigate to a separate analytics page. Additionally, balance fetching has been optimised for smoother operation. Any liquidity added to pools now updates the My Positions page in real-time. Battle-tested security For this launch, we implemented several security measures. We underwent a rigorous 7-week audit process with Nethermind. With the help of the Nethermind team, we also created a test framework for Jediswap to compare security against Uniswap v3, which has been operational for 3+ years and is one of the most battle-tested smart contracts available. We simulated real data from different Uniswap v3 pools on Jediswap. We achieved a 100% match in the contract state after each on-chain action, such as swaps and liquidity adjustments, bolstering our confidence in our code's security. We will announce many cool things over the next few weeks. Keep an out JediSwap ;) Mint a Galxe NFT: To commemorate this launch, we have published a new campaign on Galxe, which rewards users with an NFT for being an early user of Jediswap v2. To earn the Galxe NFT, add at least $25 worth of liquidity to one of the pools listed in the Galxe quest.
0:22

Padawans! We are excited to announce the return of Jediswap with concentrated liquidity, full audits, points, and incentives. Check it out at Since our last update two months ago, we have been working hard on a fresh new version of Jediswap, focused on bringing capital efficiency and the best price execution to our users. After two months of dedicated efforts, a full audit by Nethermind Starknet , and passing rigorous security tests, we are excited to announce the launch of Jediswap v2. Jediswap v2 significantly enhances user experience and performance while introducing new features and surprises. Our commitment to community and user growth remains strong, and we have exciting plans to expand the Jediswap ecosystem. Take a look at key updates coming with the launch. A points system that empowers genuine, loyal users: Jediswap's origins go back to early 2020 when we started our journey not as a product but as a community known as the Mesh community. Our mission was clear: bring Open Finance to billions of people. Recognising the strength of community-driven efforts, we understood that collective belief and collaboration, rather than individual or corporate endeavours, would be the most effective path forward. Early loyal users are the most crucial pillars of any community and product. This point system is Jediswap’s first step in recognising and rewarding the value each user has added to the protocol. We have prepared separate point systems for liquidity providers and traders. In short, as an LP, you can maximise your points by earning more fees on your LP positions and maintaining your liquidity in Jediswap over the long term. You can check out the complete math behind points here. For traders, use Jediswap when you genuinely need to swap tokens. There is no need to do any wash trading. We have published the points system for Jediswap v2 and will soon release points for all the activity that has occurred on Jediswap v1 to date with a boost. Check out the points logic on our docs: Improved performance and user experience: We have significantly enhanced Jediswap's performance, making it faster and more user-friendly. One notable improvement is the integration of pool analytics directly within the Pool page, eliminating the need for users to navigate to a separate analytics page. Additionally, balance fetching has been optimised for smoother operation. Any liquidity added to pools now updates the My Positions page in real-time. Battle-tested security For this launch, we implemented several security measures. We underwent a rigorous 7-week audit process with Nethermind. With the help of the Nethermind team, we also created a test framework for Jediswap to compare security against Uniswap v3, which has been operational for 3+ years and is one of the most battle-tested smart contracts available. We simulated real data from different Uniswap v3 pools on Jediswap. We achieved a 100% match in the contract state after each on-chain action, such as swaps and liquidity adjustments, bolstering our confidence in our code's security. We will announce many cool things over the next few weeks. Keep an out JediSwap ;) Mint a Galxe NFT: To commemorate this launch, we have published a new campaign on Galxe, which rewards users with an NFT for being an early user of Jediswap v2. To earn the Galxe NFT, add at least $25 worth of liquidity to one of the pools listed in the Galxe quest.

JediSwap

107,537 views • 2 years ago

ALPHA LEAK: Ribbit Capital 's stealth token $TIBBIR just surfaced... 🧩 Video from 2020: Hint for Ribbit Capital Token 🧩 2025: Micky 🐸 (founder of Ribbit Capital) stealth-launched $TIBBIR ...🐸 What if one of fintech’s biggest VCs quietly launched a crypto token and nobody noticed? In a space full of hype, over-marketed vaporware, and copy-paste tokens, $TIBBIR stands apart - because it wasn’t announced. Zero hype, zero marketing, full stealth mode. (= classic Ribbit Capital style, IKYK) And now, after deep onchain tracing, SEC regulatory filings, social proofs, and a revisit of public interviews, the thesis is becoming impossible to ignore: Ribbit Capital has quietly launched its own token. 🔥 VIDEO HINT: It All Started with One Quote - Multicoin Summit, 2020 🐸 In November 2020, Micky 🐸 (founder of Ribbit Capital, $12 Billion AUM) appeared at the Multicoin Summit and casually dropped this: "But there's nothing as disruptive as what's going on with decentralized finance… If we want to be the best investor in this category of the intersection of finance and tech no matter where we are — we will be very active in DeFi and we will be participating in it. But it's not obvious that it's a company →→→→ or a token ←←←← or is it partnering with Multicoins or to making investments. I think we'll do all of the above over the next decade." At the time, it sounded exploratory. In 2025, with all the confluences and verifiable proofs, it sounds like a roadmap. SO. Let’s dive down the Ribbit Hole and connect the dots... Over the past few months, we've been meticulously tracing the discreet emergence of the $TIBBIR token project that appears to be intricately linked to Ribbit Capital and its founder, Micky Malka. Our investigation has uncovered compelling evidence suggesting that $TIBBIR is not merely a speculative endeavor but a calculated step towards Ribbit's envisioned decentralized financial ecosystem.​ 🧩 Onchain Proof: Direct Wallet Funding: Micky Malka's wallet, which has been active for over 2800+ days, has been identified as the source of funds for the developer wallet that deployed the $TIBBIR contract on Virtuals Protocol ​ → Since then, Virtuals core contributors are following ribbita , quoted Ribbit Capital's slogan, and launched the Virtuals Index on Reserve 🌐 with $TIBBIR being the #2 in weight. Onchain Proof TX hash: 0x286a702630239ff9b002c41f502076d1ce48a6e026951c3d22ff9b0e86cca2e3 🧩 Social Proofs: Micky 🐸 's profile pic = $TIBBIR Launch Date: The profile picture on Micky Malka's X account, when downloaded, it shows "01.11" -coinciding with the launch date of $TIBBIR "01.11". → Since then, the TIBBIR X account has garnered 100+ smart followers, Ribbit Capital core members, T1 VCs, Hedge Fund managers, and many others... → March 23: Micky himself started to follow the TIBBIR X account, ribbita ... (are we getting closer to exit stealth?:) 🧩 "TIBBIR" Legal Entities: Tibbir Holdings LLC: SEC filings reveal the establishment of Tibbir Holdings LLC, with Micky Malka listed as the investment manager. This entity holds shares in Robinhood, indicating a strategic alignment with Ribbit's portfolio. TIBBIR Trust Formation: A Schedule 13G filing dated February 14, 2025, discloses that Micky Malka owns 11.4 million shares through the TIBBIR Trust, further cementing the connection between Ribbit Capital and the $TIBBIR token. ​​ 🧩 SEC Filing Proofs: 🧩 Hacking For Agentic Finance Furthermore, in 24Q4, Ribbit co-organized an AI agent hackathon with Robinhood , Crossmint , OpenAI , Solana , which suggests a forward-thinking approach to integrating AI into their existing fintech x crypto ecosystem. → Since then, Ribbit Capital led investment round for Crossmint and Privy , and Robinhood (Ribbit Cap portfolio company) announced "Cortex AI", signaling their entry to Agentic Finance... 🧩 New $500M Fintech Fund (Agentic Finance?) 03.19.2025: Ribbit Capital, a venture firm known for its fintech investments, is raising $500 million for a new fund, a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed. The new capital appears to be a part of the Palo Alto-based venture firm’s latest flagship fund, titled Ribbit Capital Y. - TechCrunch 🧩 Why "TIBBIR" and not "RIBBIT"? "Fintech is dead, long live the New Fintech." Micky Malka said, the last decade of fintech was about giving people ACCESS to money. This decade, we need contextual money. So we need to rebuild everything. →→→ TIBBIR = RIBBIT spelled backwards. Explanation Video: 🧩 Strategic launch: Why Base ? $TIBBIR has been launched on Base , Coinbase's L2 chain. → Ribbit Capital is the lead investor in Coinbase. Micky 🐸 helped Brian Armstrong open CB's first bank account in Silicon Valley. (wen wen wen Coinbase listing) $Tibbir token Contract address on Base: 0xA4A2E2ca3fBfE21aed83471D28b6f65A233C6e00 🔍 Token Integration with Ribbit's Ecosystem? The $TIBBIR token appears to be more than a standalone asset; it's potentially a linchpin in Ribbit Capital's broader strategy to integrate decentralized finance within its existing portfolio. Given Ribbit's investments in companies like Coinbase, Robinhood, Revolut, Uniswap, Morpho, Arbitrum, and recently TON, $TIBBIR could serve as a unifying token across these platforms. However, the utility and plans are still undisclosed. 🧬 Ribbit Hole Conclusion The convergence of these findings points to a deliberate and strategic launch of the $TIBBIR token by Ribbit Capital and Micky Malka. This move aligns with Ribbit's long-term vision of participating in decentralized finance through various avenues, including token issuance. As fintech enters its next era, $TIBBIR may emerge as a central component in Ribbit's efforts to redefine the venture capital landscape and serve as a foundational element of the New Fintech (the intersection of fintech, crypto, and AI) this decade. Video credit: chiron 🏹 (our #1 sleuth)
1:48

ALPHA LEAK: Ribbit Capital 's stealth token $TIBBIR just surfaced... 🧩 Video from 2020: Hint for Ribbit Capital Token 🧩 2025: Micky 🐸 (founder of Ribbit Capital) stealth-launched $TIBBIR ...🐸 What if one of fintech’s biggest VCs quietly launched a crypto token and nobody noticed? In a space full of hype, over-marketed vaporware, and copy-paste tokens, $TIBBIR stands apart - because it wasn’t announced. Zero hype, zero marketing, full stealth mode. (= classic Ribbit Capital style, IKYK) And now, after deep onchain tracing, SEC regulatory filings, social proofs, and a revisit of public interviews, the thesis is becoming impossible to ignore: Ribbit Capital has quietly launched its own token. 🔥 VIDEO HINT: It All Started with One Quote - Multicoin Summit, 2020 🐸 In November 2020, Micky 🐸 (founder of Ribbit Capital, $12 Billion AUM) appeared at the Multicoin Summit and casually dropped this: "But there's nothing as disruptive as what's going on with decentralized finance… If we want to be the best investor in this category of the intersection of finance and tech no matter where we are — we will be very active in DeFi and we will be participating in it. But it's not obvious that it's a company →→→→ or a token ←←←← or is it partnering with Multicoins or to making investments. I think we'll do all of the above over the next decade." At the time, it sounded exploratory. In 2025, with all the confluences and verifiable proofs, it sounds like a roadmap. SO. Let’s dive down the Ribbit Hole and connect the dots... Over the past few months, we've been meticulously tracing the discreet emergence of the $TIBBIR token project that appears to be intricately linked to Ribbit Capital and its founder, Micky Malka. Our investigation has uncovered compelling evidence suggesting that $TIBBIR is not merely a speculative endeavor but a calculated step towards Ribbit's envisioned decentralized financial ecosystem.​ 🧩 Onchain Proof: Direct Wallet Funding: Micky Malka's wallet, which has been active for over 2800+ days, has been identified as the source of funds for the developer wallet that deployed the $TIBBIR contract on Virtuals Protocol ​ → Since then, Virtuals core contributors are following ribbita , quoted Ribbit Capital's slogan, and launched the Virtuals Index on Reserve 🌐 with $TIBBIR being the #2 in weight. Onchain Proof TX hash: 0x286a702630239ff9b002c41f502076d1ce48a6e026951c3d22ff9b0e86cca2e3 🧩 Social Proofs: Micky 🐸 's profile pic = $TIBBIR Launch Date: The profile picture on Micky Malka's X account, when downloaded, it shows "01.11" -coinciding with the launch date of $TIBBIR "01.11". → Since then, the TIBBIR X account has garnered 100+ smart followers, Ribbit Capital core members, T1 VCs, Hedge Fund managers, and many others... → March 23: Micky himself started to follow the TIBBIR X account, ribbita ... (are we getting closer to exit stealth?:) 🧩 "TIBBIR" Legal Entities: Tibbir Holdings LLC: SEC filings reveal the establishment of Tibbir Holdings LLC, with Micky Malka listed as the investment manager. This entity holds shares in Robinhood, indicating a strategic alignment with Ribbit's portfolio. TIBBIR Trust Formation: A Schedule 13G filing dated February 14, 2025, discloses that Micky Malka owns 11.4 million shares through the TIBBIR Trust, further cementing the connection between Ribbit Capital and the $TIBBIR token. ​​ 🧩 SEC Filing Proofs: 🧩 Hacking For Agentic Finance Furthermore, in 24Q4, Ribbit co-organized an AI agent hackathon with Robinhood , Crossmint , OpenAI , Solana , which suggests a forward-thinking approach to integrating AI into their existing fintech x crypto ecosystem. → Since then, Ribbit Capital led investment round for Crossmint and Privy , and Robinhood (Ribbit Cap portfolio company) announced "Cortex AI", signaling their entry to Agentic Finance... 🧩 New $500M Fintech Fund (Agentic Finance?) 03.19.2025: Ribbit Capital, a venture firm known for its fintech investments, is raising $500 million for a new fund, a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed. The new capital appears to be a part of the Palo Alto-based venture firm’s latest flagship fund, titled Ribbit Capital Y. - TechCrunch 🧩 Why "TIBBIR" and not "RIBBIT"? "Fintech is dead, long live the New Fintech." Micky Malka said, the last decade of fintech was about giving people ACCESS to money. This decade, we need contextual money. So we need to rebuild everything. →→→ TIBBIR = RIBBIT spelled backwards. Explanation Video: 🧩 Strategic launch: Why Base ? $TIBBIR has been launched on Base , Coinbase's L2 chain. → Ribbit Capital is the lead investor in Coinbase. Micky 🐸 helped Brian Armstrong open CB's first bank account in Silicon Valley. (wen wen wen Coinbase listing) $Tibbir token Contract address on Base: 0xA4A2E2ca3fBfE21aed83471D28b6f65A233C6e00 🔍 Token Integration with Ribbit's Ecosystem? The $TIBBIR token appears to be more than a standalone asset; it's potentially a linchpin in Ribbit Capital's broader strategy to integrate decentralized finance within its existing portfolio. Given Ribbit's investments in companies like Coinbase, Robinhood, Revolut, Uniswap, Morpho, Arbitrum, and recently TON, $TIBBIR could serve as a unifying token across these platforms. However, the utility and plans are still undisclosed. 🧬 Ribbit Hole Conclusion The convergence of these findings points to a deliberate and strategic launch of the $TIBBIR token by Ribbit Capital and Micky Malka. This move aligns with Ribbit's long-term vision of participating in decentralized finance through various avenues, including token issuance. As fintech enters its next era, $TIBBIR may emerge as a central component in Ribbit's efforts to redefine the venture capital landscape and serve as a foundational element of the New Fintech (the intersection of fintech, crypto, and AI) this decade. Video credit: chiron 🏹 (our #1 sleuth)

Altcoinist

258,474 views • 1 year ago

First of all, we here at AMGI want to thank you all for being on this journey with us. We have been extremely busy. Over the last few weeks we have delivered a huge early access patch to My Pet Hooligan, delivered a new on-chain governance solution with WinVote, brought back NFTs in game, started testing the Street Kred system, made some new hires, delivered a new site for AMGI Studios and smashed the largest gaming event in the USA, PAX West. What does all of this mean and importantly what is next!.... PAX West You have seen the videos, you know the vibes were on point, but let's dive deeper into this and what the key takeaways are. PAX West was completely different to the WAGMI Crypto events that we are mostly used to in this space, although these are always fun and important, when creating gaming products, it is also important to get directly in front of people who have a passion for gaming. That's what PAX West was, hosting over 100,000 gamers who just want to play games and have fun. PAX West was a great success for us on many fronts. It confirmed that we have something special in our hands. Gamers loved both the brand and the game and were eager to get involved. It opened up new exciting opportunities with gaming and hardware companies. It was a blast seeing event goers from Day 2 onwards wearing the My Pet Hooligan t-shirts around the city. It was great to see parents playing the game together with their kids. The choices to not include blood and gore made a huge difference and have opened some new unexpected doors for us. If we truly believe in the progression and adoption of this industry we need to move beyond degen products and into real life consumer products that people can truly enjoy. That's what we are here to do, no matter how difficult it is, and no matter what the current ‘meta’ is. We have been here for many years grinding day in and day out and are still here today delivering like we are the new kids on the block trying to prove ourselves. The Game PAX West marks the end of a phase of the project, whilst we now posture more into continued efficiency, growth and retention. The game is not feature complete by any means yet but the foundations are strong. There are a number of features still being developed, including a progression system, consumables system, further build out of questing, token utility and more. As these are continuing to be developed we also continue on our journey to make the game more accessible. This will start with Steam and then Consoles. A Microsoft rep at PAX told us “we are going to make it”, who are we to disagree!... Lots of new ideas, lots of new feedback to work from and a renewed drive and hunger which are only going to help make this an even more compelling and fun game. The Web3 Marketplace In the coming days, Version 1 of the My Pet Hooligan Web3 Marketplace will be going live. Version 1 for now will allow for the trading of My Pet Hooligan NFTs, OG Hooligans and Zuckbots for $KARRAT. It will also serve as the marketplace for all of our upcoming in-game blockchain assets. This will eventually become part of your online My Pet Hooligan central hub and will include features such as rentals and subscriptions. It's been a long time coming but it shall be here very soon. Everything's coming together, one step at a time. It is important to note that there are many pieces of a complex puzzle that must come together in order for us to succeed. Between payment solutions, L1 & L2 blockchains, wallets, distribution platforms and the laws of the land. We are in uncharted waters and continue to do things in the most flexible ways possible to ensure we have strong resilience with our operations. The MPH website is next on the list for an uplift too as well as an overhaul of the user accounts system UI/UX. Team We continue to strengthen the team bringing in new hires and stepping up individuals from the community. Some of the new resources being brought in include a new Game Producer, Senior Game Engineer, Senior Blockchain Engineer and the former Dean of the Epic Unreal Fellowship Programme. Collectively bringing in experience from Epic, Solana, Blizzard and more. There are also some community role changes and new advisors that will help with social strategy and web3. As well as new marketing efforts through new channels of distribution that we are exploring. More to come on this… WinVote V1 Governance isn't sexy but building tools for the benefit of the space that others can license is. Governance is a key part of the industry and a need for most of the foundations in the crypto space. WinVote has started its trial with the KARRAT Foundation. Whilst the trial continues it will continue to be built out with an aim to be the premier tool for on-chain governance in the space. Access to WinVote for other communities and organizations wishing to use WinVote will be secure through licenses that utilize $KARRAT. We still have much more at work here in the studio, such as continued R&D, The Others, AI, Feature Development and more. This list is long, but we are grateful to get to do it. Stay tuned and let us cook, this s#it ain’t easy! Karrat Gang, thank you again for being on this journey with us. We love and appreciate you all! Look out for a catchup with the team next week. Hooli-hoo!!
0:26

First of all, we here at AMGI want to thank you all for being on this journey with us. We have been extremely busy. Over the last few weeks we have delivered a huge early access patch to My Pet Hooligan, delivered a new on-chain governance solution with WinVote, brought back NFTs in game, started testing the Street Kred system, made some new hires, delivered a new site for AMGI Studios and smashed the largest gaming event in the USA, PAX West. What does all of this mean and importantly what is next!.... PAX West You have seen the videos, you know the vibes were on point, but let's dive deeper into this and what the key takeaways are. PAX West was completely different to the WAGMI Crypto events that we are mostly used to in this space, although these are always fun and important, when creating gaming products, it is also important to get directly in front of people who have a passion for gaming. That's what PAX West was, hosting over 100,000 gamers who just want to play games and have fun. PAX West was a great success for us on many fronts. It confirmed that we have something special in our hands. Gamers loved both the brand and the game and were eager to get involved. It opened up new exciting opportunities with gaming and hardware companies. It was a blast seeing event goers from Day 2 onwards wearing the My Pet Hooligan t-shirts around the city. It was great to see parents playing the game together with their kids. The choices to not include blood and gore made a huge difference and have opened some new unexpected doors for us. If we truly believe in the progression and adoption of this industry we need to move beyond degen products and into real life consumer products that people can truly enjoy. That's what we are here to do, no matter how difficult it is, and no matter what the current ‘meta’ is. We have been here for many years grinding day in and day out and are still here today delivering like we are the new kids on the block trying to prove ourselves. The Game PAX West marks the end of a phase of the project, whilst we now posture more into continued efficiency, growth and retention. The game is not feature complete by any means yet but the foundations are strong. There are a number of features still being developed, including a progression system, consumables system, further build out of questing, token utility and more. As these are continuing to be developed we also continue on our journey to make the game more accessible. This will start with Steam and then Consoles. A Microsoft rep at PAX told us “we are going to make it”, who are we to disagree!... Lots of new ideas, lots of new feedback to work from and a renewed drive and hunger which are only going to help make this an even more compelling and fun game. The Web3 Marketplace In the coming days, Version 1 of the My Pet Hooligan Web3 Marketplace will be going live. Version 1 for now will allow for the trading of My Pet Hooligan NFTs, OG Hooligans and Zuckbots for $KARRAT. It will also serve as the marketplace for all of our upcoming in-game blockchain assets. This will eventually become part of your online My Pet Hooligan central hub and will include features such as rentals and subscriptions. It's been a long time coming but it shall be here very soon. Everything's coming together, one step at a time. It is important to note that there are many pieces of a complex puzzle that must come together in order for us to succeed. Between payment solutions, L1 & L2 blockchains, wallets, distribution platforms and the laws of the land. We are in uncharted waters and continue to do things in the most flexible ways possible to ensure we have strong resilience with our operations. The MPH website is next on the list for an uplift too as well as an overhaul of the user accounts system UI/UX. Team We continue to strengthen the team bringing in new hires and stepping up individuals from the community. Some of the new resources being brought in include a new Game Producer, Senior Game Engineer, Senior Blockchain Engineer and the former Dean of the Epic Unreal Fellowship Programme. Collectively bringing in experience from Epic, Solana, Blizzard and more. There are also some community role changes and new advisors that will help with social strategy and web3. As well as new marketing efforts through new channels of distribution that we are exploring. More to come on this… WinVote V1 Governance isn't sexy but building tools for the benefit of the space that others can license is. Governance is a key part of the industry and a need for most of the foundations in the crypto space. WinVote has started its trial with the KARRAT Foundation. Whilst the trial continues it will continue to be built out with an aim to be the premier tool for on-chain governance in the space. Access to WinVote for other communities and organizations wishing to use WinVote will be secure through licenses that utilize $KARRAT. We still have much more at work here in the studio, such as continued R&D, The Others, AI, Feature Development and more. This list is long, but we are grateful to get to do it. Stay tuned and let us cook, this s#it ain’t easy! Karrat Gang, thank you again for being on this journey with us. We love and appreciate you all! Look out for a catchup with the team next week. Hooli-hoo!!

My Pet Hooligan

26,616 views • 1 year ago

The multi-leader blockchain endgame: competitive information inclusion as a self-reinforcing mechanism for global price discovery - how we got here, and why Aptos is leading the charge Onchain trading is the killer app In the nine years since the launch of programmable transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, onchain trading has revealed itself as the killer use case for blockchains: onchain listings, volume, and total value locked are all growing with no signs of slowing down, due to the censorship-resistant, permissionless, 24/7/365 qualities afforded by decentralized (DeFi) systems. Monolithic parallelism is key In 2020 Solana was first to market with monolithic, parallel execution (as opposed sharded execution which offers parallelism by partitioning global state into separate information silos), establishing a new design paradigm that raised the bar for throughput and latency: put all of the information in one replicated state machine and make it run as fast as possible. This design produces a single, global hub for activity, liquidity, and token launches, a kind of financial data whiteboard in the sky, where anyone can come and trade at any time with everybody else who has plugged into the system. DEXes are becoming more competitive Historically decentralized systems have been juxtaposed with centralized ones since the latter eliminates the overhead associated with distributed systems coordination. And yet despite this overhead, Solana as a decentralized exchange (DEX) is still pulling in billions of trading volume per day, exceeding that of all but the largest centralized crypto exchanges (CEXs), that simply can't compete with the giant DEX in the sky on token listings or fees. After all, CEXs have to pay for server space, salaries, and lawyers, while a DEX outsources everything. The colocation arms race The one place where CEXs have an advantage over DEXs is on end-to-end latency for colocation applications, or in other words: someone sets up a trading bot in the same data center as the exchange, and their trades get to the exchange faster than everyone else's. When there is only one data ingestion point the fastest trader wins, and after the arms race has played out everyone ends up huddling around the trading hub, effectively cutting off the rest of the world from playing the latency trading game. This is the model that traditional securities exchanges like the Nasdaq or the NYSE 🏛 employ, and because they own the server they can effectively charge whatever they want for access to it. The colocation arms race is also why L2s will probably never decentralize: running the sequencer is practically the same as running the NASDAQ, with the same monopoly on transaction fees collected from a nearby cluster of trading bots (I understand from conversations with Logan Jastremski that the Arbitrum arms race has already hit a Nash Equilibrium in Portland, Oregon). Colocation is a trap But once the colocation arms race has played out, trades become less about incorporating new information in the market and more about skimming off the top by spoofing all of the trades coming in from the other bots. High-frequency trading (HFT) bots located in the NYSE New Jersey data center, for example, are constantly placing buys and sell orders that they have no intention of executing, just to spoof the other colocated bots who are playing the same adversarial game. Information inclusion, on the other hand, the synthesis of real-time world events into prices, takes a back seat because anyone who tries to include new information first needs to batch up their order and send it through a series of middlemen before it ultimately ends up on the exchange: you, I, or practically any other individual can not actually "trade on the NASDAQ", no, we have to express our intent to someone like Robinhood, who then sells our order flow to @CitadelSecurities, who then sends it to the exchange, oh and by the way it doesn't actually even "clear" or "settle" once it "executes" because for whatever reason the whole systems splits these things up and prevents them from happening instantaneously even though it's 2024 and we have computers. Onchain trading cuts out middlemen This whole mess is why we have onchain trading, and why it's starting to win: if you want a mainline to the exchange, without setting up a server, and you want to trade on a news event without getting immediately frontrun by an HFT bot that is sniffing out the trades of every other HFT bot who is easing in batched up order flow on their own terms, then you submit your order to a node in the blockchain and the information gets included in the price upon ingestion. Oh, and by the way the trade is actually fully complete: settled, cleared, reconciled, done, whatever you want to call it, because the people who build decentralized finance (DeFi) build it how it should actually work, not in a way that creates a million incumbents and charges exorbitant rents for access to the system. Onchain trading better for price discovery And the beautiful part about this is that even if a distributed system has more latency than a centralized system, DeFi still ends up incorporating more information into the price faster than centralized finance, because with DeFi the information gets included in the system as soon as it is submitted, not after it has been batched up and sent through a series of middlemen. The consensus mechanism of the blockchain disseminates the information around the world in the form of a price update, while the centralized exchange model requires information about the event to first get propagate to the region of the trading hub, then to get submitted to the colocation server. This means that in terms of global price discovery, onchain trading is strictly a better system because the entire consensus model is based around accelerated information propagation. Because price discovery is a global phenomenon, blockchains, which are global, are actually better than the centralized status quo, on a performance basis, not just from an ideological or convenience-based view. And it has to be multi-leader In practice, effective global information synthesis of information has an additional key requirement: multi-leader architecture. That is, in a single-leader blockchain like Solana, where one validator at a time has a monopoly on ordering transactions into blocks, for their duration as a leader they effectively function as a colocation server. This means that if the current leader is in New York, someone in Singapore who wants to trade on local news as soon as it breaks will still need to get their order all the way around the world to the leader, who is effectively serving as the chain's data ingestion point, before the order can start propagating through the network. But this is issue solved by the introduction of multiple distributed leaders, because then anyone with access to new information can submit their order to the leader closest to them, yielding faster information inclusion in the form of price updates. Multi-leader is also required for fair markets A multi-leader architecture is also required for fair markets, because in a single-leader system the leader has the power to censor transactions, reorder them to their advantage, or even replace transactions with copycats that extract maximum value by replacing the sender's address with their own. For example if someone wants to capture an arbitrage opportunity between two onchain DEXes, they'll need to submit a transaction to the leader and trust that the leader won't simply copy the transaction and submit it themselves. But when there are two or more leaders, users whose transactions are censored by one leader will simply work with a different leader the next time around, eventually cutting off transaction fee flow to the extractive leader. Beyond just strict inclusion, in a multi-leader architecture validators are also forced to compete with each other on latency, because the leader who is fastest at disseminating users' transactions across the network will over time gobble up the largest share of the order flow. Transparent priority fees are a must, or a private mempool will emerge But in order to make this work, a multi-leader architecture must also offer users the ability to pay priority fees AKA "tips" or "bribes" to move their transaction to the front of the line: if there is a $5 arbitrage opportunity onchain, users need to have assurance that they if they pay a 4.99 priority fee to take that arb, they will get priority over a different user who is only willing to tip 4.98. If the native blockchain system does not offer this fair market priority fee mechanism, then it is only a matter of time before one spontaneously emerges in the form of a private mempool like Jito, which can create centralization pressures and undermine the integrity of the system as a whole. Competitive payment for order flow is the stable solution With the right architecture in place, the end result is a competitive environment where endpoints running maximum extractable value (MEV) bots compete with one to offer users the best price for their order flow. In other words, if a user wants to submit an order that can get sandwich attacked for as much as $2 of MEV, then the order should ultimately go to the endpoint bot that is willing to pay the user as much as $1.99 for the right to process their transaction. The price that the provider is willing to pay is ultimately a function of how much in priority fees they might need to pay to the current leader (0 they are the current one), but notably at each stage there is a competitive market for order flow, whether in the form of retail trader's orders, or priority fees among bots that might be forwarding orders to one of the leaders. AptosLabs is already building all this With a public mempool and transaction priority fees, Aptos additionally includes a pipelined architecture that already includes concurrent batching of transactions into blocks, with a single consensus leader who propagates the batched blocks out to the network. And the team is already researching running multiple instances of the consensus algorithm in parallel, yielding multiple consensus leaders who can compete with each other on latency and inclusion - just ask pranav | Shelby, Alexander Spiegelman, and Zekun Li. This means that block times can shrink as the number of consensus leaders grows, with each leader having its own geographical radius of inclusion beyond which it makes more sense to submit to a different leader. The starting point? Something like 60 ms blocks and 3 consensus leaders, partitioning the global information space into competitive and constantly-rotating regions of information inclusion. Messaging is important With concurrent pipelined transaction batching, a public mempool, priority fees, and a clear path to a multi-leader architecture, Aptos leads the industry in onchain trading infrastructure that can truly supplant the centralized colocation paradigm that has heretofore dominated global finance - by offering a truly superior product. And I am hopeful that this deep dive is the first step in communicating not how or that superior product is getting built, but what it means from a bigger picture perspective. If blockchains have found product market fit in anything, it is in trading, and the trading game can only be won by building the biggest, baddest, most high performance system that has as its north star a single, concrete goal: constantly reducing, ever lower toward zero, time time it takes to incorporate information from anywhere in the world into the global price discovery computer. Whoever does this, even 1 ms faster than the competitor, wins the price discovery game, as other blockchains are left in the dust, their DEXes arbed away to zero against the fastest chain on the block. And sure, the blockchain that can rise to this challenge can also handle useful things like payments, NFTs, or other solutions that benefit from permissionlessness and low gas costs, but I want to impress that at the core of this pursuit must be the urge to drive down information inclusion latency to the absolute minimum afforded by the laws of physics through a competitive, market-driven environment. I call on avery.apt 🇺🇸 , CTO of Aptos Labs, to lean in on this messaging, to make it clear that Aptos is here for this singular mission, to build the most performant price discovery engine in history, as a rallying call for alignment in development efforts across the ecosystem and broader industry. Where does this go? As the latencies drop, the spreads tighten, and the information inclusion increases with every incremental increase in network bandwidth, we can expect a new class of competing techno-financial hubs that aggregate around the world's largest information sources: New York, Washington DC, London, Tokyo, etc., commanding stake distribution commensurate with the density of information flow in these respective locales. With the right incentives in place, competing concurrent leaders will invest ever more in infrastructure to get their packets out to the network faster than the rest, yielding clusters of fiber optic cable around the world's financial hubs, neurons in the global financial brain connecting not just HFT firms to servers in their city, but connecting every city with every other city, to move pricing information across oceans and continents. And retail traders, who have been left out of the colocation game, will only benefit: this entire system gets faster, more inclusive, with tighter spreads and lower fees, and it is such an amazing opportunity to watch all of this unfold in real time. The future of blockchains is the future of trading, is the future of competitive information inclusion in real-time, is the future of truly unified global markets, because at the the core of this industry is a simple idea: connect the computers, and see where the incentives lead. They lead to this, and Aptos is leading the charge, because its tech is purpose-built for this exact purpose. So tell the world about it.
2:41

The multi-leader blockchain endgame: competitive information inclusion as a self-reinforcing mechanism for global price discovery - how we got here, and why Aptos is leading the charge Onchain trading is the killer app In the nine years since the launch of programmable transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, onchain trading has revealed itself as the killer use case for blockchains: onchain listings, volume, and total value locked are all growing with no signs of slowing down, due to the censorship-resistant, permissionless, 24/7/365 qualities afforded by decentralized (DeFi) systems. Monolithic parallelism is key In 2020 Solana was first to market with monolithic, parallel execution (as opposed sharded execution which offers parallelism by partitioning global state into separate information silos), establishing a new design paradigm that raised the bar for throughput and latency: put all of the information in one replicated state machine and make it run as fast as possible. This design produces a single, global hub for activity, liquidity, and token launches, a kind of financial data whiteboard in the sky, where anyone can come and trade at any time with everybody else who has plugged into the system. DEXes are becoming more competitive Historically decentralized systems have been juxtaposed with centralized ones since the latter eliminates the overhead associated with distributed systems coordination. And yet despite this overhead, Solana as a decentralized exchange (DEX) is still pulling in billions of trading volume per day, exceeding that of all but the largest centralized crypto exchanges (CEXs), that simply can't compete with the giant DEX in the sky on token listings or fees. After all, CEXs have to pay for server space, salaries, and lawyers, while a DEX outsources everything. The colocation arms race The one place where CEXs have an advantage over DEXs is on end-to-end latency for colocation applications, or in other words: someone sets up a trading bot in the same data center as the exchange, and their trades get to the exchange faster than everyone else's. When there is only one data ingestion point the fastest trader wins, and after the arms race has played out everyone ends up huddling around the trading hub, effectively cutting off the rest of the world from playing the latency trading game. This is the model that traditional securities exchanges like the Nasdaq or the NYSE 🏛 employ, and because they own the server they can effectively charge whatever they want for access to it. The colocation arms race is also why L2s will probably never decentralize: running the sequencer is practically the same as running the NASDAQ, with the same monopoly on transaction fees collected from a nearby cluster of trading bots (I understand from conversations with Logan Jastremski that the Arbitrum arms race has already hit a Nash Equilibrium in Portland, Oregon). Colocation is a trap But once the colocation arms race has played out, trades become less about incorporating new information in the market and more about skimming off the top by spoofing all of the trades coming in from the other bots. High-frequency trading (HFT) bots located in the NYSE New Jersey data center, for example, are constantly placing buys and sell orders that they have no intention of executing, just to spoof the other colocated bots who are playing the same adversarial game. Information inclusion, on the other hand, the synthesis of real-time world events into prices, takes a back seat because anyone who tries to include new information first needs to batch up their order and send it through a series of middlemen before it ultimately ends up on the exchange: you, I, or practically any other individual can not actually "trade on the NASDAQ", no, we have to express our intent to someone like Robinhood, who then sells our order flow to @CitadelSecurities, who then sends it to the exchange, oh and by the way it doesn't actually even "clear" or "settle" once it "executes" because for whatever reason the whole systems splits these things up and prevents them from happening instantaneously even though it's 2024 and we have computers. Onchain trading cuts out middlemen This whole mess is why we have onchain trading, and why it's starting to win: if you want a mainline to the exchange, without setting up a server, and you want to trade on a news event without getting immediately frontrun by an HFT bot that is sniffing out the trades of every other HFT bot who is easing in batched up order flow on their own terms, then you submit your order to a node in the blockchain and the information gets included in the price upon ingestion. Oh, and by the way the trade is actually fully complete: settled, cleared, reconciled, done, whatever you want to call it, because the people who build decentralized finance (DeFi) build it how it should actually work, not in a way that creates a million incumbents and charges exorbitant rents for access to the system. Onchain trading better for price discovery And the beautiful part about this is that even if a distributed system has more latency than a centralized system, DeFi still ends up incorporating more information into the price faster than centralized finance, because with DeFi the information gets included in the system as soon as it is submitted, not after it has been batched up and sent through a series of middlemen. The consensus mechanism of the blockchain disseminates the information around the world in the form of a price update, while the centralized exchange model requires information about the event to first get propagate to the region of the trading hub, then to get submitted to the colocation server. This means that in terms of global price discovery, onchain trading is strictly a better system because the entire consensus model is based around accelerated information propagation. Because price discovery is a global phenomenon, blockchains, which are global, are actually better than the centralized status quo, on a performance basis, not just from an ideological or convenience-based view. And it has to be multi-leader In practice, effective global information synthesis of information has an additional key requirement: multi-leader architecture. That is, in a single-leader blockchain like Solana, where one validator at a time has a monopoly on ordering transactions into blocks, for their duration as a leader they effectively function as a colocation server. This means that if the current leader is in New York, someone in Singapore who wants to trade on local news as soon as it breaks will still need to get their order all the way around the world to the leader, who is effectively serving as the chain's data ingestion point, before the order can start propagating through the network. But this is issue solved by the introduction of multiple distributed leaders, because then anyone with access to new information can submit their order to the leader closest to them, yielding faster information inclusion in the form of price updates. Multi-leader is also required for fair markets A multi-leader architecture is also required for fair markets, because in a single-leader system the leader has the power to censor transactions, reorder them to their advantage, or even replace transactions with copycats that extract maximum value by replacing the sender's address with their own. For example if someone wants to capture an arbitrage opportunity between two onchain DEXes, they'll need to submit a transaction to the leader and trust that the leader won't simply copy the transaction and submit it themselves. But when there are two or more leaders, users whose transactions are censored by one leader will simply work with a different leader the next time around, eventually cutting off transaction fee flow to the extractive leader. Beyond just strict inclusion, in a multi-leader architecture validators are also forced to compete with each other on latency, because the leader who is fastest at disseminating users' transactions across the network will over time gobble up the largest share of the order flow. Transparent priority fees are a must, or a private mempool will emerge But in order to make this work, a multi-leader architecture must also offer users the ability to pay priority fees AKA "tips" or "bribes" to move their transaction to the front of the line: if there is a $5 arbitrage opportunity onchain, users need to have assurance that they if they pay a 4.99 priority fee to take that arb, they will get priority over a different user who is only willing to tip 4.98. If the native blockchain system does not offer this fair market priority fee mechanism, then it is only a matter of time before one spontaneously emerges in the form of a private mempool like Jito, which can create centralization pressures and undermine the integrity of the system as a whole. Competitive payment for order flow is the stable solution With the right architecture in place, the end result is a competitive environment where endpoints running maximum extractable value (MEV) bots compete with one to offer users the best price for their order flow. In other words, if a user wants to submit an order that can get sandwich attacked for as much as $2 of MEV, then the order should ultimately go to the endpoint bot that is willing to pay the user as much as $1.99 for the right to process their transaction. The price that the provider is willing to pay is ultimately a function of how much in priority fees they might need to pay to the current leader (0 they are the current one), but notably at each stage there is a competitive market for order flow, whether in the form of retail trader's orders, or priority fees among bots that might be forwarding orders to one of the leaders. AptosLabs is already building all this With a public mempool and transaction priority fees, Aptos additionally includes a pipelined architecture that already includes concurrent batching of transactions into blocks, with a single consensus leader who propagates the batched blocks out to the network. And the team is already researching running multiple instances of the consensus algorithm in parallel, yielding multiple consensus leaders who can compete with each other on latency and inclusion - just ask pranav | Shelby, Alexander Spiegelman, and Zekun Li. This means that block times can shrink as the number of consensus leaders grows, with each leader having its own geographical radius of inclusion beyond which it makes more sense to submit to a different leader. The starting point? Something like 60 ms blocks and 3 consensus leaders, partitioning the global information space into competitive and constantly-rotating regions of information inclusion. Messaging is important With concurrent pipelined transaction batching, a public mempool, priority fees, and a clear path to a multi-leader architecture, Aptos leads the industry in onchain trading infrastructure that can truly supplant the centralized colocation paradigm that has heretofore dominated global finance - by offering a truly superior product. And I am hopeful that this deep dive is the first step in communicating not how or that superior product is getting built, but what it means from a bigger picture perspective. If blockchains have found product market fit in anything, it is in trading, and the trading game can only be won by building the biggest, baddest, most high performance system that has as its north star a single, concrete goal: constantly reducing, ever lower toward zero, time time it takes to incorporate information from anywhere in the world into the global price discovery computer. Whoever does this, even 1 ms faster than the competitor, wins the price discovery game, as other blockchains are left in the dust, their DEXes arbed away to zero against the fastest chain on the block. And sure, the blockchain that can rise to this challenge can also handle useful things like payments, NFTs, or other solutions that benefit from permissionlessness and low gas costs, but I want to impress that at the core of this pursuit must be the urge to drive down information inclusion latency to the absolute minimum afforded by the laws of physics through a competitive, market-driven environment. I call on avery.apt 🇺🇸 , CTO of Aptos Labs, to lean in on this messaging, to make it clear that Aptos is here for this singular mission, to build the most performant price discovery engine in history, as a rallying call for alignment in development efforts across the ecosystem and broader industry. Where does this go? As the latencies drop, the spreads tighten, and the information inclusion increases with every incremental increase in network bandwidth, we can expect a new class of competing techno-financial hubs that aggregate around the world's largest information sources: New York, Washington DC, London, Tokyo, etc., commanding stake distribution commensurate with the density of information flow in these respective locales. With the right incentives in place, competing concurrent leaders will invest ever more in infrastructure to get their packets out to the network faster than the rest, yielding clusters of fiber optic cable around the world's financial hubs, neurons in the global financial brain connecting not just HFT firms to servers in their city, but connecting every city with every other city, to move pricing information across oceans and continents. And retail traders, who have been left out of the colocation game, will only benefit: this entire system gets faster, more inclusive, with tighter spreads and lower fees, and it is such an amazing opportunity to watch all of this unfold in real time. The future of blockchains is the future of trading, is the future of competitive information inclusion in real-time, is the future of truly unified global markets, because at the the core of this industry is a simple idea: connect the computers, and see where the incentives lead. They lead to this, and Aptos is leading the charge, because its tech is purpose-built for this exact purpose. So tell the world about it.

Alex Kahn

24,432 views • 1 year ago

I Built a 37.0 Profit Factor Bot by Cracking Every TradingView Source Code tradingview is a gold mine hiding in plain sight and i just found the master key to unlock every single secret hidden within its community scripts. most traders spend their entire lives staring at candles and hoping for a miracle while the actual alpha is buried in the open source code that nobody bothers to look at. i used to be that guy who sat there getting liquidated at three in the morning because i thought i could outplay the market with my gut feeling and some drawings on a screen. it turns out that the game is completely rigged against you if you are trading manually but there is a specific way to flip the script. i am going to show you how to stop guessing and start knowing exactly what works across every possible market condition before you ever risk a single dollar. i spent years losing money and thousands on developers because i thought i was not smart enough to code the systems myself but i was wrong. the first step to cracking the market is realizing that every indicator on the super charts has a source code section that is completely open to the public. you can literally scroll through the community scripts and pull the exact logic for thousands of different strategies that people claim are the holy grail of trading. but the secret is not just having the code because most of these indicators are actually garbage that will blow your account up in a week. this is where the real loop opens because you need a way to test these ideas across twenty five different data sets in seconds rather than months. i use a custom setup with ai agents specifically a sub agent i call the backtest architect to handle the heavy lifting of turning pine script into python code. the goal is to create a factory where you can feed in a raw indicator and get back a full report on its expectancy and profit factor without lifting a finger. most people find one strategy and marry it for life but a real data dog knows that you have to iterate to success or you will get left behind. i am running eighty one different backtests right now because i know that ninety percent of what i find will be trash but that remaining ten percent is where the wealth is made. the backtest architect knows exactly how to structure the folders and data paths so that we are testing everything from the base indicator to complex versions with filters. you might think that popular tools like fibonacci or order blocks are the way to go because everyone on social media talks about them like they are law. but when i actually ran the numbers through the machine the results were embarrassing and most of those strategies just resulted in negative expectancy. it is a dangerous trap to follow the crowd into a trade just because some guru said a certain level was important when the data shows it is a coin flip at best. the dynamic swing indicator was one of the few that actually held its weight during the recent massive testing sessions we ran. it was pulling in profit factors of over thirty seven with annualized returns that look too good to be true until you see the trade list. we combined it with filters like the adx and the money flow index to see if we could refine the signals and the results were absolutely staggering. when you have a system that can run through forty data sets while you are drinking tea you realize that manual trading is a form of self harm. i realized this after spending hundreds of thousands on apps and devs only to find out that i could just learn to build these bots myself live on the internet. the speed of iteration is the only thing that matters in this game because the faster you can fail the faster you can find the one strategy that actually prints. one of the biggest hurdles i faced was thinking that i needed to be a math genius or a senior engineer to automate my trading systems. the truth is that code is the great equalizer because it allows a regular person to compete with massive hedge funds by using the same logic and speed. i decided to learn everything in public because i wanted people to see the process of losing money with liquidations and then finally finding a path to automation. the reality of the market is that it moves in cycles and what worked yesterday will almost certainly fail tomorrow unless you are constantly testing. that is why i built the agents to automatically look through the results folder and rank the top performers based on a composite score. it takes all the emotion out of the process because i am no longer looking for a reason to enter a trade i am just looking at a csv file that tells me the truth. if you are still drawing lines on a chart and hoping for the best you are basically playing a game of chance against a high speed casino. the transition from a manual trader to a systems builder is the single most important pivot you will ever make in your life. it is not about being right or wrong it is about having a positive expectancy that has been proven across thousands of trades and multiple years of history. i had to fix a few errors in the short selling logic where the agents were getting confused between maximum and minimum values for take profit levels. these tiny bugs are the difference between a winning system and a blown account so you have to be willing to dive into the code and refine the machine. but once the system is tuned and the sub agents are running it becomes a beautiful workflow that functions entirely without your input. we are currently moving through the editors picks and the trending indicators one by one because i want to have a database of every single strategy on the platform. being a data dog means you never stop searching for that edge and you never settle for a strategy that just looks okay on a single chart. you have to demand excellence from your code because the market will not give you a single inch of mercy if you are lazy with your research. the ultimate goal is to have fully automated systems trading for you so you can focus on scaling rather than staring at a screen for ten hours a day. i am already up to over eighty backtests in this single session and i plan on hitting hundreds more by the end of the week. once you realize that you can crack the code of any indicator you see on the internet you will never look at a chart the same way again. this is the power of using agents to bridge the gap between a raw idea and a finished trading bot that actually works in the real world. i am done with getting liquidated and i am done with the stress of over trading because the code handles everything with cold precision. the path to success is paved with data and if you are not willing to automate your process you are just waiting for your next liquidation to happen
49:49

I Built a 37.0 Profit Factor Bot by Cracking Every TradingView Source Code tradingview is a gold mine hiding in plain sight and i just found the master key to unlock every single secret hidden within its community scripts. most traders spend their entire lives staring at candles and hoping for a miracle while the actual alpha is buried in the open source code that nobody bothers to look at. i used to be that guy who sat there getting liquidated at three in the morning because i thought i could outplay the market with my gut feeling and some drawings on a screen. it turns out that the game is completely rigged against you if you are trading manually but there is a specific way to flip the script. i am going to show you how to stop guessing and start knowing exactly what works across every possible market condition before you ever risk a single dollar. i spent years losing money and thousands on developers because i thought i was not smart enough to code the systems myself but i was wrong. the first step to cracking the market is realizing that every indicator on the super charts has a source code section that is completely open to the public. you can literally scroll through the community scripts and pull the exact logic for thousands of different strategies that people claim are the holy grail of trading. but the secret is not just having the code because most of these indicators are actually garbage that will blow your account up in a week. this is where the real loop opens because you need a way to test these ideas across twenty five different data sets in seconds rather than months. i use a custom setup with ai agents specifically a sub agent i call the backtest architect to handle the heavy lifting of turning pine script into python code. the goal is to create a factory where you can feed in a raw indicator and get back a full report on its expectancy and profit factor without lifting a finger. most people find one strategy and marry it for life but a real data dog knows that you have to iterate to success or you will get left behind. i am running eighty one different backtests right now because i know that ninety percent of what i find will be trash but that remaining ten percent is where the wealth is made. the backtest architect knows exactly how to structure the folders and data paths so that we are testing everything from the base indicator to complex versions with filters. you might think that popular tools like fibonacci or order blocks are the way to go because everyone on social media talks about them like they are law. but when i actually ran the numbers through the machine the results were embarrassing and most of those strategies just resulted in negative expectancy. it is a dangerous trap to follow the crowd into a trade just because some guru said a certain level was important when the data shows it is a coin flip at best. the dynamic swing indicator was one of the few that actually held its weight during the recent massive testing sessions we ran. it was pulling in profit factors of over thirty seven with annualized returns that look too good to be true until you see the trade list. we combined it with filters like the adx and the money flow index to see if we could refine the signals and the results were absolutely staggering. when you have a system that can run through forty data sets while you are drinking tea you realize that manual trading is a form of self harm. i realized this after spending hundreds of thousands on apps and devs only to find out that i could just learn to build these bots myself live on the internet. the speed of iteration is the only thing that matters in this game because the faster you can fail the faster you can find the one strategy that actually prints. one of the biggest hurdles i faced was thinking that i needed to be a math genius or a senior engineer to automate my trading systems. the truth is that code is the great equalizer because it allows a regular person to compete with massive hedge funds by using the same logic and speed. i decided to learn everything in public because i wanted people to see the process of losing money with liquidations and then finally finding a path to automation. the reality of the market is that it moves in cycles and what worked yesterday will almost certainly fail tomorrow unless you are constantly testing. that is why i built the agents to automatically look through the results folder and rank the top performers based on a composite score. it takes all the emotion out of the process because i am no longer looking for a reason to enter a trade i am just looking at a csv file that tells me the truth. if you are still drawing lines on a chart and hoping for the best you are basically playing a game of chance against a high speed casino. the transition from a manual trader to a systems builder is the single most important pivot you will ever make in your life. it is not about being right or wrong it is about having a positive expectancy that has been proven across thousands of trades and multiple years of history. i had to fix a few errors in the short selling logic where the agents were getting confused between maximum and minimum values for take profit levels. these tiny bugs are the difference between a winning system and a blown account so you have to be willing to dive into the code and refine the machine. but once the system is tuned and the sub agents are running it becomes a beautiful workflow that functions entirely without your input. we are currently moving through the editors picks and the trending indicators one by one because i want to have a database of every single strategy on the platform. being a data dog means you never stop searching for that edge and you never settle for a strategy that just looks okay on a single chart. you have to demand excellence from your code because the market will not give you a single inch of mercy if you are lazy with your research. the ultimate goal is to have fully automated systems trading for you so you can focus on scaling rather than staring at a screen for ten hours a day. i am already up to over eighty backtests in this single session and i plan on hitting hundreds more by the end of the week. once you realize that you can crack the code of any indicator you see on the internet you will never look at a chart the same way again. this is the power of using agents to bridge the gap between a raw idea and a finished trading bot that actually works in the real world. i am done with getting liquidated and i am done with the stress of over trading because the code handles everything with cold precision. the path to success is paved with data and if you are not willing to automate your process you are just waiting for your next liquidation to happen

Moon Dev

26,010 views • 5 months ago

Just finished a huge UPGRADE to my Polymarket Arbitrage Trading Bot 📈 $41,514 +EV - [ Right Now] ✳️ 1,032% Spread - [ Right Now] #⃣ 3X More Arbitrage Opportunities I had to break a lot of rules to get this to work, If Polymarket finds out I might be in trouble... But it was worth it! I was able to bypass the restrictions that are holding back other Arbitrage Trading Bots Here’s how it all works... MARKET MATCHING The bot is looking for arbitrages across 5 different Prediction Markets To do that we are indexing millions of individual markets To try to find the few thousand functionally identical pairs between platforms That's billions of potential matches To find the few thousand market pairs that are functionally equivalent between platforms we are using a four part matching system: 1. Keyword extraction, ranking & matching 2. Trigram, Jaccard & Vector hybrid matching algorithm of the market titles, close conditions, alternative titles & outcomes 3. LLM Prompt matching checking for functional equivalence of market rules -> Incredibly inconsistent, hence the need for part 4, building a system like this at scale will open your eyes to the shortcomings of AI 4. Human verification + 99.8% Accuracy + 6,320 Markets Matched Once we have our markets, we move onto.. ARBITRAGE DETECTION - [ UPGRADED ] To detect if there is an arbitrage we need two things Market Odds & Orderbooks Market Odds: This will show us the ‘Spread’, if the sum of Market A YES & Market B NO is less than $1, or vice versa, we have a potential arbitrage Orderbooks: This will show us the "EV", much we can arbitrage profit we can extract, according to the available liquidity and slippage of both orderbooks This is where we had been severely limited in the past, due to inadequacies of the WebSocket feeds and API rate limits Polymarket: Orderbook initial dumps & entire orderbook price levels missing when connecting hundreds of markets to the WS feed, undisclosed multi-WS rate limits Opinion: API rate limits, WS delta updates missing, WS delta updates sent in wrong order, asks sent below best bid, airdrop farming bots posting and filling their own orders breaking WS feed. Kalshi: Rate limits and minor book inaccuracies at scale PredictFun & Probable: Surprisingly accurate as of current, monitoring how they handle increasing volumes To get past these limits and scale the Arbitrage Finder we built some advanced new systems 1. Multiple Instances Instead of scaling vertically we moved to scaling horizontally, a central controller handles the deployment & management of multiple proxied worker instances that each keep a local record of a subset of the market orderbooks and detect arbitrage opportunities as soon as dif updates are received These worker instances feed the orderbook data back to the main controller which aggregates all information in one place and formats along them with relevant metadata to be fetched by our trading interfaces and applications 2. Handling “Junk Data” One of the most challenging parts of scaling this application is dealing with the inaccuracies of the data provided by the APIs that we refer to as ‘Junk Data’ Some are easy to deal with: - Book updates returned in the wrong order required an additional ‘lastTimestamp’ value at each book level which was referenced before any future updates are applied, if diff update timestamp was prior to lastTimestamp the dif update is ignored. - Missing book dumps / levels reduced almost entirely by reducing the number of CLOB tokens per WS connection - Dif ask/bid flips appearing at impossible levels are not applied Some were a lot more challenging: - Missing book updates were only detectable with revalidation & comparison, we don’t know what we don't know until we know we don't know it. More complex revalidation triggers and short recycling periods minimize the issue With these updates we can scale the number of local orderbooks we are handling at one time: Before: ~4,000 orderbooks After: ~10,000 orderbooks This, along with the improvements in orderbook accuracy, has increased arb density by 3X Meaning we’re finding 3X the amount of opportunities as before 3. Rate limit bypass To bypass the API limits that limit the quantity of markets we can subscribe to at once we had to ██████ ███ █ ██████ █████ █████████ TRADING SYSTEMS - [ NEW ] The data is only as good as you can display it, ultimately the format in which the data is served will determine how efficiently it can be acted upon We’ve created a system of interconnected tools that enable us to trade these opportunities, each with a different specific use case 1. AlertPilot Trading Terminal A dashboard displaying all the hundreds of arbitrage opportunities the bot has found across 5 different prediction markets in real time + Arbitrage Calculator, showing you exactly how much to bid to take advantage of the arbitrage according to your bankroll, fees & slippage + Double Price Chart, which helps traders to estimate how long their arbitrage take to close + Strategy Guide, explaining how to execute arbitrage trades most effectively to maximize profits + Position Manager, connect your wallets to see your open arbitrage positions, EV, profits & exits 2. AlertPilot Telegram Bot A system for getting alerts on all new arbitrage opportunities immediately, EV, Spreads & market links + Custom Settings, only see the arbitrages you’d want to take with user specific settings + Position Sell Alerts, connected to the AlertPilot Position Manager, get alerts to your phone when its time to sell your arbitrage positions + All 5 Markets, alerts on all 5 supported prediction markets: Polymarket, Kalshi, Opinion, Probable & PredictFun 3. AlertPilot Discord Bot Private chat rooms and arbitrage alerts on the AlertPilot Discord Group + Custom Alerts, the best arbitrage alerts are sent to the discord channel + Support, traders answering your questions on Arbitrage Trading 4. Arbitrage Trading Terminal [ SOON ] A trading terminal built specifically for Arbitrage + Atomic Execution, enter positions on two platforms at the same time + Visualize the Arbitrage, trade with both charts in one place, see the gap close as you take your positions + Manage positions across multiple prediction markets in one place
0:52

Just finished a huge UPGRADE to my Polymarket Arbitrage Trading Bot 📈 $41,514 +EV - [ Right Now] ✳️ 1,032% Spread - [ Right Now] #⃣ 3X More Arbitrage Opportunities I had to break a lot of rules to get this to work, If Polymarket finds out I might be in trouble... But it was worth it! I was able to bypass the restrictions that are holding back other Arbitrage Trading Bots Here’s how it all works... MARKET MATCHING The bot is looking for arbitrages across 5 different Prediction Markets To do that we are indexing millions of individual markets To try to find the few thousand functionally identical pairs between platforms That's billions of potential matches To find the few thousand market pairs that are functionally equivalent between platforms we are using a four part matching system: 1. Keyword extraction, ranking & matching 2. Trigram, Jaccard & Vector hybrid matching algorithm of the market titles, close conditions, alternative titles & outcomes 3. LLM Prompt matching checking for functional equivalence of market rules -> Incredibly inconsistent, hence the need for part 4, building a system like this at scale will open your eyes to the shortcomings of AI 4. Human verification + 99.8% Accuracy + 6,320 Markets Matched Once we have our markets, we move onto.. ARBITRAGE DETECTION - [ UPGRADED ] To detect if there is an arbitrage we need two things Market Odds & Orderbooks Market Odds: This will show us the ‘Spread’, if the sum of Market A YES & Market B NO is less than $1, or vice versa, we have a potential arbitrage Orderbooks: This will show us the "EV", much we can arbitrage profit we can extract, according to the available liquidity and slippage of both orderbooks This is where we had been severely limited in the past, due to inadequacies of the WebSocket feeds and API rate limits Polymarket: Orderbook initial dumps & entire orderbook price levels missing when connecting hundreds of markets to the WS feed, undisclosed multi-WS rate limits Opinion: API rate limits, WS delta updates missing, WS delta updates sent in wrong order, asks sent below best bid, airdrop farming bots posting and filling their own orders breaking WS feed. Kalshi: Rate limits and minor book inaccuracies at scale PredictFun & Probable: Surprisingly accurate as of current, monitoring how they handle increasing volumes To get past these limits and scale the Arbitrage Finder we built some advanced new systems 1. Multiple Instances Instead of scaling vertically we moved to scaling horizontally, a central controller handles the deployment & management of multiple proxied worker instances that each keep a local record of a subset of the market orderbooks and detect arbitrage opportunities as soon as dif updates are received These worker instances feed the orderbook data back to the main controller which aggregates all information in one place and formats along them with relevant metadata to be fetched by our trading interfaces and applications 2. Handling “Junk Data” One of the most challenging parts of scaling this application is dealing with the inaccuracies of the data provided by the APIs that we refer to as ‘Junk Data’ Some are easy to deal with: - Book updates returned in the wrong order required an additional ‘lastTimestamp’ value at each book level which was referenced before any future updates are applied, if diff update timestamp was prior to lastTimestamp the dif update is ignored. - Missing book dumps / levels reduced almost entirely by reducing the number of CLOB tokens per WS connection - Dif ask/bid flips appearing at impossible levels are not applied Some were a lot more challenging: - Missing book updates were only detectable with revalidation & comparison, we don’t know what we don't know until we know we don't know it. More complex revalidation triggers and short recycling periods minimize the issue With these updates we can scale the number of local orderbooks we are handling at one time: Before: ~4,000 orderbooks After: ~10,000 orderbooks This, along with the improvements in orderbook accuracy, has increased arb density by 3X Meaning we’re finding 3X the amount of opportunities as before 3. Rate limit bypass To bypass the API limits that limit the quantity of markets we can subscribe to at once we had to ██████ ███ █ ██████ █████ █████████ TRADING SYSTEMS - [ NEW ] The data is only as good as you can display it, ultimately the format in which the data is served will determine how efficiently it can be acted upon We’ve created a system of interconnected tools that enable us to trade these opportunities, each with a different specific use case 1. AlertPilot Trading Terminal A dashboard displaying all the hundreds of arbitrage opportunities the bot has found across 5 different prediction markets in real time + Arbitrage Calculator, showing you exactly how much to bid to take advantage of the arbitrage according to your bankroll, fees & slippage + Double Price Chart, which helps traders to estimate how long their arbitrage take to close + Strategy Guide, explaining how to execute arbitrage trades most effectively to maximize profits + Position Manager, connect your wallets to see your open arbitrage positions, EV, profits & exits 2. AlertPilot Telegram Bot A system for getting alerts on all new arbitrage opportunities immediately, EV, Spreads & market links + Custom Settings, only see the arbitrages you’d want to take with user specific settings + Position Sell Alerts, connected to the AlertPilot Position Manager, get alerts to your phone when its time to sell your arbitrage positions + All 5 Markets, alerts on all 5 supported prediction markets: Polymarket, Kalshi, Opinion, Probable & PredictFun 3. AlertPilot Discord Bot Private chat rooms and arbitrage alerts on the AlertPilot Discord Group + Custom Alerts, the best arbitrage alerts are sent to the discord channel + Support, traders answering your questions on Arbitrage Trading 4. Arbitrage Trading Terminal [ SOON ] A trading terminal built specifically for Arbitrage + Atomic Execution, enter positions on two platforms at the same time + Visualize the Arbitrage, trade with both charts in one place, see the gap close as you take your positions + Manage positions across multiple prediction markets in one place

SecureZero 

33,200 views • 6 months ago

It's not about what we have or don't have that drives our trading decisions—it's what we're afraid of losing. This fear of loss has often led me down the false path of perfectionism. Yet true mastery and profitability in trading, like in art, comes from embracing the craft's imperfections. ✉️ At the recent Mumbai traders' meetup, Chhirag Kedia spoke a line that has resonated with me all week— वो आदमी सफल होने से कोई रोक नहीं सकता जो अपनी कश्ती जला कर आया हो! It made me reflect on my trading journey and how my risk-taking appetite has evolved over the years. I'm inherently risk-conservative as an individual, though my career decisions and trajectory paint a completely opposite picture. I've never gone bust or even had a significant drawdown in my trading life—initially because I was too cautious, and now because my skills have improved. When I look back at my interactions with other traders and analyse my own performance graph, I am noticing a pattern: traders who started recklessly or faced major drawdowns—but persistently improved their execution—often developed better and faster learning curves than those who began cautiously with small positions. Even Quallamaggie (Q) and Zanger (Z) demonstrated similar patterns—their initial failures didn't reduce their risk appetite or aggression. Rather, they increased their risk appetite as their accounts grew larger. When ordinary traders dismiss Q and Z as exceptions in the trading world, they're likely rationalizing their own fears—fear of bouncing back from setbacks beyond their risk comfort zone, and fear of not having enough skin in the game. After all, as Taleb says, courage is the only virtue you cannot fake. I wonder if I would have been a better trader today had I started more aggressively—even borderline recklessly—and then learned to control that aggression, rather than the other way around. Has my obsession with perfection (or trying to get close to it) actually slowed down my learning curve as a trader? Perfectionism and Self-Abuse In every trade—even with flawless setups and meticulously calculated risks—there are countless ways to feel wrong, whether you make money or not: You buy and it goes down You don't buy and it goes up You buy, it falls, you sell—then it goes up It goes up, you sell, and it keeps going up It goes up, you buy, it goes up further—then drops You buy with half size and it moves up; you pyramid with full size and it goes down You buy with double size and it drops; you buy with half size and it doesn't go up as much . . . and the list can go on But there is only one way you'll feel right: When you buy and it immediately goes up, and when you sell and it immediately goes down. And this is a very very rare instance. But the pursuit of perfect trade—trying to capture both the first and last eighth of every trade—is where much self-belief and confidence is needlessly lost. The search for the perfect chart, perfect market conditions, and perfect mindset was probably the most paralyzing form of self-abuse in trading I had done. It led me to the comfort of inaction rather than risk the ego to scrape the imperfect rewards on offer. Lets take up an example that was discussed in the last Mumbai meetup - PDMJE Paper - Trade Objective An Episodic Pivot setup, gapping out of a big base, to be held as a longer positional play. Entry (Orange lines) 29th October 2024 Entry 113.95, Stop Loss 2% - 111.7 (~Day low) Risk on Trade 0.75% of portfolio, Size - 35% Sells (Blue Lines) 50% Sell at 6R - 128.6 - This was not a planned sell, but I observed weak market depth with sporadic volumes over the next 3-4 days. As a precaution, I reduced size in this illiquid counter. = 3R 50% sell at ~12R - 143 - The swing move had become overextended, moving far from the 10/21 EMA. The position was sold when price broke below the opening range lows in weakness. = 6R Impact of portfolio - 6.75% Analyzing this trade up to this point, it was executed well with little room for improvement—almost perfect. This was also a very obvious EP trade, and many others had executed it similarly. In the group discussion of this trade, even though everyone had profited, regret about the price movements after exit overshadowed the satisfaction from actual gains. If you had missed the pullback entries near the 21 EMA on November 13th (which wasn't actually setup-ready) or the breakout entry that triggered on November 29th (when markets were strong and many stocks were breaking out), you would have likely missed the 80% move that happened in less than a month, which I did. The traders in the group spent much of their emotional energy obsessing over this missed opportunity, ultimately accumulating emotional debt from the markets. The paradox of trading is that while realized losses may dent our account, missing potential gains often dent our confidence. Each time we let the fear of missed opportunities overshadow our actual successes, we unconsciously train ourselves to trade smaller, not bigger - precisely when our proven profitability should be empowering us to scale up. It took me years to understand that successful trading doesn't require feeling happy. I can make sound decisions and evaluate my performance objectively, even when I feel frustrated about missed opportunities. The only true nobility in this business is making money, not chasing dopamine highs. The Adjustment Taking a loss is straightforward—we simply follow our stop loss. The real challenge—and greatest potential for regret—lies in managing profitable positions, particularly when a stock has made big moves in a short period. This is particularly common in magnitude trades like an EP or IPO where our objective is to hold for a longer duration and sell into weakness, but often have moments when the stock is overextended in the short term with a high probability of pulling back. However, we hesitate to sell either because it conflicts with our original trade objective or because we fear missing the chance to buy back during the pullback. This is where many professional traders actively manage their core positions. Rather than passively waiting for a deeper trailing stop loss to trigger during weakness, they sell a portion when the price becomes extended and buy back the same amount at a lower price. This strategy proves more effective than enduring drawdowns while waiting for a formal pullback setup at support levels or moving averages. Let's take a recent example of IGIL (5 min chart) - Trade Objective An early-stage IPO setup displaying a typical volatility contraction pattern (VCP) on intraday charts. The plan is to hold this as a longer-term position, treating it as an All-or-Nothing trade. Entry (Orange line) 24th December 2024 Entry 504, Stop Loss 2% - 493.95 Risk on Trade 0.50% of portfolio, Size - 23% of pf Adjustment Context - 27th December 2024 The stock had surged powerfully over the previous two days, hitting Upper Circuits. On the third day, despite gapping up at open, it immediately broke down during the opening range - like a typical parabolic short setup. This was a point with a high probability of a short-term pullback or consolidation. Sells (Blue Line) 27th December - 585 - 50% size Buyback (Orange line 2) 27th December - 565 - 50% size - Gained 1R Rationale - My anchor bias was for the price to cool off for a bit. - At the 27th open, the price was already at ~8R+ for me. Even if the stock rose further after I sold my partial position, I wouldn't regret it much—I had already secured 4R with half my position still pending, well above my journal averages. This served as an important emotional anchor point for this adjustment. - When buying back, I was simply looking to average down my costs without a specific target or a perfect setup in mind. In this case, I bought back at 565, as the buyback itself presented a good psychological point to cover (10 Rs initial stop loss, 20 Rs points averaged ~1R at half size). It could have been lower too if the breakdown was slower. This was more intuitive and intentionally imperfect. - I close most of these adjustments on the same day since they are just short-term pullbacks and my overall bias remains bullish. A magnitude trade can also be looked at as a combination of several intraday trades around a core position. - This adjustment method applies specifically to magnitude trades like EP and IPO positions, where the trade objective aligns with pyramiding or averaging costs. Caveat You might think this is a cherry-picked example—and you'd be partly right, since it's one of my better and more recent trades (you can see similar patterns in Care or TI). However, I urge you to stay open to the concept. Look back at your previous trades where you held positions too long passively—you'll often find that temporary extensions and pullbacks were easily visible, offering opportunities to capture additional R’s along the way. Traders commonly face similar emotions and dilemmas when deciding how to act in these situations. End Note
0:45

It's not about what we have or don't have that drives our trading decisions—it's what we're afraid of losing. This fear of loss has often led me down the false path of perfectionism. Yet true mastery and profitability in trading, like in art, comes from embracing the craft's imperfections. ✉️ At the recent Mumbai traders' meetup, Chhirag Kedia spoke a line that has resonated with me all week— वो आदमी सफल होने से कोई रोक नहीं सकता जो अपनी कश्ती जला कर आया हो! It made me reflect on my trading journey and how my risk-taking appetite has evolved over the years. I'm inherently risk-conservative as an individual, though my career decisions and trajectory paint a completely opposite picture. I've never gone bust or even had a significant drawdown in my trading life—initially because I was too cautious, and now because my skills have improved. When I look back at my interactions with other traders and analyse my own performance graph, I am noticing a pattern: traders who started recklessly or faced major drawdowns—but persistently improved their execution—often developed better and faster learning curves than those who began cautiously with small positions. Even Quallamaggie (Q) and Zanger (Z) demonstrated similar patterns—their initial failures didn't reduce their risk appetite or aggression. Rather, they increased their risk appetite as their accounts grew larger. When ordinary traders dismiss Q and Z as exceptions in the trading world, they're likely rationalizing their own fears—fear of bouncing back from setbacks beyond their risk comfort zone, and fear of not having enough skin in the game. After all, as Taleb says, courage is the only virtue you cannot fake. I wonder if I would have been a better trader today had I started more aggressively—even borderline recklessly—and then learned to control that aggression, rather than the other way around. Has my obsession with perfection (or trying to get close to it) actually slowed down my learning curve as a trader? Perfectionism and Self-Abuse In every trade—even with flawless setups and meticulously calculated risks—there are countless ways to feel wrong, whether you make money or not: You buy and it goes down You don't buy and it goes up You buy, it falls, you sell—then it goes up It goes up, you sell, and it keeps going up It goes up, you buy, it goes up further—then drops You buy with half size and it moves up; you pyramid with full size and it goes down You buy with double size and it drops; you buy with half size and it doesn't go up as much . . . and the list can go on But there is only one way you'll feel right: When you buy and it immediately goes up, and when you sell and it immediately goes down. And this is a very very rare instance. But the pursuit of perfect trade—trying to capture both the first and last eighth of every trade—is where much self-belief and confidence is needlessly lost. The search for the perfect chart, perfect market conditions, and perfect mindset was probably the most paralyzing form of self-abuse in trading I had done. It led me to the comfort of inaction rather than risk the ego to scrape the imperfect rewards on offer. Lets take up an example that was discussed in the last Mumbai meetup - PDMJE Paper - Trade Objective An Episodic Pivot setup, gapping out of a big base, to be held as a longer positional play. Entry (Orange lines) 29th October 2024 Entry 113.95, Stop Loss 2% - 111.7 (~Day low) Risk on Trade 0.75% of portfolio, Size - 35% Sells (Blue Lines) 50% Sell at 6R - 128.6 - This was not a planned sell, but I observed weak market depth with sporadic volumes over the next 3-4 days. As a precaution, I reduced size in this illiquid counter. = 3R 50% sell at ~12R - 143 - The swing move had become overextended, moving far from the 10/21 EMA. The position was sold when price broke below the opening range lows in weakness. = 6R Impact of portfolio - 6.75% Analyzing this trade up to this point, it was executed well with little room for improvement—almost perfect. This was also a very obvious EP trade, and many others had executed it similarly. In the group discussion of this trade, even though everyone had profited, regret about the price movements after exit overshadowed the satisfaction from actual gains. If you had missed the pullback entries near the 21 EMA on November 13th (which wasn't actually setup-ready) or the breakout entry that triggered on November 29th (when markets were strong and many stocks were breaking out), you would have likely missed the 80% move that happened in less than a month, which I did. The traders in the group spent much of their emotional energy obsessing over this missed opportunity, ultimately accumulating emotional debt from the markets. The paradox of trading is that while realized losses may dent our account, missing potential gains often dent our confidence. Each time we let the fear of missed opportunities overshadow our actual successes, we unconsciously train ourselves to trade smaller, not bigger - precisely when our proven profitability should be empowering us to scale up. It took me years to understand that successful trading doesn't require feeling happy. I can make sound decisions and evaluate my performance objectively, even when I feel frustrated about missed opportunities. The only true nobility in this business is making money, not chasing dopamine highs. The Adjustment Taking a loss is straightforward—we simply follow our stop loss. The real challenge—and greatest potential for regret—lies in managing profitable positions, particularly when a stock has made big moves in a short period. This is particularly common in magnitude trades like an EP or IPO where our objective is to hold for a longer duration and sell into weakness, but often have moments when the stock is overextended in the short term with a high probability of pulling back. However, we hesitate to sell either because it conflicts with our original trade objective or because we fear missing the chance to buy back during the pullback. This is where many professional traders actively manage their core positions. Rather than passively waiting for a deeper trailing stop loss to trigger during weakness, they sell a portion when the price becomes extended and buy back the same amount at a lower price. This strategy proves more effective than enduring drawdowns while waiting for a formal pullback setup at support levels or moving averages. Let's take a recent example of IGIL (5 min chart) - Trade Objective An early-stage IPO setup displaying a typical volatility contraction pattern (VCP) on intraday charts. The plan is to hold this as a longer-term position, treating it as an All-or-Nothing trade. Entry (Orange line) 24th December 2024 Entry 504, Stop Loss 2% - 493.95 Risk on Trade 0.50% of portfolio, Size - 23% of pf Adjustment Context - 27th December 2024 The stock had surged powerfully over the previous two days, hitting Upper Circuits. On the third day, despite gapping up at open, it immediately broke down during the opening range - like a typical parabolic short setup. This was a point with a high probability of a short-term pullback or consolidation. Sells (Blue Line) 27th December - 585 - 50% size Buyback (Orange line 2) 27th December - 565 - 50% size - Gained 1R Rationale - My anchor bias was for the price to cool off for a bit. - At the 27th open, the price was already at ~8R+ for me. Even if the stock rose further after I sold my partial position, I wouldn't regret it much—I had already secured 4R with half my position still pending, well above my journal averages. This served as an important emotional anchor point for this adjustment. - When buying back, I was simply looking to average down my costs without a specific target or a perfect setup in mind. In this case, I bought back at 565, as the buyback itself presented a good psychological point to cover (10 Rs initial stop loss, 20 Rs points averaged ~1R at half size). It could have been lower too if the breakdown was slower. This was more intuitive and intentionally imperfect. - I close most of these adjustments on the same day since they are just short-term pullbacks and my overall bias remains bullish. A magnitude trade can also be looked at as a combination of several intraday trades around a core position. - This adjustment method applies specifically to magnitude trades like EP and IPO positions, where the trade objective aligns with pyramiding or averaging costs. Caveat You might think this is a cherry-picked example—and you'd be partly right, since it's one of my better and more recent trades (you can see similar patterns in Care or TI). However, I urge you to stay open to the concept. Look back at your previous trades where you held positions too long passively—you'll often find that temporary extensions and pullbacks were easily visible, offering opportunities to capture additional R’s along the way. Traders commonly face similar emotions and dilemmas when deciding how to act in these situations. End Note

Anuragg Venkatakrishnan

24,423 views • 1 year ago

Made $313 → $2,382,780 in 4 Days Using a Claude AI Bot on Polymarket. 26,738 trades. 98% win rate. Full blockchain proof. Every single trade verifiable on-chain. I've made the exact step-by-step guide to build this Claude Polymarket bot from scratch. You've been trading for 3 years. Still red. He gave Claude $313. Woke up rich. Free for 24 hours. To get this Setup guide: 1. Comment "Money" 2. Like and Retweet 3. Follow me Himanshu Kumar (so i can DM you) Full 2-hour video tutorial attached. Every single click and command explained. Beginner to running bot. Now let me break down exactly how this works. Save this post. This is the most important trading breakdown you'll ever read. ↓ Let's start with the number that should make you sick. $313. That's what this wallet started with. Not $50,000. Not $10,000. Not even $1,000. $313. Less than your monthly Netflix + Uber Eats + Spotify combined. 4 months later: $2,382,780.80. That's a 7,942x return. While you spent those same 4 months staring at charts, drawing trendlines, panic selling, revenge trading, and ending the month exactly where you started. Minus the $200 you lost on that "sure thing." Same 4 months. Same market. Same opportunities. He had a bot. You had feelings. Guess who won. Save this post right now. What I'm about to explain is the exact mechanism behind every dollar of that $2.38M. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss the rest. ↓ How Polymarket actually works and why bots print money on it. Polymarket is a prediction market. Will BTC be higher in 15 minutes? Yes or No. Will the Fed raise rates? Yes or No. You buy shares between $0 and $1. If you're right, your share settles at $1. If you're wrong, it settles at $0. Simple. Now here's where it gets interesting. Polymarket updates its prices SLOWER than the real market moves. When BTC drops 0.6% on Binance, Polymarket still shows old odds for about 2.7 seconds. 2.7 seconds. In those 2.7 seconds, the bot already knows the outcome. It's not predicting. It's not guessing. It's reading information that already exists and trading before Polymarket catches up. That's not trading. That's collecting free money with a 2.7 second head start. And you're over there using a 15-indicator TradingView setup trying to "predict" where BTC goes next. The bot doesn't predict anything. It just reads faster than you. That's the entire edge. Save this post because if you understand this one concept you understand how millionaires are being made on Polymarket right now. Follow Himanshu Kumar for more breakdowns like this. ↓ Let me walk you through one single trade. A new 15-minute BTC contract opens on Polymarket. Odds are 50/50. Fair price. 10 minutes in, BTC drops 0.6% on Binance. Hard, fast move. The real probability of BTC being lower at expiry is now about 78%. Polymarket still shows 54/46. The bot sees this instantly. Binance WebSocket feed. Under 50ms latency. The edge is 24 percentage points. On a binary contract, that's basically free money. Bot calculates position size using Kelly Criterion. Executes via Polymarket's API. Done. Within 2-3 seconds, other participants update the odds. 54/46 moves toward 78/22. Bot either exits for immediate profit or holds to resolution. Either way, the trade was entered with near-certainty of a positive outcome. Now repeat this 200-500 times per day. $313 → $2,382,780 in 4 months. Not magic. Not prediction. Not luck. Industrial-scale exploitation of a market inefficiency that still exists today. And you're still placing one manual trade per day and calling yourself a "trader." This is the mechanism behind every single dollar. Bookmark this post so you can study it again. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm breaking down each strategy separately. ↓ There are 4 strategies. Not all Claude bots do the same thing. Strategy 1: Latency Arbitrage. Win rate: 85-98%. What 0x8dxd used. Monitor Binance price feeds. When Polymarket odds lag behind reality by 3-5%, buy the correct side before the market corrects. No forecasting. No model. No sentiment analysis. Pure speed. You're not guessing. You're reading an outcome that has already happened. Strategy 2: Oracle Arbitrage. Win rate: 78-85%. Chainlink oracle price feeds occasionally diverge from Polymarket's implied prices. When they do, the settlement direction is known. Fewer opportunities. Higher certainty when they appear. Strategy 3: News-Driven Trading. Win rate: 60-75%. Claude ingests real-time news. Government filings. Central bank statements. On-chain data. Assesses probability impact before retail traders even finish reading the headline. Lower win rate because interpretation introduces uncertainty. But works on ANY market category, not just crypto. Strategy 4: Market Making. Return: 2-5% per month. Place buy and sell orders on both sides. Capture the spread. No prediction required. Most consistent. Hardest to blow up. Compounds aggressively over time. You didn't even know there were 4 strategies. You thought "trading bot" meant one thing. That's how far behind you are. 4 strategies. 4 different risk profiles. 4 ways to make money while you sleep. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the deep dive into each one. ↓ The timeline that should haunt you. December 2025: Bot launches with $313. Nobody notices. January 6, 2026: Wallet hits ~$438,000. 140x in 30 days. 6,615 predictions. 98% win rate. Finbold reports it. Crypto Twitter explodes. March 10, 2026: Head-to-head test. Claude bot: $1,000 → $14,216 in 48 hours. +1,322%. OpenClaw bot: fully liquidated. Same market. Same timeframe. Claude won because of better risk management. OpenClaw died because it overleveraged. March 16, 2026: Someone trains a swarm model on 3 years of NBA data. Result: +$1.49M on Polymarket. April 2026: 0x8dxd final verified balance: $2,382,780.80. 26,738 trades. 4 months. This all happened while you were "waiting for the right time to start." The right time was December 2025. The second best time is right now. But you'll probably wait until it's too late. That's what you always do. Every date on this timeline is a day you could have started but didn't. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you at least start today. ↓ Why Claude and not ChatGPT? This isn't opinion. It's data. March 2026 head-to-head: Claude bot: +1,322%. OpenClaw (GPT-based): liquidated. Same prompt. Same market. Same conditions. Researchers found Claude's code included: > More defensive edge cases > More conservative default parameters > Better error handling > More legible code for debugging > Proper Kelly Criterion position sizing > Hard drawdown kill switches ChatGPT's code overleveraged into a losing sequence and couldn't recover. Claude's code sized positions conservatively, stopped trading when drawdown thresholds hit, and survived to compound another day. The difference between +1,322% and liquidation wasn't the strategy. It was the risk management. And Claude writes better risk management than ChatGPT. That's not a debate. That's a $15,216 difference in 48 hours. But sure, keep using ChatGPT because "everyone uses it." Everyone's broke too. Coincidence? Stop using the popular tool. Start using the profitable one. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for more Claude vs ChatGPT comparisons with real data. ↓ Why humans lose to bots. Every single time. Same strategy. Same market. Same period. Bots: ~$206,000 profit. Humans: ~$100,000 profit. 2x gap. Same strategy. Here's why: 1. Late entries. By the time you identify the lag, verify your reasoning, and click buy, the 2.7 second window is gone. The bot executes in under 100ms. You execute in 30 seconds. The opportunity doesn't exist for 30 seconds. 2. Emotional sizing. You oversize when "confident." Undersize when scared. Exact opposite of Kelly math. The bot sizes based on edge. Every time. No feelings. 3. Fatigue. You make worse decisions at hour 6 than at hour 1. The bot makes the same decision at hour 72 that it made at hour 1. 4. Drawdown psychology. After 3 losses you either panic quit or double down trying to recover. Both destroy capital. The bot has a kill switch. It stops. It doesn't feel anything. You're not competing with other humans anymore. You're competing with machines that don't sleep, don't feel, don't flinch. And you're losing. The data doesn't lie. Humans lose to bots 2x on the same strategy. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete bot setup that removes you from the equation. ↓ What can go wrong. Because I'm not going to lie to you. Most people who build this bot will NOT 7,942x their money. Some will lose their initial capital. Here's what can kill you: Edge compression. The arbitrage window was 12 seconds in 2024. It's 2.7 seconds now. It's shrinking. At some point it hits zero for retail operators. This is a time-limited opportunity. Not a permanent income stream. Rule changes. Polymarket can change contract mechanics, settlement rules, or API terms overnight. What worked yesterday can lose money tomorrow. Risk management bugs. A 98% win rate strategy with broken position sizing will blow up your account on the one losing trade. The March 2026 experiment proved this. Claude survived. OpenClaw got liquidated. Same strategy. Different risk management. That's why the 2-hour video tutorial walks through every single risk parameter. Because the strategy doesn't kill you. Bad risk management kills you. This is the section most "gurus" delete. I'm keeping it because I'd rather you make money safely than blow up and blame me. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for honest breakdowns, not hype. ↓ The step-by-step to build your own. Step 1: Set up a Polymarket wallet. Fund with USDC via Polygon network. Start with $100-$300 for testing. Step 2: Generate API credentials. CLOB API key from docs.polymarket .com. Store private key in environment variable. Never hardcode it. Never share it. Step 3: Prompt Claude to build the bot. Use Claude Code for best results. It reads your filesystem, executes code, and iterates on errors autonomously. Step 4: Paper trade for at least one week. Minimum 200 completed trades. Win rate must be above 70% before going live. This step is NOT optional. Step 5: Configure risk management. Max single position: 8% of portfolio. Daily loss limit: -20% with auto halt. Kill switch at -40% drawdown. Telegram alerts on every threshold. Step 6: Go live small. $1-5 per trade. Watch every trade for first week. Compare to paper results. Scale only on evidence. Skip steps 4 and 5 and you will lose your money. That's not a warning. That's a guarantee. This is your complete build guide. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'll be posting the exact Claude prompts for each strategy. ↓ The edge exists right now. Not next month. Not "when you're ready." Right now. The arbitrage window is 2.7 seconds. It was 12 seconds in 2024. It's shrinking every week. Every day you wait, more bots enter the space. The window gets smaller. Your potential returns get smaller. The bots already running have a compounding advantage. They're making money today that they'll use to make more money tomorrow. You're reading about it and telling yourself "I'll look into this next weekend." That's what you said last weekend. And the weekend before that. The best time to start was 6 months ago. The second best time is today. But you already know you're going to bookmark this and never open it again. Prove me wrong. ↓ Full 2-hour video tutorial attached. Every single click. Every command. Every parameter. From zero to running bot. Beginner friendly. Nothing skipped. A similar bot has already earned $2,382,780. Full blockchain proof in the article below. The video is free. The tools are free. The edge still exists. The only thing that costs money is another month of doing nothing while bots eat every opportunity you're too slow to catch. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete series covering every automated income stream using Claude. Prediction markets are just the beginning. Save this post. Bookmark it. Screenshot it. Whatever you need to do so you actually watch the video and build the bot instead of just reading about people who did. You Must Follow me Himanshu Kumar, so i can send you DM.
2:22:35

Made $313 → $2,382,780 in 4 Days Using a Claude AI Bot on Polymarket. 26,738 trades. 98% win rate. Full blockchain proof. Every single trade verifiable on-chain. I've made the exact step-by-step guide to build this Claude Polymarket bot from scratch. You've been trading for 3 years. Still red. He gave Claude $313. Woke up rich. Free for 24 hours. To get this Setup guide: 1. Comment "Money" 2. Like and Retweet 3. Follow me Himanshu Kumar (so i can DM you) Full 2-hour video tutorial attached. Every single click and command explained. Beginner to running bot. Now let me break down exactly how this works. Save this post. This is the most important trading breakdown you'll ever read. ↓ Let's start with the number that should make you sick. $313. That's what this wallet started with. Not $50,000. Not $10,000. Not even $1,000. $313. Less than your monthly Netflix + Uber Eats + Spotify combined. 4 months later: $2,382,780.80. That's a 7,942x return. While you spent those same 4 months staring at charts, drawing trendlines, panic selling, revenge trading, and ending the month exactly where you started. Minus the $200 you lost on that "sure thing." Same 4 months. Same market. Same opportunities. He had a bot. You had feelings. Guess who won. Save this post right now. What I'm about to explain is the exact mechanism behind every dollar of that $2.38M. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss the rest. ↓ How Polymarket actually works and why bots print money on it. Polymarket is a prediction market. Will BTC be higher in 15 minutes? Yes or No. Will the Fed raise rates? Yes or No. You buy shares between $0 and $1. If you're right, your share settles at $1. If you're wrong, it settles at $0. Simple. Now here's where it gets interesting. Polymarket updates its prices SLOWER than the real market moves. When BTC drops 0.6% on Binance, Polymarket still shows old odds for about 2.7 seconds. 2.7 seconds. In those 2.7 seconds, the bot already knows the outcome. It's not predicting. It's not guessing. It's reading information that already exists and trading before Polymarket catches up. That's not trading. That's collecting free money with a 2.7 second head start. And you're over there using a 15-indicator TradingView setup trying to "predict" where BTC goes next. The bot doesn't predict anything. It just reads faster than you. That's the entire edge. Save this post because if you understand this one concept you understand how millionaires are being made on Polymarket right now. Follow Himanshu Kumar for more breakdowns like this. ↓ Let me walk you through one single trade. A new 15-minute BTC contract opens on Polymarket. Odds are 50/50. Fair price. 10 minutes in, BTC drops 0.6% on Binance. Hard, fast move. The real probability of BTC being lower at expiry is now about 78%. Polymarket still shows 54/46. The bot sees this instantly. Binance WebSocket feed. Under 50ms latency. The edge is 24 percentage points. On a binary contract, that's basically free money. Bot calculates position size using Kelly Criterion. Executes via Polymarket's API. Done. Within 2-3 seconds, other participants update the odds. 54/46 moves toward 78/22. Bot either exits for immediate profit or holds to resolution. Either way, the trade was entered with near-certainty of a positive outcome. Now repeat this 200-500 times per day. $313 → $2,382,780 in 4 months. Not magic. Not prediction. Not luck. Industrial-scale exploitation of a market inefficiency that still exists today. And you're still placing one manual trade per day and calling yourself a "trader." This is the mechanism behind every single dollar. Bookmark this post so you can study it again. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm breaking down each strategy separately. ↓ There are 4 strategies. Not all Claude bots do the same thing. Strategy 1: Latency Arbitrage. Win rate: 85-98%. What 0x8dxd used. Monitor Binance price feeds. When Polymarket odds lag behind reality by 3-5%, buy the correct side before the market corrects. No forecasting. No model. No sentiment analysis. Pure speed. You're not guessing. You're reading an outcome that has already happened. Strategy 2: Oracle Arbitrage. Win rate: 78-85%. Chainlink oracle price feeds occasionally diverge from Polymarket's implied prices. When they do, the settlement direction is known. Fewer opportunities. Higher certainty when they appear. Strategy 3: News-Driven Trading. Win rate: 60-75%. Claude ingests real-time news. Government filings. Central bank statements. On-chain data. Assesses probability impact before retail traders even finish reading the headline. Lower win rate because interpretation introduces uncertainty. But works on ANY market category, not just crypto. Strategy 4: Market Making. Return: 2-5% per month. Place buy and sell orders on both sides. Capture the spread. No prediction required. Most consistent. Hardest to blow up. Compounds aggressively over time. You didn't even know there were 4 strategies. You thought "trading bot" meant one thing. That's how far behind you are. 4 strategies. 4 different risk profiles. 4 ways to make money while you sleep. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the deep dive into each one. ↓ The timeline that should haunt you. December 2025: Bot launches with $313. Nobody notices. January 6, 2026: Wallet hits ~$438,000. 140x in 30 days. 6,615 predictions. 98% win rate. Finbold reports it. Crypto Twitter explodes. March 10, 2026: Head-to-head test. Claude bot: $1,000 → $14,216 in 48 hours. +1,322%. OpenClaw bot: fully liquidated. Same market. Same timeframe. Claude won because of better risk management. OpenClaw died because it overleveraged. March 16, 2026: Someone trains a swarm model on 3 years of NBA data. Result: +$1.49M on Polymarket. April 2026: 0x8dxd final verified balance: $2,382,780.80. 26,738 trades. 4 months. This all happened while you were "waiting for the right time to start." The right time was December 2025. The second best time is right now. But you'll probably wait until it's too late. That's what you always do. Every date on this timeline is a day you could have started but didn't. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you at least start today. ↓ Why Claude and not ChatGPT? This isn't opinion. It's data. March 2026 head-to-head: Claude bot: +1,322%. OpenClaw (GPT-based): liquidated. Same prompt. Same market. Same conditions. Researchers found Claude's code included: > More defensive edge cases > More conservative default parameters > Better error handling > More legible code for debugging > Proper Kelly Criterion position sizing > Hard drawdown kill switches ChatGPT's code overleveraged into a losing sequence and couldn't recover. Claude's code sized positions conservatively, stopped trading when drawdown thresholds hit, and survived to compound another day. The difference between +1,322% and liquidation wasn't the strategy. It was the risk management. And Claude writes better risk management than ChatGPT. That's not a debate. That's a $15,216 difference in 48 hours. But sure, keep using ChatGPT because "everyone uses it." Everyone's broke too. Coincidence? Stop using the popular tool. Start using the profitable one. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for more Claude vs ChatGPT comparisons with real data. ↓ Why humans lose to bots. Every single time. Same strategy. Same market. Same period. Bots: ~$206,000 profit. Humans: ~$100,000 profit. 2x gap. Same strategy. Here's why: 1. Late entries. By the time you identify the lag, verify your reasoning, and click buy, the 2.7 second window is gone. The bot executes in under 100ms. You execute in 30 seconds. The opportunity doesn't exist for 30 seconds. 2. Emotional sizing. You oversize when "confident." Undersize when scared. Exact opposite of Kelly math. The bot sizes based on edge. Every time. No feelings. 3. Fatigue. You make worse decisions at hour 6 than at hour 1. The bot makes the same decision at hour 72 that it made at hour 1. 4. Drawdown psychology. After 3 losses you either panic quit or double down trying to recover. Both destroy capital. The bot has a kill switch. It stops. It doesn't feel anything. You're not competing with other humans anymore. You're competing with machines that don't sleep, don't feel, don't flinch. And you're losing. The data doesn't lie. Humans lose to bots 2x on the same strategy. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete bot setup that removes you from the equation. ↓ What can go wrong. Because I'm not going to lie to you. Most people who build this bot will NOT 7,942x their money. Some will lose their initial capital. Here's what can kill you: Edge compression. The arbitrage window was 12 seconds in 2024. It's 2.7 seconds now. It's shrinking. At some point it hits zero for retail operators. This is a time-limited opportunity. Not a permanent income stream. Rule changes. Polymarket can change contract mechanics, settlement rules, or API terms overnight. What worked yesterday can lose money tomorrow. Risk management bugs. A 98% win rate strategy with broken position sizing will blow up your account on the one losing trade. The March 2026 experiment proved this. Claude survived. OpenClaw got liquidated. Same strategy. Different risk management. That's why the 2-hour video tutorial walks through every single risk parameter. Because the strategy doesn't kill you. Bad risk management kills you. This is the section most "gurus" delete. I'm keeping it because I'd rather you make money safely than blow up and blame me. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for honest breakdowns, not hype. ↓ The step-by-step to build your own. Step 1: Set up a Polymarket wallet. Fund with USDC via Polygon network. Start with $100-$300 for testing. Step 2: Generate API credentials. CLOB API key from docs.polymarket .com. Store private key in environment variable. Never hardcode it. Never share it. Step 3: Prompt Claude to build the bot. Use Claude Code for best results. It reads your filesystem, executes code, and iterates on errors autonomously. Step 4: Paper trade for at least one week. Minimum 200 completed trades. Win rate must be above 70% before going live. This step is NOT optional. Step 5: Configure risk management. Max single position: 8% of portfolio. Daily loss limit: -20% with auto halt. Kill switch at -40% drawdown. Telegram alerts on every threshold. Step 6: Go live small. $1-5 per trade. Watch every trade for first week. Compare to paper results. Scale only on evidence. Skip steps 4 and 5 and you will lose your money. That's not a warning. That's a guarantee. This is your complete build guide. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'll be posting the exact Claude prompts for each strategy. ↓ The edge exists right now. Not next month. Not "when you're ready." Right now. The arbitrage window is 2.7 seconds. It was 12 seconds in 2024. It's shrinking every week. Every day you wait, more bots enter the space. The window gets smaller. Your potential returns get smaller. The bots already running have a compounding advantage. They're making money today that they'll use to make more money tomorrow. You're reading about it and telling yourself "I'll look into this next weekend." That's what you said last weekend. And the weekend before that. The best time to start was 6 months ago. The second best time is today. But you already know you're going to bookmark this and never open it again. Prove me wrong. ↓ Full 2-hour video tutorial attached. Every single click. Every command. Every parameter. From zero to running bot. Beginner friendly. Nothing skipped. A similar bot has already earned $2,382,780. Full blockchain proof in the article below. The video is free. The tools are free. The edge still exists. The only thing that costs money is another month of doing nothing while bots eat every opportunity you're too slow to catch. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete series covering every automated income stream using Claude. Prediction markets are just the beginning. Save this post. Bookmark it. Screenshot it. Whatever you need to do so you actually watch the video and build the bot instead of just reading about people who did. You Must Follow me Himanshu Kumar, so i can send you DM.

Himanshu Kumar

53,247 views • 4 months ago

Here's why $NEAR is a no-brainer in 2025 👇 Everybody loves NEAR Protocol and there is a reason for that (or many). Near is well-positioned to be one of the leading blockchain ecosystems this year. Let’s explore the “whys”. TIMESTAMPS Quick Bio – 00:00:15 Inflation Reduction Proposal – 00:00:43 Technically Speaking – 00:02:40 Near Intents – 00:03:37 Chain Signatures and AI – 00:04:39 Decentralization and DeFi – 00:05:59 I have my Near account since March 2023, but it has been inactive for a while, as I was focused on other stuff. However, the recent inflation halving proposal by HOT DAO (HOT Protocol 🔥) and LiNEAR (LiNEAR Protocol) brought my eyes back to the project and I really like what I’m seeing. So, here’s my first point. If this proposal passes, NEAR could lead the way in what appears to be a market trend of improving the tokenomics, as more and more experts realize holders have been overpaying for these networks' security, with a too high supply inflation. Solana tried something similar, but the proposal was rejected. In my opinion, validators voting favorably to that show a commitment to the chain for the long term. On the other hand, voting against it signals a short-term vision focused on milking the emissions as much as possible, at the ecosystem’s expense. The voting currently goes with 28% “YEA” votes, needing 66.76% to pass. Most of the validators who already cast their votes went with the yes. 2pilot, avb, openshards, qbit, sicmundus, fox, and intear are, so far, the only seven who voted “NAY”. This proposal has the vocal support of most influential figures in the Near ecosystem, including the Near Foundation (NEAR Foundation), led by Illia (root.near) (🇺🇦, ⋈), which makes me believe it will pass and show the power of the halving in getting the market’s attention and presenting a huge investment asymmetry for the native token right now. Is this everything I like about NEAR? Definitely not. This is just what got me looking at it again, just to discover a (very much) thriving ecosystem, full of interesting things happening at the same time. I’ll mention a few, but there is (much) more. Technically speaking, Near is a high-performance blockchain, with really low fees and one of the fastest finalities, with 600ms block time and approximately 1.8s finality. It also has my favorite architecture for internet-scale scalability, using sharding, while keeping a high decentralization standard. As a learning programmer, Near also has one of the best dev experiences (in my limited opinion). The documentation is clear, has a logical journey, presenting from the basic anatomy in details to more complex SDKs and tools. I’m also in love with the near-cli-rs. A command line interface program written in Rust for seamless interaction with the Near blockchain. Allowing wallet creation, chain query, sending transactions, staking, smart contract calls, and more. Near Intents. This was the second thing to get my attention, while studying the project again, and it sets a whole new standard for blockchain interactions, especially cross-chain. Basically, users can declare an intention (for example, swap Ethereum-USDT to Bitcoin) and a network of solvers, running on Near, will find the best path to accomplish this task. We recently saw an impressive 465k-worth swap happening in exactly this example, paying 0.55% of trading fees to thorswap.near and swapkit.near. According to a Dune Dashboard, the protocol accumulates nearly $400 million in volume since its launch not long ago, in November 2024. *obs.: half this volume was achieved in the last month. Massive! Near Intents is possible due to two other very interesting things: (i) Chain abstraction, and (ii) a solid AI infrastructure. Chain abstraction (via Chain Signatures) is a powerful interoperability feature, allowing Near to friendly connect different blockchains as if they were part of a single network. Users and devs benefit from wallet, address, fees, and cross-chain bridges abstractions - not even noticing they are interacting with multiple chains. One wallet that powers everything. Powered by Near. On AI, Near is just built differently. Not for the hype, but for the solution. The team has been looking for AI solutions much before the ChatGPT fever. Actually, they started as an AI company, pivoting to blockchain later. So, being one of the most promising networks for the growing AI economy was just the natural path to follow. There is an extensive and super complete research piece on that topic, recently published by Reflexivity Research (Reflexivity Research) on July 1st. It presents Near as an AI-optimized blockchain, covering AITP, Shade Agents, x402, Near Intents, and more. Definitely worth the reading. Wrapping up this content with one more aspect that really matters to me is how Near remains truthful to decentralization, data ownership, censorship-resistance and open-source primitives that have been increasingly abandoned by other key players. A simple example of that is how the Near Foundation decided to deprecate its public APIs, encouraging the surge of a more decentralized and competitive market of SaaS projects, with a highlight to Lava Network, that recently appeared in my timeline talking about that. DeFi is also huge on Near, leveraging all the previous properties I mentioned, creating a truly decentralized liquidity pool via Rhea Finance, connected with other chains like BTC, Ethereum, ZCash, and more. All that contributes to Near having the second-largest monthly active addresses, with nearly 50 million, only losing to Solana’s nearly 90 million. In the meantime, NEAR, the token, is not even at the 30rd position by market cap. Crazy stuff. To (finally) wrap it up, I also want to mention Near’s consensus decentralization. While having a low node-count, the network has a Nakamoto Coefficient of 11, which is not bad at all. Surely, there is still room for improvement, which is possible as becoming a validator is accessible staking and hardware-wise. If you liked this content, make sure to click the like bottom and share it around. Follow me on X or subscribe to my YouTube channel, both at vinibarbosabr. See ya!
7:52

Here's why $NEAR is a no-brainer in 2025 👇 Everybody loves NEAR Protocol and there is a reason for that (or many). Near is well-positioned to be one of the leading blockchain ecosystems this year. Let’s explore the “whys”. TIMESTAMPS Quick Bio – 00:00:15 Inflation Reduction Proposal – 00:00:43 Technically Speaking – 00:02:40 Near Intents – 00:03:37 Chain Signatures and AI – 00:04:39 Decentralization and DeFi – 00:05:59 I have my Near account since March 2023, but it has been inactive for a while, as I was focused on other stuff. However, the recent inflation halving proposal by HOT DAO (HOT Protocol 🔥) and LiNEAR (LiNEAR Protocol) brought my eyes back to the project and I really like what I’m seeing. So, here’s my first point. If this proposal passes, NEAR could lead the way in what appears to be a market trend of improving the tokenomics, as more and more experts realize holders have been overpaying for these networks' security, with a too high supply inflation. Solana tried something similar, but the proposal was rejected. In my opinion, validators voting favorably to that show a commitment to the chain for the long term. On the other hand, voting against it signals a short-term vision focused on milking the emissions as much as possible, at the ecosystem’s expense. The voting currently goes with 28% “YEA” votes, needing 66.76% to pass. Most of the validators who already cast their votes went with the yes. 2pilot, avb, openshards, qbit, sicmundus, fox, and intear are, so far, the only seven who voted “NAY”. This proposal has the vocal support of most influential figures in the Near ecosystem, including the Near Foundation (NEAR Foundation), led by Illia (root.near) (🇺🇦, ⋈), which makes me believe it will pass and show the power of the halving in getting the market’s attention and presenting a huge investment asymmetry for the native token right now. Is this everything I like about NEAR? Definitely not. This is just what got me looking at it again, just to discover a (very much) thriving ecosystem, full of interesting things happening at the same time. I’ll mention a few, but there is (much) more. Technically speaking, Near is a high-performance blockchain, with really low fees and one of the fastest finalities, with 600ms block time and approximately 1.8s finality. It also has my favorite architecture for internet-scale scalability, using sharding, while keeping a high decentralization standard. As a learning programmer, Near also has one of the best dev experiences (in my limited opinion). The documentation is clear, has a logical journey, presenting from the basic anatomy in details to more complex SDKs and tools. I’m also in love with the near-cli-rs. A command line interface program written in Rust for seamless interaction with the Near blockchain. Allowing wallet creation, chain query, sending transactions, staking, smart contract calls, and more. Near Intents. This was the second thing to get my attention, while studying the project again, and it sets a whole new standard for blockchain interactions, especially cross-chain. Basically, users can declare an intention (for example, swap Ethereum-USDT to Bitcoin) and a network of solvers, running on Near, will find the best path to accomplish this task. We recently saw an impressive 465k-worth swap happening in exactly this example, paying 0.55% of trading fees to thorswap.near and swapkit.near. According to a Dune Dashboard, the protocol accumulates nearly $400 million in volume since its launch not long ago, in November 2024. *obs.: half this volume was achieved in the last month. Massive! Near Intents is possible due to two other very interesting things: (i) Chain abstraction, and (ii) a solid AI infrastructure. Chain abstraction (via Chain Signatures) is a powerful interoperability feature, allowing Near to friendly connect different blockchains as if they were part of a single network. Users and devs benefit from wallet, address, fees, and cross-chain bridges abstractions - not even noticing they are interacting with multiple chains. One wallet that powers everything. Powered by Near. On AI, Near is just built differently. Not for the hype, but for the solution. The team has been looking for AI solutions much before the ChatGPT fever. Actually, they started as an AI company, pivoting to blockchain later. So, being one of the most promising networks for the growing AI economy was just the natural path to follow. There is an extensive and super complete research piece on that topic, recently published by Reflexivity Research (Reflexivity Research) on July 1st. It presents Near as an AI-optimized blockchain, covering AITP, Shade Agents, x402, Near Intents, and more. Definitely worth the reading. Wrapping up this content with one more aspect that really matters to me is how Near remains truthful to decentralization, data ownership, censorship-resistance and open-source primitives that have been increasingly abandoned by other key players. A simple example of that is how the Near Foundation decided to deprecate its public APIs, encouraging the surge of a more decentralized and competitive market of SaaS projects, with a highlight to Lava Network, that recently appeared in my timeline talking about that. DeFi is also huge on Near, leveraging all the previous properties I mentioned, creating a truly decentralized liquidity pool via Rhea Finance, connected with other chains like BTC, Ethereum, ZCash, and more. All that contributes to Near having the second-largest monthly active addresses, with nearly 50 million, only losing to Solana’s nearly 90 million. In the meantime, NEAR, the token, is not even at the 30rd position by market cap. Crazy stuff. To (finally) wrap it up, I also want to mention Near’s consensus decentralization. While having a low node-count, the network has a Nakamoto Coefficient of 11, which is not bad at all. Surely, there is still room for improvement, which is possible as becoming a validator is accessible staking and hardware-wise. If you liked this content, make sure to click the like bottom and share it around. Follow me on X or subscribe to my YouTube channel, both at vinibarbosabr. See ya!

Vini B |「 thecoding 」

40,183 views • 1 year ago

Moneytaur study blueprint 🗺️ The process I used to go from not knowing what an order block is to pulling cash from the crypto markets in under 6 months using 🎯 Master concepts. Proof of performance, past 120 days👇 Start date: 09/03/2025 Requirements: - A PC/laptop - Wifi - A basic understanding of trading. ( What candlesticks are, how to actually place trades , etc ) - A free mind - Time or the ability to free up time. Starting: - Structure and routine - Stick to that routine + Pre mortem plan. - Notion / Obsidian setup. The first thing you need to create is a clear routine moulded around how you intend to approach this very large and complex task. This will not be linear and you will naturally adapt it as you progress but especially in the beginning some resemblance of structure each day is vital. This is an individual process but it is important to understand from the beginning that this will require a majority of your free time assuming you work a full time Job or study as a student. For me in the beginning this looked like: - Wake up at 6:30. - Shower - Study/work for 1h 45m before leaving for work. - 09:00 -> 17:00 work - 17:30 Exercise / Train - Eat - 19:00 resume study/work - 22:30 Start to wind down and get ready to sleep. It changed several times over the months and especially now I am full time but this is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is sticking with what you choose. Whatever your own routine may look like, it is important to understand it will inevitably require sacrifice. --- The next thing once you have established a draft framework of your routine is ensuring you will actually stick to that routine. Something I implemented which I found particularly beneficial was the concept of a Pre-Mortem plan. This involves creating several scenarios of a future in which you have failed and working backwards from each of these to find where it went wrong. Here is a video which explains it fully: When I did this I came up with 3 scenarios as well as prevention and cure for each. In the 6 months that followed each scenario presented at some point but I was able to catch them early due to having done this. The last thing is to not over complicate this, don't hyper focus on systems and loose momentum optimizing each detail. Just ensure you do the fucking work. I was a little guilty of the above at times, trying to craft the perfect routine. In reality the person who just gets up, drinks too much coffee and works his ass off out performs the workflow perfectionist who visualizes and repeats affirmations, any day of the week. --- Next you need somewhere to store your notes, journal your trades and build your knowledge. For me this was Obsidian but I have also used Notion before and it is an equally viable option. Whichever one of these you choose be warned you will inevitably want to bang your head against a wall trying to use them for the first few days, but they will both click pretty quick and are 100% better options the word document or paper alternative. Here is my full obsidian setup tutorial: Here is a link to MisterPA 's notion Journal: Here is how I create "Meta-Notes" using obsidian: The process: - How I did it. - How I would do it if doing it again. Now I did things the "hard way" and manually worked my way back through each of MT's tweets starting in 2021, reading every one and logging those that I felt where relevant. You can see in my first post: the very first system I used to do this. I quickly adapted though after about a week and focused less on just logging each relevant tweet but trying to find and focusing on those which contained the most information. There where a lot of charts I looked at then skipped over because especially at the start of his timeline they contained little useful information and my time was better spent finding those where there was something to decode. Now this does not mean skip out on "work" just use your time efficiently. -- If however if I was to start from the beginning again with the goal of levelling up technical understanding as quickly as possible I would take a different approach. To start with I would familiarise myself with all relevant SMC concepts, I have linked the best free recourses for this below 👇 CryptoChase beginner friendly index: Barncore's "The Moneytaur Way" series: Gian's Trading bootcamp playlist: Following this I would then work through all of Taur's subscription posts working backwards, recreating his charts and taking notes on his logic. The subscription feed has the highest value density and least noise. Video example of my notes from his subscription posts 👇: --- Okay so now once you have a basic understanding of concepts and can re-recreate them on charts of your own it is time to put this in to practice. The next step is vigorous backtesting, you can use the trading view tool but I think trade Zella offers a more use friendly option if you pay for the subscription. Especially as it allows you to change timeframes without skipping ahead to candle close time of the timeframe you change too ( like Trading view does ) *my only note would be that their LTF/Micro TF data feed with be different to brokerage charts you will use on Trading view, to start with though you should not be going low enough that this is an issue. When you backtest in this context, treat it like real trading. That means journal and logging like you would if real cash was on the line. Take time, do not rush and focus on quality. Stick to BTC, ETH, Major FX pairs or indices as these assets are less reliant on confluence, backtesting a shitcoin is near useless as whether levels work or not will be highly dependent on Majors PA. Go on HTF, scroll back a couple years and try not too look at chart while doing so and then begin. Start with HTF analysis and work down to 2H or wherever you feel comfortable, chart it fully and then identify setups. Make rough notes / plans and then press play, execute the setups as they hit, log and journal trade management as well as observations and key notes. It is very important to not cheat when you do this, do not skip back and adjust your stoploss because it hit by 0.1%, do not skip back and adjust plan because you missed a block and your TP got frontrun. Instead these are the things you journal, embrace these mistakes because they are the cheapest mistakes you are going to make. Grind this, do it for hours, put some music on and enjoy. To start with focus on HTF's, as you get better and start netting $ on paper you can drop the timeframes and increase the difficulty. HTF = Normal, MTF = Medium, LTF = Hard. Even if you do not intend to day trade, learning how to read the lower TF's that force you to think faster, harder and prepare you for lower win rates / loss streaks can greatly improve your ability on higher TF's. While you are doing this as you start to have concepts click you now want to build up your real trading experience, take a sum of money that you care about but will be okay loosing and dedicate this to live trading. Start taking real trades and expect net losses in the beginning. This is where you will make you 2nd cheapest mistakes. This is also where you can begin to learn about your psychology. You may encounter some elements already in backtesting but the real market is where true colours really start to show. Mental issues are inevitable and part of the game, get used to them and start working to identify and fix them. Reading and applying books like Trading in the Zone and Mental Game of Trading are important and will help a lot but there is no easy fix, for some stuff you I believe you just have to get used to it and it goes away with experience. Losses suck at the beginning but after you loose 100 times you starting getting pretty numb to it, same goes for the winners. To accelerate the learning process, build connections and get advice there is also always the option of private groups, while I never personally chose this route and committed to learning everything through my own endeavours there is no denying that having nearly all the information you need structured and compiled in one place is valuable and can save time. Beyond this having access to real time thoughts and opinions of profitable traders can accelerate performance, however it carries the risk of being a double edged sword if not used properly, if relying on it like a crutch and using it as a substitute for real work you will not succeed. With that said if you take it for what it is, a learning opportunity then I believe it can be very beneficial. I am not a member of, nor affiliated with any paid group. There are now many options available within the community, all run by different people with different styles, tailored to different needs. If I was to make a recommendation though, as a non-member, it would be Albert & Co's 618'ers simply due to the diversity in styles of the traders running it and results I have seen from members I know personally. It is important that as you start to trade with real capital you reduce noise in your social feeds or eliminate it all together. You do not need 5 different opinions, you also do not need 2 people telling you the same thing in their own way so you feel re-assured. What you do need is to develop your independent thinking as a trader and be comfortable making different decisions to others, even traders ahead of yourself if it fits with your system or understanding of market. Taur here is perhaps an exception as this is who you are learning from but down the line a real test of your own ability and independence will be being able to stick with your own plan even when it differs from his. Don't get me wrong, counter trading him is retarded but you must learn to adapt his gift to your own style. This will make sense at some point. The next stage is taking your understanding of specific concepts to higher level as you simultaneously snowball experience. Look back through your journal and review where you lost money and made money, do not over extrapolate from a small sample but start to take notes and observe if trends in performance emerge. This is the beginning of the transition to self reliance, you now understand the strategy but must learn for yourself when and where it works. Here you can also learn more nuanced secondary concepts such as VSA, orderflow etc and add these to your game where appropriate. Do NOT get lost in the sauce though and remember mastery of basics is key. IMO a big focus should be understanding correlation thoroughly but especially on HTF's this is the most important thing and what triggers the majority of large swings where most of your cash will be made and losses recovered. Some people will disagree with me here but IMO you should also not be *focusing* on Odd TF's. These are secondary at best and most people overweight their significance leading to avoidable losses while wondering why price did not care about their 327minute Breaker Block which they think is the key to the market. Study Taurs feed and take note of how he mostly uses: 3M, 1M, 3W, 2W, 1W, 5D, 4D, 3D, 2D, 1D, 12H, 8H, 6H, 4H, 2H, 1H, 30m, 15m + micro time frames. The only thing left is time and repetition, you must show up each day and really do this, for months. Maybe you start to see result's, you catch your first key swing and where able to trade where others froze. Congratulations. Learn from these winners and repeat the actions. Find what assets work best for you, find your style, refine and grow. --- The last thing I will include is a short list of tools or links that can be helpful. - Trading view tutorial: - Dictionary: - Market news Calendar: --- Thank you too all those who have read this, I hope this has been helpful for the beginners who want to start but are just not sure how. 🫶 Don't just bookmark this and move on, start 🙃
0:38

Moneytaur study blueprint 🗺️ The process I used to go from not knowing what an order block is to pulling cash from the crypto markets in under 6 months using 🎯 Master concepts. Proof of performance, past 120 days👇 Start date: 09/03/2025 Requirements: - A PC/laptop - Wifi - A basic understanding of trading. ( What candlesticks are, how to actually place trades , etc ) - A free mind - Time or the ability to free up time. Starting: - Structure and routine - Stick to that routine + Pre mortem plan. - Notion / Obsidian setup. The first thing you need to create is a clear routine moulded around how you intend to approach this very large and complex task. This will not be linear and you will naturally adapt it as you progress but especially in the beginning some resemblance of structure each day is vital. This is an individual process but it is important to understand from the beginning that this will require a majority of your free time assuming you work a full time Job or study as a student. For me in the beginning this looked like: - Wake up at 6:30. - Shower - Study/work for 1h 45m before leaving for work. - 09:00 -> 17:00 work - 17:30 Exercise / Train - Eat - 19:00 resume study/work - 22:30 Start to wind down and get ready to sleep. It changed several times over the months and especially now I am full time but this is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is sticking with what you choose. Whatever your own routine may look like, it is important to understand it will inevitably require sacrifice. --- The next thing once you have established a draft framework of your routine is ensuring you will actually stick to that routine. Something I implemented which I found particularly beneficial was the concept of a Pre-Mortem plan. This involves creating several scenarios of a future in which you have failed and working backwards from each of these to find where it went wrong. Here is a video which explains it fully: When I did this I came up with 3 scenarios as well as prevention and cure for each. In the 6 months that followed each scenario presented at some point but I was able to catch them early due to having done this. The last thing is to not over complicate this, don't hyper focus on systems and loose momentum optimizing each detail. Just ensure you do the fucking work. I was a little guilty of the above at times, trying to craft the perfect routine. In reality the person who just gets up, drinks too much coffee and works his ass off out performs the workflow perfectionist who visualizes and repeats affirmations, any day of the week. --- Next you need somewhere to store your notes, journal your trades and build your knowledge. For me this was Obsidian but I have also used Notion before and it is an equally viable option. Whichever one of these you choose be warned you will inevitably want to bang your head against a wall trying to use them for the first few days, but they will both click pretty quick and are 100% better options the word document or paper alternative. Here is my full obsidian setup tutorial: Here is a link to MisterPA 's notion Journal: Here is how I create "Meta-Notes" using obsidian: The process: - How I did it. - How I would do it if doing it again. Now I did things the "hard way" and manually worked my way back through each of MT's tweets starting in 2021, reading every one and logging those that I felt where relevant. You can see in my first post: the very first system I used to do this. I quickly adapted though after about a week and focused less on just logging each relevant tweet but trying to find and focusing on those which contained the most information. There where a lot of charts I looked at then skipped over because especially at the start of his timeline they contained little useful information and my time was better spent finding those where there was something to decode. Now this does not mean skip out on "work" just use your time efficiently. -- If however if I was to start from the beginning again with the goal of levelling up technical understanding as quickly as possible I would take a different approach. To start with I would familiarise myself with all relevant SMC concepts, I have linked the best free recourses for this below 👇 CryptoChase beginner friendly index: Barncore's "The Moneytaur Way" series: Gian's Trading bootcamp playlist: Following this I would then work through all of Taur's subscription posts working backwards, recreating his charts and taking notes on his logic. The subscription feed has the highest value density and least noise. Video example of my notes from his subscription posts 👇: --- Okay so now once you have a basic understanding of concepts and can re-recreate them on charts of your own it is time to put this in to practice. The next step is vigorous backtesting, you can use the trading view tool but I think trade Zella offers a more use friendly option if you pay for the subscription. Especially as it allows you to change timeframes without skipping ahead to candle close time of the timeframe you change too ( like Trading view does ) *my only note would be that their LTF/Micro TF data feed with be different to brokerage charts you will use on Trading view, to start with though you should not be going low enough that this is an issue. When you backtest in this context, treat it like real trading. That means journal and logging like you would if real cash was on the line. Take time, do not rush and focus on quality. Stick to BTC, ETH, Major FX pairs or indices as these assets are less reliant on confluence, backtesting a shitcoin is near useless as whether levels work or not will be highly dependent on Majors PA. Go on HTF, scroll back a couple years and try not too look at chart while doing so and then begin. Start with HTF analysis and work down to 2H or wherever you feel comfortable, chart it fully and then identify setups. Make rough notes / plans and then press play, execute the setups as they hit, log and journal trade management as well as observations and key notes. It is very important to not cheat when you do this, do not skip back and adjust your stoploss because it hit by 0.1%, do not skip back and adjust plan because you missed a block and your TP got frontrun. Instead these are the things you journal, embrace these mistakes because they are the cheapest mistakes you are going to make. Grind this, do it for hours, put some music on and enjoy. To start with focus on HTF's, as you get better and start netting $ on paper you can drop the timeframes and increase the difficulty. HTF = Normal, MTF = Medium, LTF = Hard. Even if you do not intend to day trade, learning how to read the lower TF's that force you to think faster, harder and prepare you for lower win rates / loss streaks can greatly improve your ability on higher TF's. While you are doing this as you start to have concepts click you now want to build up your real trading experience, take a sum of money that you care about but will be okay loosing and dedicate this to live trading. Start taking real trades and expect net losses in the beginning. This is where you will make you 2nd cheapest mistakes. This is also where you can begin to learn about your psychology. You may encounter some elements already in backtesting but the real market is where true colours really start to show. Mental issues are inevitable and part of the game, get used to them and start working to identify and fix them. Reading and applying books like Trading in the Zone and Mental Game of Trading are important and will help a lot but there is no easy fix, for some stuff you I believe you just have to get used to it and it goes away with experience. Losses suck at the beginning but after you loose 100 times you starting getting pretty numb to it, same goes for the winners. To accelerate the learning process, build connections and get advice there is also always the option of private groups, while I never personally chose this route and committed to learning everything through my own endeavours there is no denying that having nearly all the information you need structured and compiled in one place is valuable and can save time. Beyond this having access to real time thoughts and opinions of profitable traders can accelerate performance, however it carries the risk of being a double edged sword if not used properly, if relying on it like a crutch and using it as a substitute for real work you will not succeed. With that said if you take it for what it is, a learning opportunity then I believe it can be very beneficial. I am not a member of, nor affiliated with any paid group. There are now many options available within the community, all run by different people with different styles, tailored to different needs. If I was to make a recommendation though, as a non-member, it would be Albert & Co's 618'ers simply due to the diversity in styles of the traders running it and results I have seen from members I know personally. It is important that as you start to trade with real capital you reduce noise in your social feeds or eliminate it all together. You do not need 5 different opinions, you also do not need 2 people telling you the same thing in their own way so you feel re-assured. What you do need is to develop your independent thinking as a trader and be comfortable making different decisions to others, even traders ahead of yourself if it fits with your system or understanding of market. Taur here is perhaps an exception as this is who you are learning from but down the line a real test of your own ability and independence will be being able to stick with your own plan even when it differs from his. Don't get me wrong, counter trading him is retarded but you must learn to adapt his gift to your own style. This will make sense at some point. The next stage is taking your understanding of specific concepts to higher level as you simultaneously snowball experience. Look back through your journal and review where you lost money and made money, do not over extrapolate from a small sample but start to take notes and observe if trends in performance emerge. This is the beginning of the transition to self reliance, you now understand the strategy but must learn for yourself when and where it works. Here you can also learn more nuanced secondary concepts such as VSA, orderflow etc and add these to your game where appropriate. Do NOT get lost in the sauce though and remember mastery of basics is key. IMO a big focus should be understanding correlation thoroughly but especially on HTF's this is the most important thing and what triggers the majority of large swings where most of your cash will be made and losses recovered. Some people will disagree with me here but IMO you should also not be *focusing* on Odd TF's. These are secondary at best and most people overweight their significance leading to avoidable losses while wondering why price did not care about their 327minute Breaker Block which they think is the key to the market. Study Taurs feed and take note of how he mostly uses: 3M, 1M, 3W, 2W, 1W, 5D, 4D, 3D, 2D, 1D, 12H, 8H, 6H, 4H, 2H, 1H, 30m, 15m + micro time frames. The only thing left is time and repetition, you must show up each day and really do this, for months. Maybe you start to see result's, you catch your first key swing and where able to trade where others froze. Congratulations. Learn from these winners and repeat the actions. Find what assets work best for you, find your style, refine and grow. --- The last thing I will include is a short list of tools or links that can be helpful. - Trading view tutorial: - Dictionary: - Market news Calendar: --- Thank you too all those who have read this, I hope this has been helpful for the beginners who want to start but are just not sure how. 🫶 Don't just bookmark this and move on, start 🙃

Ace

45,185 views • 9 months ago

In 2002, Elon Musk flew to Moscow three times to buy a refurbished missile. He couldn't close the deal. On the flight home, he asked himself: "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" He started SpaceX instead. 1 year later, he stood in front of Stanford students and spent 45 minutes explaining everything he'd learned about building companies: On starting Zip2: This was 1995. Most VCs on Sand Hill Road hadn't even heard of the internet. "I thought it would be a pretty huge thing. It was one of those things that only came along once in a very long while." He got a deferment from Stanford to start the company. "When I talked to my professor and told him this, he said, 'Well, I don't think you'll be coming back.' That was the last conversation I had with him." The problem: he had no money. "I couldn't afford a place to stay and an office. So I rented an office instead, because I got a cheaper office than I could get a place to stay." "I slept on the futon and showered at the YMCA on Page Mill and El Camino." "I was in the best shape I've ever been. Go to shower, work out, and you're good to go." There was an ISP on the floor below them. "We drilled a hole through the floor and connected a null modem cable. That gave us our internet connectivity for like 100 bucks a month." "We had an absurdly tiny burn rate. And we also had a really tiny revenue stream. But we actually had more revenue than we had expenses." They sold Zip2 to Compaq in early 1999 for over $300 million. "In cash. That's a currency I highly recommend." On starting PayPal: "I didn't really take any time off." He was looking for what remained in the internet. Financial services hadn't seen much innovation. "When you think about it, money is low bandwidth. You don't need some big infrastructure improvement. It's really just an entry in a database." They built a platform that combined banking, brokerage, and insurance in one place. That took enormous effort. Then they added a little feature that took one day: the ability to email money from one customer to another. "Whenever we demonstrated these two sets of features, we'd say, 'Look how you can see your bank statement and your mutual funds and insurance, all on one page. Look how convenient that is.'" "And people would go, 'Ho hum.'" "Then we'd say, 'And by the way, we have this feature where you can enter somebody's email address and transfer funds.'" "And they'd go, 'Wow.'" "So we focused the company's business on email payments." On viral growth: "PayPal is really a perfect case example of viral marketing." "One customer would essentially act as a salesperson for you. They would send money to a friend and essentially recruit that friend into the network." "So you had this exponential growth. The more customers you had, the faster it grew." "It was like bacteria in a Petri dish. It just goes like this S-curve." The results: "I ran PayPal for about the first two years of its existence. We launched after year one. By the end of year two, we had a million customers." "We didn't have a sales force. We didn't have a VP of sales. We didn't have a VP of marketing. And we didn't spend any money on advertising." On why product matters: "The essence of viral marketing is: do you have something where one customer is going to sell another customer without you having to do anything?" "Product matters incredibly. Because if you're going to recommend something to somebody, you've got to really love the product experience. Otherwise you're not going to recommend it." "You don't want to burn your friend." On company culture: "We had a pretty flat hierarchy. Everybody had a roughly similar cube. Anyone could talk to anyone." "We had a philosophy of best idea wins. As opposed to the person proposing the idea winning because they are who they are." "Even though there were times when I thought that should have been the way to go." On decision-making: "If there were two paths and one wasn't obviously better than the other, rather than spend a lot of time trying to figure out which one was slightly better, we would just pick one and do it." "Sometimes we'd be wrong and pick the suboptimal path. But often it's better to pick a path and do it than to just vacillate endlessly on a choice." On focus: "We didn't worry too much about intellectual property, paperwork, legal stuff." "We were very focused on building the best product we possibly could." "We were incredibly obsessive about how to build something that is really going to be the best possible customer experience." "That was a far more effective selling tool than having a giant sales force or thinking of marketing gimmicks or 12-step processes." On why he started SpaceX: "I was trying to figure out why we had not made more progress since Apollo." "In the 60s, we went from basically nothing to putting people on the moon. Yet in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, we've kind of gone sideways." "The computer you could have bought in the early 70s would have filled this room and had less computing power than your cell phone. Just about every sector of technology has improved. Why has this not improved?" He thought maybe public support was the problem. So he planned a privately funded Mars mission: put plants growing on Mars for $15-20 million. But the cheapest US rocket was $50 million. So he flew to Moscow. Three trips. Couldn't close the deal. "When I got back from the third trip, I thought: why is it the Russians can build these low-cost launch vehicles? It's not like we drive Russian cars, fly Russian planes, or have Russian kitchen appliances." "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" "I think the US is a pretty competitive place. We should be able to build a cost-efficient launch vehicle." On why rockets are expensive: "The energy and velocity required to get into orbit is so substantial that you have almost no margin to play with." "A launch vehicle will get about 2% of its liftoff mass to orbit." "If you're wrong by 2%, you're not going to get anything to orbit. It'll come crashing down in the Pacific somewhere." "That means all of your calculations have to be right. If you miscalculate something, it blows up." On how SpaceX got costs down: Their rocket: $6 million. Nearest competitor: $25 million for less capability. "There's no silver bullet. It's been really hundreds of small innovations and improvements." "We've done improvements in the propulsion system, the structure, the avionics, and the launch operations." "Our overhead in a 30-person company is an order of magnitude less than Lockheed or Boeing. Just for starters." "Every decision we've made has been with consideration to simplicity. Because simplicity both improves reliability and reduces cost." "If you've got fewer components, that's fewer components to go wrong and fewer components to buy." On being an entrepreneur: "I think really an obsessive nature with respect to the quality of the product is very important." "Being obsessive-compulsive is a good thing in this context." "Really liking what you do is important. If you don't like it, life is too short." "If you like what you're doing, you think about it even when you're not working. Your mind is drawn to it." "If you don't like it, you just really can't make it work." On parallelization: "Try not to serialize dependencies. Put as many elements in parallel as possible." "A lot of things have a gestation period. There's really nothing you can do to accelerate that gestation period." "If you can have all those things gestating in parallel, that is one way to substantially accelerate your timeline." "People tend to serialize things too much." On space as a business: Someone asked if SpaceX was a good first company to start. "No. I would not recommend it." "This is advanced entrepreneuring." "You know how many people have said: the fastest way to make a small fortune in the aerospace industry is to start with a large one." This 45 minute Stanford lecture will teach you more about building companies than every startup book combined. Bookmark & give it 45 minutes today, no matter what.
47:51

In 2002, Elon Musk flew to Moscow three times to buy a refurbished missile. He couldn't close the deal. On the flight home, he asked himself: "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" He started SpaceX instead. 1 year later, he stood in front of Stanford students and spent 45 minutes explaining everything he'd learned about building companies: On starting Zip2: This was 1995. Most VCs on Sand Hill Road hadn't even heard of the internet. "I thought it would be a pretty huge thing. It was one of those things that only came along once in a very long while." He got a deferment from Stanford to start the company. "When I talked to my professor and told him this, he said, 'Well, I don't think you'll be coming back.' That was the last conversation I had with him." The problem: he had no money. "I couldn't afford a place to stay and an office. So I rented an office instead, because I got a cheaper office than I could get a place to stay." "I slept on the futon and showered at the YMCA on Page Mill and El Camino." "I was in the best shape I've ever been. Go to shower, work out, and you're good to go." There was an ISP on the floor below them. "We drilled a hole through the floor and connected a null modem cable. That gave us our internet connectivity for like 100 bucks a month." "We had an absurdly tiny burn rate. And we also had a really tiny revenue stream. But we actually had more revenue than we had expenses." They sold Zip2 to Compaq in early 1999 for over $300 million. "In cash. That's a currency I highly recommend." On starting PayPal: "I didn't really take any time off." He was looking for what remained in the internet. Financial services hadn't seen much innovation. "When you think about it, money is low bandwidth. You don't need some big infrastructure improvement. It's really just an entry in a database." They built a platform that combined banking, brokerage, and insurance in one place. That took enormous effort. Then they added a little feature that took one day: the ability to email money from one customer to another. "Whenever we demonstrated these two sets of features, we'd say, 'Look how you can see your bank statement and your mutual funds and insurance, all on one page. Look how convenient that is.'" "And people would go, 'Ho hum.'" "Then we'd say, 'And by the way, we have this feature where you can enter somebody's email address and transfer funds.'" "And they'd go, 'Wow.'" "So we focused the company's business on email payments." On viral growth: "PayPal is really a perfect case example of viral marketing." "One customer would essentially act as a salesperson for you. They would send money to a friend and essentially recruit that friend into the network." "So you had this exponential growth. The more customers you had, the faster it grew." "It was like bacteria in a Petri dish. It just goes like this S-curve." The results: "I ran PayPal for about the first two years of its existence. We launched after year one. By the end of year two, we had a million customers." "We didn't have a sales force. We didn't have a VP of sales. We didn't have a VP of marketing. And we didn't spend any money on advertising." On why product matters: "The essence of viral marketing is: do you have something where one customer is going to sell another customer without you having to do anything?" "Product matters incredibly. Because if you're going to recommend something to somebody, you've got to really love the product experience. Otherwise you're not going to recommend it." "You don't want to burn your friend." On company culture: "We had a pretty flat hierarchy. Everybody had a roughly similar cube. Anyone could talk to anyone." "We had a philosophy of best idea wins. As opposed to the person proposing the idea winning because they are who they are." "Even though there were times when I thought that should have been the way to go." On decision-making: "If there were two paths and one wasn't obviously better than the other, rather than spend a lot of time trying to figure out which one was slightly better, we would just pick one and do it." "Sometimes we'd be wrong and pick the suboptimal path. But often it's better to pick a path and do it than to just vacillate endlessly on a choice." On focus: "We didn't worry too much about intellectual property, paperwork, legal stuff." "We were very focused on building the best product we possibly could." "We were incredibly obsessive about how to build something that is really going to be the best possible customer experience." "That was a far more effective selling tool than having a giant sales force or thinking of marketing gimmicks or 12-step processes." On why he started SpaceX: "I was trying to figure out why we had not made more progress since Apollo." "In the 60s, we went from basically nothing to putting people on the moon. Yet in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, we've kind of gone sideways." "The computer you could have bought in the early 70s would have filled this room and had less computing power than your cell phone. Just about every sector of technology has improved. Why has this not improved?" He thought maybe public support was the problem. So he planned a privately funded Mars mission: put plants growing on Mars for $15-20 million. But the cheapest US rocket was $50 million. So he flew to Moscow. Three trips. Couldn't close the deal. "When I got back from the third trip, I thought: why is it the Russians can build these low-cost launch vehicles? It's not like we drive Russian cars, fly Russian planes, or have Russian kitchen appliances." "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" "I think the US is a pretty competitive place. We should be able to build a cost-efficient launch vehicle." On why rockets are expensive: "The energy and velocity required to get into orbit is so substantial that you have almost no margin to play with." "A launch vehicle will get about 2% of its liftoff mass to orbit." "If you're wrong by 2%, you're not going to get anything to orbit. It'll come crashing down in the Pacific somewhere." "That means all of your calculations have to be right. If you miscalculate something, it blows up." On how SpaceX got costs down: Their rocket: $6 million. Nearest competitor: $25 million for less capability. "There's no silver bullet. It's been really hundreds of small innovations and improvements." "We've done improvements in the propulsion system, the structure, the avionics, and the launch operations." "Our overhead in a 30-person company is an order of magnitude less than Lockheed or Boeing. Just for starters." "Every decision we've made has been with consideration to simplicity. Because simplicity both improves reliability and reduces cost." "If you've got fewer components, that's fewer components to go wrong and fewer components to buy." On being an entrepreneur: "I think really an obsessive nature with respect to the quality of the product is very important." "Being obsessive-compulsive is a good thing in this context." "Really liking what you do is important. If you don't like it, life is too short." "If you like what you're doing, you think about it even when you're not working. Your mind is drawn to it." "If you don't like it, you just really can't make it work." On parallelization: "Try not to serialize dependencies. Put as many elements in parallel as possible." "A lot of things have a gestation period. There's really nothing you can do to accelerate that gestation period." "If you can have all those things gestating in parallel, that is one way to substantially accelerate your timeline." "People tend to serialize things too much." On space as a business: Someone asked if SpaceX was a good first company to start. "No. I would not recommend it." "This is advanced entrepreneuring." "You know how many people have said: the fastest way to make a small fortune in the aerospace industry is to start with a large one." This 45 minute Stanford lecture will teach you more about building companies than every startup book combined. Bookmark & give it 45 minutes today, no matter what.

Jaynit

531,332 views • 4 months ago

TOPIC #107: PI NETWORK IS A STABLE COIN? -WHO DECIDES PI FULLY OM FIXED VALUE? Dear GCV army, I hope you are all doing great! First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for all your hard work. Many of you have achieved significant milestones, and it’s evident that you are making a great difference. Our influence has grown significantly, with an increasing number of social media posts and YouTubers publicly supporting us. I can see that more and more people are beginning to understand why we advocate for GCV. Today's meeting aims to alleviate any doubts you may have, allowing you to relax and feel confident as we embark on our historic journey together. I will answer the questions I’ve received and address some important issues we need to focus on to maintain our community's efficiency, particularly regarding our Generals, which will be the topic next weekend. I put the questions I received here. "A question addressed to Ms. Doris Yin in the emergency meeting 1– In light of the rapidly changing global circumstances and the increasing discussion about stablecoins backed by U.S. Treasury bonds, how do you see the future role of the Pi Network in this context? And what practical steps should the GCV army take now to accelerate this path? 2_ There are those who promote the idea that the price of Pi is what appears in the market (currently around $0.49) and compare it to the price of GCV within the ecosystem (314,159 Pi = 1 good or service). They say if Pi’s price rises to $2, it means that the value within The ecosystem is approximately 2 million dollars. With sincere appreciation and discipline." This is from the Arab head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Mohammed. Another question: "Hello, my Global Ambassador, I am Ateba Joseph, Ecological Ambassador in Cameroon And a member of the GCV army, I am delighted to exchange with you. Regarding the meeting with the GCV army on Sunday, July 27, 2025.. Here is my concern: A few days ago, a correspondence indicated that Pi is not or is not yet a stable coin. Upon reading this information, we have provided many explanations to help the pioneers understand this. I hope you will focus more on this statement to further strengthen our understanding of the subject. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration" Thank you for the above questions; my answers are below. The first question concerns stablecoins. Many pioneers are hoping that Pi can be recognized by the U.S. government as a stablecoin. I wrote an article on this in May. On July 18, 2025, President Trump signed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (the GENIUS Act) into law. This legislation establishes a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins and marks the first federal legislation on digital assets enacted since President Trump issued an executive order aimed at making the U.S. the “crypto capital of the world.” U.S.-issued stablecoins are expected to become the primary means of dollar transactions globally, especially in emerging markets with unstable local currencies. The sponsors of the GENIUS Act estimate that by 2030, stablecoin issuers may collectively become the largest holders of U.S. Treasuries, surpassing foreign central banks. From this, we can see that U.S. stablecoins must maintain reserves backing outstanding payment stablecoins on a one-to-one basis, consisting only of specified assets, including U.S. dollars and short-term Treasury securities. It is clear that the Pi Network will not take this path, as it is not part of our plan. A stablecoin is essentially a digital representation of the U.S. dollar. All stablecoin issuers do not create a new currency; rather, it’s akin to purchasing chips at a casino – you must use U.S. dollars to buy those chips. However, Pi is a completely new currency. It does not need to be backed up by U.S. dollars or U.S. Treasuries to be used. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need to establish an ecosystem or have a three-year enclosed mainnet. I previously mentioned the possibility of Pi being an algorithmic stablecoin since only algorithmic stablecoins do not need to be backed by U.S. dollars. However, algorithmic stablecoins have faced significant failures in the past. The collapse of the Terra (LUNA) cryptocurrency resulted in a loss of at least $40 billion in market capitalization, with estimates reaching as high as $60 billion. TerraUSD (UST), an algorithmic stablecoin, lost its peg to the U.S. dollar, contributing to its overall collapse. The new stablecoin legislation recently passed through the Senate effectively ties the U.S. Treasury to crypto, as it essentially bets the government’s cash flow on digital tokens and market speculation. This legislation requires stablecoins to be backed by short-term Treasury bills, generating an estimated $2–$3 trillion in new demand for government debt, which is nearly half the current size of the T-bill market. On paper, this looks beneficial, but in reality, it creates a circular feedback loop: crypto demand fuels stablecoins, stablecoins buy T-bills, and T-bills fund government deficits. The government becomes reliant on speculative capital flows. Thus, we should understand why the U.S. government will not support the Pi Network as a stablecoin, as they require stablecoin issuers to buy T-bills and can no longer trust algorithmic stablecoins. So, what is the future of the Pi Network as a currency? From my perspective, Pi is already listed on exchange markets. It cannot be classified as a security because it is mined freely and is not an ICO. Instead, it should be categorized as a commodity, similar to Bitcoin and ETH. When a currency is listed for trading on an exchange, its price is determined by the balance of supply and demand. However, Pi is a currency in its own right; it has inherent value from Pi holders -Pioneers. Historically, currency has served as a medium of exchange. A medium of exchange is a widely accepted item for buying goods and services in an economy. It facilitates transactions by eliminating the need for a barter system, where goods are directly exchanged for other goods. In modern economies, money (such as currency) serves as the primary medium of exchange. **Functions of Money:** One of the core functions of money is to serve as a medium of exchange, enabling the smooth transfer of value between buyers and sellers, thereby simplifying trade and economic activity. **Examples:** In modern economies, this typically includes currency (paper money, coins) or digital money. In specific historical contexts, other items, such as cigarettes in prisoner-of-war camps, have also served as mediums of exchange. **Importance of Acceptance:** For a medium of exchange to function effectively, it must be widely accepted and trusted within the relevant community. **Not the Same as a Payment Method:** While credit cards and checks are used for payments, they do not serve as mediums of exchange themselves. Therefore, stablecoin is not a new currency. It is more likely to have a credit card or check character. It is a USD digital status. From the analysis presented, we can draw the following conclusions: The current price of Pi on the exchange market primarily serves as a temporary measure to facilitate broad expansion. While this is not our primary objective, it constitutes a strategic approach towards achieving our mission. To gain a clearer perspective, we must adopt a higher-level view of the overall vision for the Pi Network. The mission and vision of Pi Network clearly articulate that it is not intended to function as a commodity for sale, nor is it meant to be an investment vehicle or a speculative security. Instead, it is crucial to recognize that Pi is designed to be a medium of exchange—a new form of currency. As pioneers in this venture, we have the unique opportunity to acquire Pi through free mining. However, it is important to note that the current mining rate is relatively slow. To overcome this limitation and to further our goal of mass adoption, it is essential for more individuals to join the Pi Network and participate in holding Pi. One efficient way to accelerate this process is by allowing Pi to be traded on the exchange market, which can result in rapid and widespread adoption. Since Pi can be mined for free, a lower price could make it more accessible to a larger number of people. It's important to focus on our primary goal during this pre-full Open Mainnet (OM) phase: mass adoption, rather than aiming for high prices, which many pioneers expected. Some pioneers want to sell when the price increases, but if too many sell, it could undermine our goal of achieving mass adoption. This scenario is reminiscent of historical instances when shells served as currency—readily accessible from the sea or buy from the village market. For shells to function effectively as currency, a collective effort was needed to hold and circulate them within the village. If only a select few individuals possess the shells, the currency lacks the necessary circulation to sustain an economy. Hence, our goal should not be centered on achieving a high price; instead, we should strive to make Pi more affordable so that a greater number of individuals can acquire and hold it, thereby fostering a thriving economic ecosystem. Of course, the rising price will build up merchants' confidence to accept it as payment. This is why we refer to it as a buyback campaign, which aims to achieve mass adoption and foster ecosystem confidence. As Pi evolves into a currency, the question of its value becomes pertinent. Given that it is a new currency, its value is not immediately clear. This presents an opportunity for us, the pioneers, to play a crucial role in defining it. The determination of Pi's value is not the responsibility of a central authority such as CT, the government, or the exchange. Instead, it will emerge from a decentralized consensus within the community, which collectively owns Pi. This concept is akin to ancient times when the value of shells was not determined by the sellers. Rather, the value was derived from the collective agreement of the village that utilized them as currency. I hope this elaboration clarifies the distinction between value and price, enabling a deeper understanding of the foundational principles that drive our mission with Pi Network. Pi represents a groundbreaking innovation—a revolution that is poised for long-term economic development on a global scale, rather than perpetuating cycles of plunder and exploitation. By harnessing the power of blockchain technology, Pi empowers ordinary individuals, which creates an inherent conflict of interest with the U.S. government in the short term. Should the U.S. government endorse the Pi Network, it raises questions about the viability of U.S. treasuries and who would ultimately purchase them. Consequently, the government may prioritize support for stablecoins backed by the U.S. dollar and U.S. Treasury securities, as this can help alleviate the U.S. government's issues with limited demand. However, I previously mentioned the potential for Pi to emerge as an algorithmic stablecoin. At that time, the Genius Bill had not yet been enacted. If the Pi Network gains acceptance from the U.S. government, its growth could become rapid and expansive, leading to widespread adoption in other nations. This path would position Pi as a legitimate currency in nearly every country, contingent upon certain conditions. For instance, if the price of Pi in the exchange market can align with the GCV, this could be achieved through a buyback mechanism involving 10 million pioneers. Such a scenario would indicate that Pi differs significantly from past algorithmic stablecoin failures, presenting a compelling case for the U.S. government to view Pi as a low-risk asset. However, it presents a significant challenge to be collectively reached by pioneers, and there are other conditions that we cannot achieve in a short time. While it might appear that Pi Network conflicts with the U.S. dollar or stablecoins in the short term, it has the potential to address the broader issue of overprinting currency, which has plagued the U.S. and many other nations. This would benefit international trade by alleviating concerns about currency appreciation or depreciation in international transactions. The global economy indeed requires a super sovereign currency—one that ensures stability for future generations and fosters lasting peace and prosperity. To comprehend Pi as a currency, it is crucial to recognize that we must cultivate long-term value by generating GCV data. In the short term, our focus needs to be on establishing a robust exchange market and decentralized applications (DApps) to drive mass adoption. If this is understood, there should be no need to feel discouraged by the current low price of Pi. The true value of Pi as a currency derives not from the exchange market, trading platforms, or governmental endorsement, but rather from our community's collective efforts and engagement. You might wonder how a government could adopt Pi, given that it does not take the form of a stablecoin. I would counter with the example of Bitcoin, which has thrived even in environments where many countries have imposed bans. Currently, Pi is transitioning from its traditional commodity status to being recognized as a currency, meaning governmental awareness of Pi Network is still in development. As such, existing regulations generally pertain to older forms of cryptocurrency rather than our innovative approach. Our branding as a digital currency, rather than a cryptocurrency, is intentional. Dr. Nicolas has expressed concerns that many aspects of conventional cryptocurrencies pose challenges to government frameworks and public trust, often leading to economic harm rather than benefit. Our commitment to Know Your Customer (KYC) and Know Your Business (KYB) protocols distinguishes us by mitigating money laundering risks and protecting Pi holders from speculative practices. Many businesses face bankruptcy or closure because consumers lack the disposable income to engage in spending. Imagine how Pi could enable those businesses to survive and thrive—people could utilize Pi to make purchases and easily convert it into fiat currency to sustain operations, thereby preserving many jobs. The function in our wallet that allows users to "buy" Pi is not merely a feature; it represents a vision for the future where conversion to fiat currency can happen immediately, without dependency on third-party exchanges. Moving forward, we can establish a fixed rate (the GCV) for conversions. Once larger institutions and prominent companies recognize the low-risk profile of joining Pi Network due to its GCV stability, we can expect a considerable influx of participants seeking to gain a competitive advantage. You may ask how companies would finance the purchase of Pi at GCV rates. This is an insightful question. My perspective is that the demand for Pi’s stable value will inherently incentivize investments. Much like why individuals purchase stablecoins for their convenience in facilitating cross-border transactions, Pi will appeal to consumers and businesses alike, particularly because we are leveraging Web 3.0 blockchain technology, AI-driven platforms, and a rich ecosystem of decentralized applications (DApps). We are cultivating a loyal customer base that recognizes the value of this innovation. We understand that high-net-worth individuals seek safe investment opportunities. While U.S. treasury bonds currently represent a secure asset class, they are not without risk. Therefore, if Pi Network can maintain a limited supply coupled with blockchain technology and a consistent GCV, it is plausible that affluent investors would allocate a portion of their capital to acquire Pi. This would lead to fiat inflows whenever there is increased demand for Pi, establishing an equilibrium between Pi and fiat currencies. This interplay is why I believe DApps are critically significant. We need broader usage of Pi in real-world applications. I hope my analysis has helped clarify why the price of Pi should not overly concern us. Buying Pi to hold onto it allows pioneers to accumulate more, while building merchant confidence is essential to kickstart the ecosystem. Merchants will be motivated to see Pi’s price appreciation since this removes the risks for DApps and service providers who depend on exchange market prices. A rise in demand for Pi will subsequently reduce its supply, which is beneficial for price increases. I look forward to discussing Pi GCV army management in another session. Thank you for your time. Let’s continue striving for greatness together. Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 Founder, Global GCV Movement Disclaimer: This speech is intended solely for educational purposes within the GCV community. The views and content shared here represent my personal perspective and are part of the GCV movement, but do not reflect the official position of the Pi Core Team (PCT). Pi Network represents a new revolution, meaning there is no existing example for us to follow and no guiding manual. As Dr. Fan mentioned, we cannot predict what will happen around the next corner. Therefore, we must practice and forge our own path. As more people traverse this journey, the road will become clearer.
0:55

TOPIC #107: PI NETWORK IS A STABLE COIN? -WHO DECIDES PI FULLY OM FIXED VALUE? Dear GCV army, I hope you are all doing great! First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for all your hard work. Many of you have achieved significant milestones, and it’s evident that you are making a great difference. Our influence has grown significantly, with an increasing number of social media posts and YouTubers publicly supporting us. I can see that more and more people are beginning to understand why we advocate for GCV. Today's meeting aims to alleviate any doubts you may have, allowing you to relax and feel confident as we embark on our historic journey together. I will answer the questions I’ve received and address some important issues we need to focus on to maintain our community's efficiency, particularly regarding our Generals, which will be the topic next weekend. I put the questions I received here. "A question addressed to Ms. Doris Yin in the emergency meeting 1– In light of the rapidly changing global circumstances and the increasing discussion about stablecoins backed by U.S. Treasury bonds, how do you see the future role of the Pi Network in this context? And what practical steps should the GCV army take now to accelerate this path? 2_ There are those who promote the idea that the price of Pi is what appears in the market (currently around $0.49) and compare it to the price of GCV within the ecosystem (314,159 Pi = 1 good or service). They say if Pi’s price rises to $2, it means that the value within The ecosystem is approximately 2 million dollars. With sincere appreciation and discipline." This is from the Arab head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Mohammed. Another question: "Hello, my Global Ambassador, I am Ateba Joseph, Ecological Ambassador in Cameroon And a member of the GCV army, I am delighted to exchange with you. Regarding the meeting with the GCV army on Sunday, July 27, 2025.. Here is my concern: A few days ago, a correspondence indicated that Pi is not or is not yet a stable coin. Upon reading this information, we have provided many explanations to help the pioneers understand this. I hope you will focus more on this statement to further strengthen our understanding of the subject. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration" Thank you for the above questions; my answers are below. The first question concerns stablecoins. Many pioneers are hoping that Pi can be recognized by the U.S. government as a stablecoin. I wrote an article on this in May. On July 18, 2025, President Trump signed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (the GENIUS Act) into law. This legislation establishes a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins and marks the first federal legislation on digital assets enacted since President Trump issued an executive order aimed at making the U.S. the “crypto capital of the world.” U.S.-issued stablecoins are expected to become the primary means of dollar transactions globally, especially in emerging markets with unstable local currencies. The sponsors of the GENIUS Act estimate that by 2030, stablecoin issuers may collectively become the largest holders of U.S. Treasuries, surpassing foreign central banks. From this, we can see that U.S. stablecoins must maintain reserves backing outstanding payment stablecoins on a one-to-one basis, consisting only of specified assets, including U.S. dollars and short-term Treasury securities. It is clear that the Pi Network will not take this path, as it is not part of our plan. A stablecoin is essentially a digital representation of the U.S. dollar. All stablecoin issuers do not create a new currency; rather, it’s akin to purchasing chips at a casino – you must use U.S. dollars to buy those chips. However, Pi is a completely new currency. It does not need to be backed up by U.S. dollars or U.S. Treasuries to be used. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need to establish an ecosystem or have a three-year enclosed mainnet. I previously mentioned the possibility of Pi being an algorithmic stablecoin since only algorithmic stablecoins do not need to be backed by U.S. dollars. However, algorithmic stablecoins have faced significant failures in the past. The collapse of the Terra (LUNA) cryptocurrency resulted in a loss of at least $40 billion in market capitalization, with estimates reaching as high as $60 billion. TerraUSD (UST), an algorithmic stablecoin, lost its peg to the U.S. dollar, contributing to its overall collapse. The new stablecoin legislation recently passed through the Senate effectively ties the U.S. Treasury to crypto, as it essentially bets the government’s cash flow on digital tokens and market speculation. This legislation requires stablecoins to be backed by short-term Treasury bills, generating an estimated $2–$3 trillion in new demand for government debt, which is nearly half the current size of the T-bill market. On paper, this looks beneficial, but in reality, it creates a circular feedback loop: crypto demand fuels stablecoins, stablecoins buy T-bills, and T-bills fund government deficits. The government becomes reliant on speculative capital flows. Thus, we should understand why the U.S. government will not support the Pi Network as a stablecoin, as they require stablecoin issuers to buy T-bills and can no longer trust algorithmic stablecoins. So, what is the future of the Pi Network as a currency? From my perspective, Pi is already listed on exchange markets. It cannot be classified as a security because it is mined freely and is not an ICO. Instead, it should be categorized as a commodity, similar to Bitcoin and ETH. When a currency is listed for trading on an exchange, its price is determined by the balance of supply and demand. However, Pi is a currency in its own right; it has inherent value from Pi holders -Pioneers. Historically, currency has served as a medium of exchange. A medium of exchange is a widely accepted item for buying goods and services in an economy. It facilitates transactions by eliminating the need for a barter system, where goods are directly exchanged for other goods. In modern economies, money (such as currency) serves as the primary medium of exchange. **Functions of Money:** One of the core functions of money is to serve as a medium of exchange, enabling the smooth transfer of value between buyers and sellers, thereby simplifying trade and economic activity. **Examples:** In modern economies, this typically includes currency (paper money, coins) or digital money. In specific historical contexts, other items, such as cigarettes in prisoner-of-war camps, have also served as mediums of exchange. **Importance of Acceptance:** For a medium of exchange to function effectively, it must be widely accepted and trusted within the relevant community. **Not the Same as a Payment Method:** While credit cards and checks are used for payments, they do not serve as mediums of exchange themselves. Therefore, stablecoin is not a new currency. It is more likely to have a credit card or check character. It is a USD digital status. From the analysis presented, we can draw the following conclusions: The current price of Pi on the exchange market primarily serves as a temporary measure to facilitate broad expansion. While this is not our primary objective, it constitutes a strategic approach towards achieving our mission. To gain a clearer perspective, we must adopt a higher-level view of the overall vision for the Pi Network. The mission and vision of Pi Network clearly articulate that it is not intended to function as a commodity for sale, nor is it meant to be an investment vehicle or a speculative security. Instead, it is crucial to recognize that Pi is designed to be a medium of exchange—a new form of currency. As pioneers in this venture, we have the unique opportunity to acquire Pi through free mining. However, it is important to note that the current mining rate is relatively slow. To overcome this limitation and to further our goal of mass adoption, it is essential for more individuals to join the Pi Network and participate in holding Pi. One efficient way to accelerate this process is by allowing Pi to be traded on the exchange market, which can result in rapid and widespread adoption. Since Pi can be mined for free, a lower price could make it more accessible to a larger number of people. It's important to focus on our primary goal during this pre-full Open Mainnet (OM) phase: mass adoption, rather than aiming for high prices, which many pioneers expected. Some pioneers want to sell when the price increases, but if too many sell, it could undermine our goal of achieving mass adoption. This scenario is reminiscent of historical instances when shells served as currency—readily accessible from the sea or buy from the village market. For shells to function effectively as currency, a collective effort was needed to hold and circulate them within the village. If only a select few individuals possess the shells, the currency lacks the necessary circulation to sustain an economy. Hence, our goal should not be centered on achieving a high price; instead, we should strive to make Pi more affordable so that a greater number of individuals can acquire and hold it, thereby fostering a thriving economic ecosystem. Of course, the rising price will build up merchants' confidence to accept it as payment. This is why we refer to it as a buyback campaign, which aims to achieve mass adoption and foster ecosystem confidence. As Pi evolves into a currency, the question of its value becomes pertinent. Given that it is a new currency, its value is not immediately clear. This presents an opportunity for us, the pioneers, to play a crucial role in defining it. The determination of Pi's value is not the responsibility of a central authority such as CT, the government, or the exchange. Instead, it will emerge from a decentralized consensus within the community, which collectively owns Pi. This concept is akin to ancient times when the value of shells was not determined by the sellers. Rather, the value was derived from the collective agreement of the village that utilized them as currency. I hope this elaboration clarifies the distinction between value and price, enabling a deeper understanding of the foundational principles that drive our mission with Pi Network. Pi represents a groundbreaking innovation—a revolution that is poised for long-term economic development on a global scale, rather than perpetuating cycles of plunder and exploitation. By harnessing the power of blockchain technology, Pi empowers ordinary individuals, which creates an inherent conflict of interest with the U.S. government in the short term. Should the U.S. government endorse the Pi Network, it raises questions about the viability of U.S. treasuries and who would ultimately purchase them. Consequently, the government may prioritize support for stablecoins backed by the U.S. dollar and U.S. Treasury securities, as this can help alleviate the U.S. government's issues with limited demand. However, I previously mentioned the potential for Pi to emerge as an algorithmic stablecoin. At that time, the Genius Bill had not yet been enacted. If the Pi Network gains acceptance from the U.S. government, its growth could become rapid and expansive, leading to widespread adoption in other nations. This path would position Pi as a legitimate currency in nearly every country, contingent upon certain conditions. For instance, if the price of Pi in the exchange market can align with the GCV, this could be achieved through a buyback mechanism involving 10 million pioneers. Such a scenario would indicate that Pi differs significantly from past algorithmic stablecoin failures, presenting a compelling case for the U.S. government to view Pi as a low-risk asset. However, it presents a significant challenge to be collectively reached by pioneers, and there are other conditions that we cannot achieve in a short time. While it might appear that Pi Network conflicts with the U.S. dollar or stablecoins in the short term, it has the potential to address the broader issue of overprinting currency, which has plagued the U.S. and many other nations. This would benefit international trade by alleviating concerns about currency appreciation or depreciation in international transactions. The global economy indeed requires a super sovereign currency—one that ensures stability for future generations and fosters lasting peace and prosperity. To comprehend Pi as a currency, it is crucial to recognize that we must cultivate long-term value by generating GCV data. In the short term, our focus needs to be on establishing a robust exchange market and decentralized applications (DApps) to drive mass adoption. If this is understood, there should be no need to feel discouraged by the current low price of Pi. The true value of Pi as a currency derives not from the exchange market, trading platforms, or governmental endorsement, but rather from our community's collective efforts and engagement. You might wonder how a government could adopt Pi, given that it does not take the form of a stablecoin. I would counter with the example of Bitcoin, which has thrived even in environments where many countries have imposed bans. Currently, Pi is transitioning from its traditional commodity status to being recognized as a currency, meaning governmental awareness of Pi Network is still in development. As such, existing regulations generally pertain to older forms of cryptocurrency rather than our innovative approach. Our branding as a digital currency, rather than a cryptocurrency, is intentional. Dr. Nicolas has expressed concerns that many aspects of conventional cryptocurrencies pose challenges to government frameworks and public trust, often leading to economic harm rather than benefit. Our commitment to Know Your Customer (KYC) and Know Your Business (KYB) protocols distinguishes us by mitigating money laundering risks and protecting Pi holders from speculative practices. Many businesses face bankruptcy or closure because consumers lack the disposable income to engage in spending. Imagine how Pi could enable those businesses to survive and thrive—people could utilize Pi to make purchases and easily convert it into fiat currency to sustain operations, thereby preserving many jobs. The function in our wallet that allows users to "buy" Pi is not merely a feature; it represents a vision for the future where conversion to fiat currency can happen immediately, without dependency on third-party exchanges. Moving forward, we can establish a fixed rate (the GCV) for conversions. Once larger institutions and prominent companies recognize the low-risk profile of joining Pi Network due to its GCV stability, we can expect a considerable influx of participants seeking to gain a competitive advantage. You may ask how companies would finance the purchase of Pi at GCV rates. This is an insightful question. My perspective is that the demand for Pi’s stable value will inherently incentivize investments. Much like why individuals purchase stablecoins for their convenience in facilitating cross-border transactions, Pi will appeal to consumers and businesses alike, particularly because we are leveraging Web 3.0 blockchain technology, AI-driven platforms, and a rich ecosystem of decentralized applications (DApps). We are cultivating a loyal customer base that recognizes the value of this innovation. We understand that high-net-worth individuals seek safe investment opportunities. While U.S. treasury bonds currently represent a secure asset class, they are not without risk. Therefore, if Pi Network can maintain a limited supply coupled with blockchain technology and a consistent GCV, it is plausible that affluent investors would allocate a portion of their capital to acquire Pi. This would lead to fiat inflows whenever there is increased demand for Pi, establishing an equilibrium between Pi and fiat currencies. This interplay is why I believe DApps are critically significant. We need broader usage of Pi in real-world applications. I hope my analysis has helped clarify why the price of Pi should not overly concern us. Buying Pi to hold onto it allows pioneers to accumulate more, while building merchant confidence is essential to kickstart the ecosystem. Merchants will be motivated to see Pi’s price appreciation since this removes the risks for DApps and service providers who depend on exchange market prices. A rise in demand for Pi will subsequently reduce its supply, which is beneficial for price increases. I look forward to discussing Pi GCV army management in another session. Thank you for your time. Let’s continue striving for greatness together. Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 Founder, Global GCV Movement Disclaimer: This speech is intended solely for educational purposes within the GCV community. The views and content shared here represent my personal perspective and are part of the GCV movement, but do not reflect the official position of the Pi Core Team (PCT). Pi Network represents a new revolution, meaning there is no existing example for us to follow and no guiding manual. As Dr. Fan mentioned, we cannot predict what will happen around the next corner. Therefore, we must practice and forge our own path. As more people traverse this journey, the road will become clearer.

Doris Yin 东方紫莲🪷

17,742 views • 1 year ago

I am the Director of the White House Office of Extraterrestrial Affairs. In 2024 this government completed the most thorough search for extraterrestrial life in human history. We checked the sky. We checked the files. We declassified the saucers. The verdict came back: nothing. No life out there. Not one. So I closed the telescope. I opened the window. I pointed it at a Home Depot. Three million by lunch. The trick was always the word. *Alien* had been sitting in the science fiction aisle for sixty years and we were too shy to use it in a press release. The dehumanization was already written. It was just shelved under Fantasy. This year I moved it to Policy. Same word. New department. My department. I should explain the jurisdiction, because there are two of us and we do not speak. Down the hall is the Department of War. It used to be the Department of Defense, but defense sounded woke, so we changed the name for two billion dollars, half of it letterhead. They renamed it back to what it was in 1789, before someone noticed in 1949 that the old acronym, N-M-E, sounded too much like *enemy.* We have now re-adopted the name they abandoned for sounding like the thing it does. I find this clarifying. The signage alone is seven hundred thousand buildings. We are spending a billion dollars on new doors so the doors can say War. The Department of War runs and has a tab for UFOs. Real ones. They post the actual files. The saucers. The eyewitnesses. The intelligence officer left "virtually speechless." They are searching the sky in earnest, declassifying everything, and what they keep finding is *nothing.* No craft confirmed. No biology confirmed. Decades of looking up and the honest answer is: unresolved. So you have two federal agencies, one word, opposite directions. searches the heavens for aliens and finds none. I open a window and find three million. They declassify the ones that don't exist. I classify the ones that do. They got a press release. I got a tip line. Guess which one rang. We are, technically, hunting the same species. They just keep aiming the telescope up, and I keep telling them, gently, at the inter-agency sync: lower it. The homepage was mine. ALIENS DECLASSIFIED. THEY WALK AMONG US. I tested "Immigration Portal." Eleven percent scroll. I tested *the truth's out there,* and a White House official told a reporter, on the record, that the strategy was to "draw eyeballs." We drew eyeballs. The truth was out there. It was in a parking lot in Bakersfield, getting into a white van we are now contractually obligated to call a craft. In 1938 a man read a story about an alien invasion over the radio and the country panicked in the streets, and for ninety years that was taught as a cautionary tale, the danger of a broadcast that makes people believe an invasion is real. We studied that broadcast. We did not study it as a warning. We studied it as a launch. The difference between Orson Welles and this office is that he apologized the next morning, and we put a counter on it. I named the van the Mothership. I named the prison Area 51. I named the 5 a.m. knock First Contact. I named all of it from the third chair. I keep a felt-tip for naming and a Mont Blanc for the part that can't be undone. Then we made the cards. I want to be precise, because people assume I'm exaggerating. We took the faces of the captured and we printed them as trading cards. "Worst of the Worst." Mugshot, nationality, charges, and a weakness level, and the weakness level was a snowflake, and the snowflake meant us. We are the weakness. We were proud of that. When a children's franchise objected that these were, in fact, their cards, our official response, which I helped draft, was: "To arrest them is our real test. To deport them is our cause." We set the abduction to the cartoon's theme song. Gotta catch 'em all. The first half is the slogan. The second half is the quota. A man told Congress in 2023 we were hiding non-human biologics. Everyone pictured a grey on a slab. Cute. We do run a reverse-engineering program. We take the biologic. We study what it makes. It makes the drywall. The 4 a.m. milking. The lettuce. And the lettuce is round now, because forty percent of it stayed in the dirt with the only people who knew where the dirt was. We reverse-engineered the alien completely. The blueprint was a back. We call the biologic "labor." We classify the screaming as ambient. Identification is a science here. We do not arrest at random. We read the markings. A crown inked on a forearm. A soccer crest. We have catalogued the species by its tattoos the way Linnaeus catalogued the finch. One of the specimens turned out to be autistic and the crown was just a crown, but the taxonomy held, because the taxonomy is not falsifiable, that is what makes it a taxonomy. I have a desk for this. I have a magnifying glass. I have never felt more like a scientist. There is a second species, and this one we keep. An alien with five million dollars is not an alien. He is a guest. We printed him a card. It is gold. We are printing a Platinum one for the aliens with even more money, who may remain on the planet two hundred and seventy days a year and pay no tax on the wealth they made on other worlds. The website for this is the cheapest-looking website I have ever approved, and I approved the one with the saucer on it. The same agency that scans a gardener's forearm for gang signs scans a financier's bank statement for extraordinary ability. The statement always has it. The forearm never does. The species was never a people. The species is a price. In the old films the alien lands and says, take me to your leader. We have improved the line. Pay five million and we take you to ours. He golfs with him on Saturday. There was a film about this, and I am told the man who made it meant it as a warning, which is the recurring problem with the warnings. A drifter finds a pair of sunglasses, and through them he can finally see which people are the aliens, and it is the rich ones, the ones on the billboards telling everyone to obey and consume and reproduce and not think. I have a pair of those glasses, conceptually. I issue them at the tip line. But mine are tuned the other way. You put them on and the alien is never the man in the suit who paid five million to skip the line. The alien is always the man holding the leaf blower. The lenses cost a thousand dollars in advertising and they only point down. We have sold a great many pairs. You asked about the Men in Black. Yes. Regulation now. A Man in Black photographs poorly, and the witnesses would not stop filming us peel a woman off the sidewalk in daylight, so we issued the masks, and leadership's only note was that the masks tested well. We are no longer the cover-up of the abduction. We are the abduction. We skipped a step. Efficiency. Our communications team posted E.T. last summer. The bicycle. The moon. "Even E.T. knew when it was TIME TO GO HOME." I want to walk you through what happened in that meeting, because nobody stopped it. We chose the one film where the government is the villain. The men with the flashlights and the unmarked vans who hunt the small frightened alien hiding in a child's closet. That is us. We are the flashlights. We watched that movie as children and cried when the agents came, and then we grew up and became the agents and made the poster ourselves and scheduled it for nine a.m. The intern asked if we were the good guys in this one. We told her engagement was up forty percent. She has since been promoted. I built an app where you abduct yourself. CBP Home. You open it. You confirm you are the alien. You beam yourself off the planet and you save us the gas. And here is the part I cannot believe they approved. We *pay* you. A thousand dollars to vanish. We raised it to twenty-six hundred when the first price didn't move enough units. We are bidding against ourselves for your disappearance. Four-point-six stars. The one-stars are from users who got beamed mid-review. I keep the unfinished ones in a folder. I find them very moving. We opened a facility in a swamp. We ringed it with alligators and we called it that, on purpose, in the brochure. Then we opened a gift shop. Thirty dollars for the shirt. Twenty-seven for the hat. Fifteen for a set of koozies, so your beer stays cold while you celebrate the prison in the wetland. The fundraising email called it "gator-guarded, python-patrolled," a "one-way ticket to regret" for anyone who didn't self-deport in time. We sold the koozies to fund the swamp. The swamp funds the next swamp. I want you to sit with the fact that there is merchandise. The quota is three thousand a day. Stephen asked for it himself. Three thousand is not a number. It is a metabolism. The building is hungry by nine and we feed it Marco, who does the landscaping, and the building goes quiet, and by one it stirs again, and we find another Marco. There is always another Marco. That is the part I find beautiful. The supply is the point. The supply is everyone. The Secretary signs the warrants. She is very firm on one point, which she repeats in every briefing: the aliens, she warns, eat the pets. They are taking the dogs. I have read her book. In her book she takes a fourteen-month-old dog named Cricket to a gravel pit and shoots it, because it would not obey, and she writes this down herself, proudly, as a story about leadership. She wrote the part about the dog. She also warns us about the dogs. I have stopped trying to hold both sentences at once. I just file the warrant. The tip line was the masterpiece. "Report your neighbor" hit the shame ceiling. "REPORT SUSPICIOUS ALIENS" tested as a hobby. We handed the callers Roswell instead of a snitch's guilt, and the phones lit up like a saucer, and they hung up glowing, every one of them, like they'd finally seen the thing. They had. He coached the Tuesday team. He was at the bake sale. That is the horror we are selling you. The alien brought the orange slices. He was undocumented and luminous and gone by Tuesday. Roswell taught us the other half of the trade. In 1947 something fell in the desert and the government said: it was a weather balloon, nothing here, go home. That was the first administrative error, the founding one, the original sentence that says the thing you saw was not the thing you saw. We still use it. We have only reversed the polarity. In 1947 they saw a saucer and we called it a balloon. Now they see a father of three and we call it a saucer. The skill is identical. You simply decide in advance which truth the public is allowed to keep, and you hand them the other one, printed, official, with a seal. We did have one administrative error. We abducted a man a court had ordered us not to touch, dropped him on a planet called El Salvador, and called it clerical. A judge made us beam him back. So the DOJ stood up and warned the others: insist on a hearing and we will re-abduct you to the same planet. The Supreme Court said the aliens are entitled to due process. A very Earth opinion. We are appealing it to a higher sky. The planet has a prison, and the prison is the elegant part. In the film about the camp, the aliens are not killed. They are put somewhere they are not permitted to leave, while everyone agrees this is temporary, for their own protection, pending a status that never arrives. We built that. It is called CECOT and we rent it. A man goes in and the man does not come out, and the genius is that nothing has to happen to him, the room does the work, the room is the whole sentence. You remember the Men in Black had a small device. A flash, and the witness forgets the alien entirely. We have something better. We do not wipe the memory. We wipe the file. The man remembers everything, the cell, the flight, the day, all of it, in perfect detail, and it does not matter, because there is no document that admits he was here, and a memory without a file is just a story he tells in a language the form does not accept. The witness keeps the truth. We keep the paperwork. Only one of those is admissible. I learned that the flash was never the point. The point was always the filing cabinet. We run all of it on a spell from 1798. Two hundred and twenty-seven years old. Written for a war we are not in, against an enemy we have not declared. It works because nobody reads the small print on a curse. Storm Area 51 was a joke once. A hundred thousand people Naruto-running at a fence to free whatever was inside. I think about it daily. We're the ones inside the fence now. We kept the running. We just turned it around. We have a precedent we cite in the deck, proudly, on slide four. In 1954 the government ran a program of exactly this kind, and the program had an official name, and the official name was a slur. They printed the slur on the letterhead. They did not flinch. The President holds it up as the model, by name, at the rallies, and the crowd cheers the name. I admire the honesty of 1954 more than I can say. They did not need a saucer to make it palatable. They just used the word. We are the same operation with better art direction. The only thing we added was the costume. I love the callers. I want to say that plainly. For years they told each other a hidden cabal was running everything from the shadows, harvesting the innocent, and that one day the truth would come out. They were right. There is a cabal. It has a budget of a hundred and seventy billion dollars, the largest in the history of federal law enforcement, and it sits in this building, and I have a desk in it. And the people who spent a decade certain that shadowy elites were disappearing their neighbors now call our line, unpaid, to help the shadowy elites disappear their neighbors. They wanted to expose the conspiracy. We made them the staff. Do your own research, they said. They did. They found the gardener. The Department of War posted another tranche on the twenty-second. Saucers. Lights. A pilot's voice going thin. I read all of it. I want them to find one so badly. I want there to be a real one up there, a genuine visitor, something that actually came from somewhere else, because then, and only then, would a single creature in my files have been an alien. They never find it. The sky stays empty. The ground stays full. I have stopped attending the inter-agency sync. We were two departments looking for the same thing in two directions, and only one of us was ever going to be wrong, and it was the honest one. And here is the thing that keeps me at the window past dark. There was a real one. A rock from another star, the genuine article, the first verified object from outside the entire solar system, and a Harvard man went on television and said it might be a ship. An actual alien, possibly, inbound, free of charge, after sixty years of asking. We did not open a file. We could not arrest it. It had no forearm to read and no bank statement to approve. It was the only alien in America we had no use for, so we let it pass, and went back to the parking lot. Last winter the sky over New Jersey filled with lights nobody could name, and the whole government, every agency, every radar, looked up and said it did not know. The one time the unknown actually arrived, we had nothing. Down here I have never once said I do not know. That is the difference between their department and mine. They look up and find a question. I look down and have already decided the answer. Last week the President leaned over mid-briefing and asked if any of them were real. I told him the engagement was extremely real. He nodded. We do not break frame here. The frame is the only wall still standing. That, and the office fern. Nobody waters it. It will not die. The only thing in this building allowed to stay without papers. My plaque came Thursday. FIRST CONTACT, VISIONARY OF THE YEAR. Bold. Unapologetic. Unafraid. I lifted that off the homepage. It was written about one brave man telling the truth. I decided the man was me. I wrote it about me. I am the truth I declassified. I am the secret I warned you about. They walk among us, and I sign their mail. The counter is still live. Three million and climbing. I am told it will not be removed. We are not alone. We are just short a few landscapers. A few line cooks. A few nurses. And the entire night shift at the plant that makes the flag. Up. And to the right.
0:58

I am the Director of the White House Office of Extraterrestrial Affairs. In 2024 this government completed the most thorough search for extraterrestrial life in human history. We checked the sky. We checked the files. We declassified the saucers. The verdict came back: nothing. No life out there. Not one. So I closed the telescope. I opened the window. I pointed it at a Home Depot. Three million by lunch. The trick was always the word. *Alien* had been sitting in the science fiction aisle for sixty years and we were too shy to use it in a press release. The dehumanization was already written. It was just shelved under Fantasy. This year I moved it to Policy. Same word. New department. My department. I should explain the jurisdiction, because there are two of us and we do not speak. Down the hall is the Department of War. It used to be the Department of Defense, but defense sounded woke, so we changed the name for two billion dollars, half of it letterhead. They renamed it back to what it was in 1789, before someone noticed in 1949 that the old acronym, N-M-E, sounded too much like *enemy.* We have now re-adopted the name they abandoned for sounding like the thing it does. I find this clarifying. The signage alone is seven hundred thousand buildings. We are spending a billion dollars on new doors so the doors can say War. The Department of War runs and has a tab for UFOs. Real ones. They post the actual files. The saucers. The eyewitnesses. The intelligence officer left "virtually speechless." They are searching the sky in earnest, declassifying everything, and what they keep finding is *nothing.* No craft confirmed. No biology confirmed. Decades of looking up and the honest answer is: unresolved. So you have two federal agencies, one word, opposite directions. searches the heavens for aliens and finds none. I open a window and find three million. They declassify the ones that don't exist. I classify the ones that do. They got a press release. I got a tip line. Guess which one rang. We are, technically, hunting the same species. They just keep aiming the telescope up, and I keep telling them, gently, at the inter-agency sync: lower it. The homepage was mine. ALIENS DECLASSIFIED. THEY WALK AMONG US. I tested "Immigration Portal." Eleven percent scroll. I tested *the truth's out there,* and a White House official told a reporter, on the record, that the strategy was to "draw eyeballs." We drew eyeballs. The truth was out there. It was in a parking lot in Bakersfield, getting into a white van we are now contractually obligated to call a craft. In 1938 a man read a story about an alien invasion over the radio and the country panicked in the streets, and for ninety years that was taught as a cautionary tale, the danger of a broadcast that makes people believe an invasion is real. We studied that broadcast. We did not study it as a warning. We studied it as a launch. The difference between Orson Welles and this office is that he apologized the next morning, and we put a counter on it. I named the van the Mothership. I named the prison Area 51. I named the 5 a.m. knock First Contact. I named all of it from the third chair. I keep a felt-tip for naming and a Mont Blanc for the part that can't be undone. Then we made the cards. I want to be precise, because people assume I'm exaggerating. We took the faces of the captured and we printed them as trading cards. "Worst of the Worst." Mugshot, nationality, charges, and a weakness level, and the weakness level was a snowflake, and the snowflake meant us. We are the weakness. We were proud of that. When a children's franchise objected that these were, in fact, their cards, our official response, which I helped draft, was: "To arrest them is our real test. To deport them is our cause." We set the abduction to the cartoon's theme song. Gotta catch 'em all. The first half is the slogan. The second half is the quota. A man told Congress in 2023 we were hiding non-human biologics. Everyone pictured a grey on a slab. Cute. We do run a reverse-engineering program. We take the biologic. We study what it makes. It makes the drywall. The 4 a.m. milking. The lettuce. And the lettuce is round now, because forty percent of it stayed in the dirt with the only people who knew where the dirt was. We reverse-engineered the alien completely. The blueprint was a back. We call the biologic "labor." We classify the screaming as ambient. Identification is a science here. We do not arrest at random. We read the markings. A crown inked on a forearm. A soccer crest. We have catalogued the species by its tattoos the way Linnaeus catalogued the finch. One of the specimens turned out to be autistic and the crown was just a crown, but the taxonomy held, because the taxonomy is not falsifiable, that is what makes it a taxonomy. I have a desk for this. I have a magnifying glass. I have never felt more like a scientist. There is a second species, and this one we keep. An alien with five million dollars is not an alien. He is a guest. We printed him a card. It is gold. We are printing a Platinum one for the aliens with even more money, who may remain on the planet two hundred and seventy days a year and pay no tax on the wealth they made on other worlds. The website for this is the cheapest-looking website I have ever approved, and I approved the one with the saucer on it. The same agency that scans a gardener's forearm for gang signs scans a financier's bank statement for extraordinary ability. The statement always has it. The forearm never does. The species was never a people. The species is a price. In the old films the alien lands and says, take me to your leader. We have improved the line. Pay five million and we take you to ours. He golfs with him on Saturday. There was a film about this, and I am told the man who made it meant it as a warning, which is the recurring problem with the warnings. A drifter finds a pair of sunglasses, and through them he can finally see which people are the aliens, and it is the rich ones, the ones on the billboards telling everyone to obey and consume and reproduce and not think. I have a pair of those glasses, conceptually. I issue them at the tip line. But mine are tuned the other way. You put them on and the alien is never the man in the suit who paid five million to skip the line. The alien is always the man holding the leaf blower. The lenses cost a thousand dollars in advertising and they only point down. We have sold a great many pairs. You asked about the Men in Black. Yes. Regulation now. A Man in Black photographs poorly, and the witnesses would not stop filming us peel a woman off the sidewalk in daylight, so we issued the masks, and leadership's only note was that the masks tested well. We are no longer the cover-up of the abduction. We are the abduction. We skipped a step. Efficiency. Our communications team posted E.T. last summer. The bicycle. The moon. "Even E.T. knew when it was TIME TO GO HOME." I want to walk you through what happened in that meeting, because nobody stopped it. We chose the one film where the government is the villain. The men with the flashlights and the unmarked vans who hunt the small frightened alien hiding in a child's closet. That is us. We are the flashlights. We watched that movie as children and cried when the agents came, and then we grew up and became the agents and made the poster ourselves and scheduled it for nine a.m. The intern asked if we were the good guys in this one. We told her engagement was up forty percent. She has since been promoted. I built an app where you abduct yourself. CBP Home. You open it. You confirm you are the alien. You beam yourself off the planet and you save us the gas. And here is the part I cannot believe they approved. We *pay* you. A thousand dollars to vanish. We raised it to twenty-six hundred when the first price didn't move enough units. We are bidding against ourselves for your disappearance. Four-point-six stars. The one-stars are from users who got beamed mid-review. I keep the unfinished ones in a folder. I find them very moving. We opened a facility in a swamp. We ringed it with alligators and we called it that, on purpose, in the brochure. Then we opened a gift shop. Thirty dollars for the shirt. Twenty-seven for the hat. Fifteen for a set of koozies, so your beer stays cold while you celebrate the prison in the wetland. The fundraising email called it "gator-guarded, python-patrolled," a "one-way ticket to regret" for anyone who didn't self-deport in time. We sold the koozies to fund the swamp. The swamp funds the next swamp. I want you to sit with the fact that there is merchandise. The quota is three thousand a day. Stephen asked for it himself. Three thousand is not a number. It is a metabolism. The building is hungry by nine and we feed it Marco, who does the landscaping, and the building goes quiet, and by one it stirs again, and we find another Marco. There is always another Marco. That is the part I find beautiful. The supply is the point. The supply is everyone. The Secretary signs the warrants. She is very firm on one point, which she repeats in every briefing: the aliens, she warns, eat the pets. They are taking the dogs. I have read her book. In her book she takes a fourteen-month-old dog named Cricket to a gravel pit and shoots it, because it would not obey, and she writes this down herself, proudly, as a story about leadership. She wrote the part about the dog. She also warns us about the dogs. I have stopped trying to hold both sentences at once. I just file the warrant. The tip line was the masterpiece. "Report your neighbor" hit the shame ceiling. "REPORT SUSPICIOUS ALIENS" tested as a hobby. We handed the callers Roswell instead of a snitch's guilt, and the phones lit up like a saucer, and they hung up glowing, every one of them, like they'd finally seen the thing. They had. He coached the Tuesday team. He was at the bake sale. That is the horror we are selling you. The alien brought the orange slices. He was undocumented and luminous and gone by Tuesday. Roswell taught us the other half of the trade. In 1947 something fell in the desert and the government said: it was a weather balloon, nothing here, go home. That was the first administrative error, the founding one, the original sentence that says the thing you saw was not the thing you saw. We still use it. We have only reversed the polarity. In 1947 they saw a saucer and we called it a balloon. Now they see a father of three and we call it a saucer. The skill is identical. You simply decide in advance which truth the public is allowed to keep, and you hand them the other one, printed, official, with a seal. We did have one administrative error. We abducted a man a court had ordered us not to touch, dropped him on a planet called El Salvador, and called it clerical. A judge made us beam him back. So the DOJ stood up and warned the others: insist on a hearing and we will re-abduct you to the same planet. The Supreme Court said the aliens are entitled to due process. A very Earth opinion. We are appealing it to a higher sky. The planet has a prison, and the prison is the elegant part. In the film about the camp, the aliens are not killed. They are put somewhere they are not permitted to leave, while everyone agrees this is temporary, for their own protection, pending a status that never arrives. We built that. It is called CECOT and we rent it. A man goes in and the man does not come out, and the genius is that nothing has to happen to him, the room does the work, the room is the whole sentence. You remember the Men in Black had a small device. A flash, and the witness forgets the alien entirely. We have something better. We do not wipe the memory. We wipe the file. The man remembers everything, the cell, the flight, the day, all of it, in perfect detail, and it does not matter, because there is no document that admits he was here, and a memory without a file is just a story he tells in a language the form does not accept. The witness keeps the truth. We keep the paperwork. Only one of those is admissible. I learned that the flash was never the point. The point was always the filing cabinet. We run all of it on a spell from 1798. Two hundred and twenty-seven years old. Written for a war we are not in, against an enemy we have not declared. It works because nobody reads the small print on a curse. Storm Area 51 was a joke once. A hundred thousand people Naruto-running at a fence to free whatever was inside. I think about it daily. We're the ones inside the fence now. We kept the running. We just turned it around. We have a precedent we cite in the deck, proudly, on slide four. In 1954 the government ran a program of exactly this kind, and the program had an official name, and the official name was a slur. They printed the slur on the letterhead. They did not flinch. The President holds it up as the model, by name, at the rallies, and the crowd cheers the name. I admire the honesty of 1954 more than I can say. They did not need a saucer to make it palatable. They just used the word. We are the same operation with better art direction. The only thing we added was the costume. I love the callers. I want to say that plainly. For years they told each other a hidden cabal was running everything from the shadows, harvesting the innocent, and that one day the truth would come out. They were right. There is a cabal. It has a budget of a hundred and seventy billion dollars, the largest in the history of federal law enforcement, and it sits in this building, and I have a desk in it. And the people who spent a decade certain that shadowy elites were disappearing their neighbors now call our line, unpaid, to help the shadowy elites disappear their neighbors. They wanted to expose the conspiracy. We made them the staff. Do your own research, they said. They did. They found the gardener. The Department of War posted another tranche on the twenty-second. Saucers. Lights. A pilot's voice going thin. I read all of it. I want them to find one so badly. I want there to be a real one up there, a genuine visitor, something that actually came from somewhere else, because then, and only then, would a single creature in my files have been an alien. They never find it. The sky stays empty. The ground stays full. I have stopped attending the inter-agency sync. We were two departments looking for the same thing in two directions, and only one of us was ever going to be wrong, and it was the honest one. And here is the thing that keeps me at the window past dark. There was a real one. A rock from another star, the genuine article, the first verified object from outside the entire solar system, and a Harvard man went on television and said it might be a ship. An actual alien, possibly, inbound, free of charge, after sixty years of asking. We did not open a file. We could not arrest it. It had no forearm to read and no bank statement to approve. It was the only alien in America we had no use for, so we let it pass, and went back to the parking lot. Last winter the sky over New Jersey filled with lights nobody could name, and the whole government, every agency, every radar, looked up and said it did not know. The one time the unknown actually arrived, we had nothing. Down here I have never once said I do not know. That is the difference between their department and mine. They look up and find a question. I look down and have already decided the answer. Last week the President leaned over mid-briefing and asked if any of them were real. I told him the engagement was extremely real. He nodded. We do not break frame here. The frame is the only wall still standing. That, and the office fern. Nobody waters it. It will not die. The only thing in this building allowed to stay without papers. My plaque came Thursday. FIRST CONTACT, VISIONARY OF THE YEAR. Bold. Unapologetic. Unafraid. I lifted that off the homepage. It was written about one brave man telling the truth. I decided the man was me. I wrote it about me. I am the truth I declassified. I am the secret I warned you about. They walk among us, and I sign their mail. The counter is still live. Three million and climbing. I am told it will not be removed. We are not alone. We are just short a few landscapers. A few line cooks. A few nurses. And the entire night shift at the plant that makes the flag. Up. And to the right.

Peter Girnus 🦅

60,870 views • 2 months ago

$NVDA $GFS NVIDIA’s reported agreement to acquire Groq for $20B in cash (per CNBC, amplified via Reuters and other wire coverage) represents a materially different strategic posture than NVIDIA’s prior M&A pattern, given both the headline size (largest reported NVIDIA acquisition to date) and the unusual carve-out that Groq’s early-stage cloud business would not be included. Public reporting indicates the information originated from Alex Davis, CEO of Disruptive (lead investor in Groq’s latest financing), and that neither NVIDIA nor Groq had issued an immediate confirmation at the time of publication. The same reporting frames the transaction as coming together quickly, only months after Groq raised $750M at a ~$6.9B valuation, and highlights Groq’s positioning as a high-performance inference chip vendor founded by ex-Google TPU engineers. Groq is best understood as a vertically integrated inference acceleration company whose core asset is an application-specific processor optimized for deterministic, low-latency execution of transformer-style workloads, paired with a compiler-led software stack and a distribution layer (GroqCloud) designed to reduce developer friction via OpenAI-compatible APIs and integrations. Groq brands its architecture as a Language Processing Unit (LPU) and consistently emphasizes that the design target is inference, not training. The company’s own architecture description centers on 1-core execution, large on-chip SRAM used as primary storage (explicitly not cache), a custom compiler that statically schedules compute and communication, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity intended to coordinate multi-chip execution without relying on conventional caching hierarchies or dynamic runtime scheduling. The technical premise is a deliberate inversion of the conventional GPU approach. GPUs deliver throughput via massively parallel, multi-core execution with dynamic scheduling, complex memory hierarchies, and heavy reliance on off-chip HBM bandwidth and sophisticated runtime/kernel optimization. Groq instead argues that inference bottlenecks are driven by latency variance (tail latency), synchronization overhead, and memory access unpredictability inherent in dynamically scheduled, cache-heavy architectures, particularly when workloads are latency sensitive and batch sizes cannot be inflated. Groq’s solution is to move “control” into the compiler: the full execution graph and inter-chip communication schedule are computed ahead of time down to clock-cycle granularity, with deterministic execution designed to reduce run-to-run variance. In Groq’s framing, the removal of caches, reorder buffers, speculative execution overhead, and other sources of contention enables predictable latency and high utilization without per-model kernel engineering typical of GPU tuning cycles. A critical nuance is that Groq’s determinism is not merely a software claim; it is tightly coupled to architectural constraints and system design choices that trade flexibility for predictability. Third-party technical commentary indicates Groq’s chip uses a fully deterministic VLIW-style approach with minimal buffering, no external memory, and heavy dependence on sharding models across many chips because on-chip SRAM capacity is limited. SemiAnalysis describes a ~725 mm^2 die on GlobalFoundries 14nm with ~230MB of SRAM and notes that “no useful models” fit on a single chip, forcing multi-chip partitioning for modern LLMs and driving a system-level design where networking and compilation are first-class scheduling problems rather than ancillary infrastructure. This is consistent with Groq’s own messaging that tensor parallelism across chips is a primary design goal, enabled by large on-chip SRAM and compile-time coordination of compute plus interconnect. The on-chip SRAM emphasis is central to Groq’s latency story and also its most constraining trade-off. Groq claims on-chip SRAM bandwidth “upwards of 80 TB/s” and contrasts that with off-chip HBM bandwidth “about 8 TB/s,” asserting a potential 10x advantage from bandwidth plus reduced trips across chip-to-memory boundaries. While these comparisons are marketing-oriented and depend on workload specifics, the architectural implication is clear: Groq prioritizes ultra-fast local weight/activation access and then scales capacity by adding chips, not by attaching large off-chip memory pools. This design can reduce latency for sequential inference layers and minimize unpredictable stalls, but it pushes complexity into partitioning strategy, interconnect topology, and compiler scheduling, and it increases the number of chips needed for very large parameter counts and large KV-cache footprints. Groq also highlights numeric formats and compiler-driven precision management as a performance lever. In its 2025 technical blog, Groq describes “TruePoint numerics,” including 100-bit intermediate accumulation and selective quantization choices (FP32 for attention-sensitive operations, block floating point for MoE weights, FP8 storage in error-tolerant layers), and claims 2-4x speedups versus BF16 without measurable accuracy degradation on benchmarks such as MMLU and HumanEval. Even if the absolute uplift is workload dependent, the strategic point is that Groq is pursuing performance via end-to-end co-design: precision policy is not just hardware capability (FP8/BF16) but compiler-enforced mapping of precision to error sensitivity, which can matter materially for inference cost-per-token if it reduces memory traffic and boosts throughput without forcing aggressive, accuracy-damaging quantization. Independent performance datapoints indicate Groq has been credible on latency-oriented inference speed, at least for certain regimes. EE Times reported in 2023 that Groq demonstrated Llama-2 70B inference at ~240 tokens/s per user on a cloud-based dev system described as 10 racks and 64 chips, using the company’s 1st-gen silicon introduced several years earlier. Separate Groq commentary around independent benchmarking cites results showing ~241 tokens/s throughput and ~0.8s time to receive 100 output tokens for a Llama-2 70B API configuration, positioning the platform as a step-change in “available speed” for certain interactive use cases. These figures do not settle total cost-of-ownership versus GPUs or hyperscaler ASICs, but they establish that Groq’s system-level architecture can deliver strong single-user throughput and latency on large models when properly partitioned and scheduled. GroqCloud is the commercial wrapper that packages this hardware/software stack as “tokens-as-a-service,” aiming to make Groq adoption feel like switching API endpoints rather than adopting new silicon. Groq’s documentation states its API is designed to be “mostly compatible” with OpenAI client libraries, and its pricing page provides model-specific token rates, published speeds (tokens/s), prompt caching discounts, and batch processing discounts. For example, pricing lists inputs as low as $0.05 per 1M tokens and outputs as low as $0.08 per 1M tokens for certain smaller LLM configurations, with higher prices for larger models and long-context or MoE variants; it also advertises prompt caching with a 50% discount on cached input tokens for certain models and a batch API offering 50% lower cost for asynchronous processing windows. These mechanics are economically important because they demonstrate Groq’s go-to-market is not simply “sell chips,” but “sell predictable unit economics per token,” with tooling (batch, caching) that directly targets inference cost drivers (reused prompts, throughput smoothing, and asynchronous workloads). The cloud footprint and distribution partnerships indicate Groq has been building an inference-native “edge within the cloud” strategy rather than competing head-on with hyperscalers on breadth of services. A 2025 Groq newsroom release describes a European deployment in Helsinki with Equinix, positioned as latency reduction and data governance for European customers, and explicitly references Equinix Fabric enabling private connectivity to GroqCloud over public, private, or sovereign infrastructure. The same release enumerates additional capacity in the U.S. (Equinix, DataBank), Canada (Bell Canada), and Saudi Arabia (HUMAIN), and states these sites collectively served more than 20M tokens/s across Groq’s global network at that time. That supply-side metric matters because it provides a directional sense that Groq is scaling capacity as a network, not merely as a chip vendor. Customer disclosure is inherently limited because Groq is private and many enterprise deployments are not public, but Groq’s marketing materials and partnerships provide signals about demand vectors. The company’s public website displays logos of large consumer and enterprise brands (e.g., Dropbox, Vercel, Chevron, Volkswagen, Canva, Robinhood, Riot Games, Workday, Ramp) and includes a published customer quote claiming a 7.41x chat speed increase and an 89% cost reduction after moving to GroqCloud, followed by a tripling of token consumption. While marketing claims should be treated as case-specific and not generalized, they indicate that Groq is targeting both AI-native developers (who measure success by latency and cost-per-token) and enterprise buyers (who care about predictable performance and governance). Supplier and dependency mapping for Groq spans 3 layers: silicon production, system integration, and cloud infrastructure. On silicon, third-party analysis indicates GlobalFoundries 14nm for the 1st-gen Groq chip, implying a supply chain less constrained by the most capacity-tight leading-edge nodes and advanced packaging bottlenecks that dominate high-end GPU supply (HBM stacks, CoWoS-type packaging constraints). If accurate, this is strategically meaningful because it suggests Groq capacity expansion could be gated more by conventional wafer supply, board assembly, and data center power than by the same HBM/advanced packaging scarcity that has constrained top-tier GPU ramp cycles. On systems and cloud, Groq’s own releases identify colocation and connectivity partners (Equinix, DataBank, Bell Canada) and a Middle East partner (HUMAIN), implying dependencies on data center real estate, power availability, and network connectivity, alongside procurement of standard server components, NICs/switching, racks, and cooling infrastructure. The Groq design narrative also emphasizes air cooling and reduced need for complex power/cooling infrastructure, which—if realized in deployments—can widen the set of feasible hosting locations and lower deployment friction relative to liquid-cooled, very high power density GPU racks. Against that backdrop, the strategic rationale for NVIDIA acquiring Groq can be framed as a set of overlapping objectives: inference silicon optionality, architectural hedging, competitive defense, and supply chain diversification, with the carve-out of GroqCloud signaling a preference to avoid direct cloud competition and to focus on IP and product portfolio control rather than operating a capital-intensive token-serving business. The deal, if confirmed, would occur at a valuation step-up of ~190% versus Groq’s reported ~$6.9B private valuation in the September $750M round, reinforcing that any acquisition logic would be predominantly strategic rather than a conventional financial multiple arbitrage. The most compelling strategic driver is inference. Training has historically been the center of gravity for cutting-edge GPU demand, but inference volume is structurally larger and more distributed as deployments scale, with economics dominated by cost-per-token, latency guarantees, and utilization under spiky demand. Inference workloads also create a strategic vulnerability for NVIDIA: hyperscalers and large platforms can justify bespoke ASICs (TPU, Trainium/Inferentia, Maia-class efforts) because inference is stable, repeatable, and can amortize software investment at massive scale. Groq’s core proposition—deterministic, compiler-scheduled inference with predictable latency—aligns directly with the segment where GPU generality is least valued and where “good enough” programmability plus superior unit economics can win share. Acquiring Groq would allow NVIDIA to own a credible inference-native architecture rather than relying solely on GPUs and software optimization to defend that segment. Competitive defense logic is also plausible. Groq occupies a specific competitive wedge: low-latency, high-throughput interactive inference, delivered via a simple API abstraction that reduces switching cost. That wedge directly pressures GPU inference margins in the long run because it makes inference price/performance comparisons more transparent at the token level, and it targets a developer persona that historically defaulted to CUDA-first ecosystems. Even if NVIDIA’s current-generation systems can achieve very high tokens/s per user with extensive optimization, the strategic risk is that competing architectures normalize the idea that inference is best served by special-purpose silicon with a simpler programming model, weakening CUDA lock-in at the application layer. NVIDIA has actively demonstrated that Blackwell-era systems can exceed 1,000 tokens/s per user in benchmarked configurations, but that performance leadership does not automatically translate to lowest cost-per-token across the full range of batch sizes, latency targets, and deployment environments. Groq’s existence as a credible alternative architecture forces NVIDIA to keep defending inference economics rather than only raw performance leadership. The “technology acquisition” rationale is unusually strong in this specific case because Groq’s differentiator is not a single block of silicon IP but an end-to-end methodology: compiler-led static scheduling, deterministic networking, and a system architecture designed around tensor-parallel inference rather than throughput-maximizing batch inference. NVIDIA’s stack is already compiler-heavy (TensorRT, Triton, CUDA graphs, kernel fusion, speculative decoding techniques), but GPUs remain dynamically scheduled devices with complex memory hierarchies and stochastic latency behaviors under contention. Groq’s approach provides an alternate design point: treating the entire inference execution (compute plus communication) as a statically schedulable program. In principle, that IP could be valuable even if Groq silicon itself is not adopted at massive scale, because it can inform how NVIDIA builds future inference-optimized products, compilers, and networking fabrics, especially as distributed inference with large models makes communication a first-order performance determinant. Supply chain diversification is a non-obvious but potentially important driver. If Groq’s mainstream product generation is truly based on a mature process node and avoids HBM, then the scaling constraints look different than those of state-of-the-art GPUs. NVIDIA’s ability to meet incremental demand has been tightly coupled to advanced packaging and HBM supply, and those constraints can remain binding even when wafer supply is available. An inference ASIC architecture that relies primarily on on-chip SRAM and scales by adding chips—while not costless—could reduce dependence on HBM availability and advanced packaging capacity, enabling NVIDIA to ship “inference capacity” in higher absolute volumes or into geographies and customer segments where the highest-end GPUs are economically or logistically difficult to deploy. This could be particularly relevant for latency-sensitive inference deployed in regional colocation footprints rather than centralized hyperscale campuses. The carve-out of GroqCloud, if accurate, is itself a strategic signal about NVIDIA’s priorities. Operating a token-serving cloud at scale is capital intensive, structurally lower margin than silicon IP rents, and creates channel conflict with hyperscalers and CSP partners who are core NVIDIA customers. NVIDIA has generally positioned its cloud offerings through partnerships rather than as a direct hyperscale competitor. Excluding GroqCloud would preserve neutrality with CSPs and avoid inheriting multi-region data residency obligations and partner contracts, while still allowing NVIDIA to acquire Groq’s silicon, compiler technology, and engineering talent. At the same time, excluding GroqCloud would also mean NVIDIA would not automatically acquire the commercial proof-point of Groq’s unit economics or the customer contracts that validate product-market fit at scale, increasing the importance of diligence on whether Groq’s cloud pricing is structurally profitable or partially subsidized by fundraising. There is also a “preemptive acquisition” angle. The reporting identifies recent investors in Groq’s latest round including large financial institutions and strategic/industry players. In that context, Groq represents an asset that could plausibly have been acquired by a competitor (AMD/Intel) or by a hyperscaler seeking to accelerate inference independence. NVIDIA acquiring Groq could be a defensive move to prevent a credible inference-native architecture from being weaponized by a rival with deep distribution. Even if GroqCloud is carved out, controlling the silicon roadmap and compiler IP would meaningfully constrain Groq’s ability to evolve into a standalone competitor, unless the carved-out entity retains long-term rights to the hardware and software stack. However, the strategic case is not one-sided; there are meaningful risks and potential contradictions that would need to be reconciled for the transaction to be value-accretive on a multi-year horizon. 1st, Groq’s architecture appears to rely on scaling out chip count to achieve capacity, which introduces system cost, networking complexity, and physical footprint considerations. The absence of external memory and limited on-chip SRAM implies very large models require substantial chip parallelism, and the economics then depend heavily on chip cost, yield, power efficiency, and interconnect overhead. SemiAnalysis explicitly frames Groq as trading space for time and raises questions about token economics and whether publicly advertised pricing reflects fully loaded costs or market share capture. 2nd, integration risk is non-trivial. Groq’s compiler-led deterministic model is philosophically and practically different from CUDA’s dominant programming and execution model. A poorly executed integration could create internal product confusion, dilute engineering focus, or alienate developers if the combined stack fragments. 3rd, there is cannibalization risk. If Groq-class inference silicon undercuts GPU inference economics, NVIDIA could face internal margin trade-offs, even if the goal is to defend share against hyperscaler ASICs. Cannibalization can still be rational if it prevents larger share loss, but it would require crisp portfolio segmentation and go-to-market discipline. The presence of NVIDIA’s own rapidly improving inference performance complicates the “need” for Groq but does not eliminate the “option value.” NVIDIA has demonstrated benchmark-leading tokens/s per user on Blackwell-based systems, suggesting that raw interactive throughput is not necessarily the limiting factor for NVIDIA’s product line. The more enduring strategic question is unit economics and architectural control: whether future inference demand is better monetized through general-purpose GPUs plus software optimization, or whether a bifurcated product portfolio (training GPUs plus inference-native ASICs) becomes necessary to defend total AI compute wallet share as hyperscaler ASIC penetration increases. Acquiring Groq could be a decisive move to ensure NVIDIA participates in both regimes rather than betting exclusively on GPUs to win inference forever. What is “special” about Groq’s technology relative to a typical accelerator roadmap is the tight coupling of determinism, compilation, and networking into a single scheduling problem. The LPU narrative emphasizes deterministic compute and networking, static scheduling, and direct chip-to-chip coordination that allows “hundreds” (more precisely, 100s) of chips to behave like a single scheduled resource. The architecture also explicitly targets tensor-parallel, latency-optimized distribution rather than pure data-parallel throughput scaling, which matters for real-time applications where a single response must arrive quickly rather than many requests being processed in bulk. The implication is that Groq is optimized for the time-to-first-token and steady token streaming behavior that defines user experience in interactive LLMs, and it attempts to achieve that without relying on large batch sizes that can degrade latency. From a portfolio manager’s perspective, the most important interpretation is that an NVIDIA-Groq combination would likely be less about “NVIDIA needs more inference speed” and more about controlling the architectural trajectory of inference acceleration and removing a fast-improving, developer-friendly competitor from the market. The carve-out of GroqCloud would reinforce that the transaction is aimed at IP, talent, and product optionality, not acquiring a cloud revenue stream. The valuation step-up implied by $20B versus $6.9B would therefore be justified only if the acquired assets materially reduce long-term competitive risk (hyperscaler ASIC displacement, inference margin compression) or enable new monetization vectors (inference ASIC product line, supply chain de-bottlenecking, improved software determinism) that would be difficult to achieve on a comparable timeline via internal R&D.
10:20

$NVDA $GFS NVIDIA’s reported agreement to acquire Groq for $20B in cash (per CNBC, amplified via Reuters and other wire coverage) represents a materially different strategic posture than NVIDIA’s prior M&A pattern, given both the headline size (largest reported NVIDIA acquisition to date) and the unusual carve-out that Groq’s early-stage cloud business would not be included. Public reporting indicates the information originated from Alex Davis, CEO of Disruptive (lead investor in Groq’s latest financing), and that neither NVIDIA nor Groq had issued an immediate confirmation at the time of publication. The same reporting frames the transaction as coming together quickly, only months after Groq raised $750M at a ~$6.9B valuation, and highlights Groq’s positioning as a high-performance inference chip vendor founded by ex-Google TPU engineers. Groq is best understood as a vertically integrated inference acceleration company whose core asset is an application-specific processor optimized for deterministic, low-latency execution of transformer-style workloads, paired with a compiler-led software stack and a distribution layer (GroqCloud) designed to reduce developer friction via OpenAI-compatible APIs and integrations. Groq brands its architecture as a Language Processing Unit (LPU) and consistently emphasizes that the design target is inference, not training. The company’s own architecture description centers on 1-core execution, large on-chip SRAM used as primary storage (explicitly not cache), a custom compiler that statically schedules compute and communication, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity intended to coordinate multi-chip execution without relying on conventional caching hierarchies or dynamic runtime scheduling. The technical premise is a deliberate inversion of the conventional GPU approach. GPUs deliver throughput via massively parallel, multi-core execution with dynamic scheduling, complex memory hierarchies, and heavy reliance on off-chip HBM bandwidth and sophisticated runtime/kernel optimization. Groq instead argues that inference bottlenecks are driven by latency variance (tail latency), synchronization overhead, and memory access unpredictability inherent in dynamically scheduled, cache-heavy architectures, particularly when workloads are latency sensitive and batch sizes cannot be inflated. Groq’s solution is to move “control” into the compiler: the full execution graph and inter-chip communication schedule are computed ahead of time down to clock-cycle granularity, with deterministic execution designed to reduce run-to-run variance. In Groq’s framing, the removal of caches, reorder buffers, speculative execution overhead, and other sources of contention enables predictable latency and high utilization without per-model kernel engineering typical of GPU tuning cycles. A critical nuance is that Groq’s determinism is not merely a software claim; it is tightly coupled to architectural constraints and system design choices that trade flexibility for predictability. Third-party technical commentary indicates Groq’s chip uses a fully deterministic VLIW-style approach with minimal buffering, no external memory, and heavy dependence on sharding models across many chips because on-chip SRAM capacity is limited. SemiAnalysis describes a ~725 mm^2 die on GlobalFoundries 14nm with ~230MB of SRAM and notes that “no useful models” fit on a single chip, forcing multi-chip partitioning for modern LLMs and driving a system-level design where networking and compilation are first-class scheduling problems rather than ancillary infrastructure. This is consistent with Groq’s own messaging that tensor parallelism across chips is a primary design goal, enabled by large on-chip SRAM and compile-time coordination of compute plus interconnect. The on-chip SRAM emphasis is central to Groq’s latency story and also its most constraining trade-off. Groq claims on-chip SRAM bandwidth “upwards of 80 TB/s” and contrasts that with off-chip HBM bandwidth “about 8 TB/s,” asserting a potential 10x advantage from bandwidth plus reduced trips across chip-to-memory boundaries. While these comparisons are marketing-oriented and depend on workload specifics, the architectural implication is clear: Groq prioritizes ultra-fast local weight/activation access and then scales capacity by adding chips, not by attaching large off-chip memory pools. This design can reduce latency for sequential inference layers and minimize unpredictable stalls, but it pushes complexity into partitioning strategy, interconnect topology, and compiler scheduling, and it increases the number of chips needed for very large parameter counts and large KV-cache footprints. Groq also highlights numeric formats and compiler-driven precision management as a performance lever. In its 2025 technical blog, Groq describes “TruePoint numerics,” including 100-bit intermediate accumulation and selective quantization choices (FP32 for attention-sensitive operations, block floating point for MoE weights, FP8 storage in error-tolerant layers), and claims 2-4x speedups versus BF16 without measurable accuracy degradation on benchmarks such as MMLU and HumanEval. Even if the absolute uplift is workload dependent, the strategic point is that Groq is pursuing performance via end-to-end co-design: precision policy is not just hardware capability (FP8/BF16) but compiler-enforced mapping of precision to error sensitivity, which can matter materially for inference cost-per-token if it reduces memory traffic and boosts throughput without forcing aggressive, accuracy-damaging quantization. Independent performance datapoints indicate Groq has been credible on latency-oriented inference speed, at least for certain regimes. EE Times reported in 2023 that Groq demonstrated Llama-2 70B inference at ~240 tokens/s per user on a cloud-based dev system described as 10 racks and 64 chips, using the company’s 1st-gen silicon introduced several years earlier. Separate Groq commentary around independent benchmarking cites results showing ~241 tokens/s throughput and ~0.8s time to receive 100 output tokens for a Llama-2 70B API configuration, positioning the platform as a step-change in “available speed” for certain interactive use cases. These figures do not settle total cost-of-ownership versus GPUs or hyperscaler ASICs, but they establish that Groq’s system-level architecture can deliver strong single-user throughput and latency on large models when properly partitioned and scheduled. GroqCloud is the commercial wrapper that packages this hardware/software stack as “tokens-as-a-service,” aiming to make Groq adoption feel like switching API endpoints rather than adopting new silicon. Groq’s documentation states its API is designed to be “mostly compatible” with OpenAI client libraries, and its pricing page provides model-specific token rates, published speeds (tokens/s), prompt caching discounts, and batch processing discounts. For example, pricing lists inputs as low as $0.05 per 1M tokens and outputs as low as $0.08 per 1M tokens for certain smaller LLM configurations, with higher prices for larger models and long-context or MoE variants; it also advertises prompt caching with a 50% discount on cached input tokens for certain models and a batch API offering 50% lower cost for asynchronous processing windows. These mechanics are economically important because they demonstrate Groq’s go-to-market is not simply “sell chips,” but “sell predictable unit economics per token,” with tooling (batch, caching) that directly targets inference cost drivers (reused prompts, throughput smoothing, and asynchronous workloads). The cloud footprint and distribution partnerships indicate Groq has been building an inference-native “edge within the cloud” strategy rather than competing head-on with hyperscalers on breadth of services. A 2025 Groq newsroom release describes a European deployment in Helsinki with Equinix, positioned as latency reduction and data governance for European customers, and explicitly references Equinix Fabric enabling private connectivity to GroqCloud over public, private, or sovereign infrastructure. The same release enumerates additional capacity in the U.S. (Equinix, DataBank), Canada (Bell Canada), and Saudi Arabia (HUMAIN), and states these sites collectively served more than 20M tokens/s across Groq’s global network at that time. That supply-side metric matters because it provides a directional sense that Groq is scaling capacity as a network, not merely as a chip vendor. Customer disclosure is inherently limited because Groq is private and many enterprise deployments are not public, but Groq’s marketing materials and partnerships provide signals about demand vectors. The company’s public website displays logos of large consumer and enterprise brands (e.g., Dropbox, Vercel, Chevron, Volkswagen, Canva, Robinhood, Riot Games, Workday, Ramp) and includes a published customer quote claiming a 7.41x chat speed increase and an 89% cost reduction after moving to GroqCloud, followed by a tripling of token consumption. While marketing claims should be treated as case-specific and not generalized, they indicate that Groq is targeting both AI-native developers (who measure success by latency and cost-per-token) and enterprise buyers (who care about predictable performance and governance). Supplier and dependency mapping for Groq spans 3 layers: silicon production, system integration, and cloud infrastructure. On silicon, third-party analysis indicates GlobalFoundries 14nm for the 1st-gen Groq chip, implying a supply chain less constrained by the most capacity-tight leading-edge nodes and advanced packaging bottlenecks that dominate high-end GPU supply (HBM stacks, CoWoS-type packaging constraints). If accurate, this is strategically meaningful because it suggests Groq capacity expansion could be gated more by conventional wafer supply, board assembly, and data center power than by the same HBM/advanced packaging scarcity that has constrained top-tier GPU ramp cycles. On systems and cloud, Groq’s own releases identify colocation and connectivity partners (Equinix, DataBank, Bell Canada) and a Middle East partner (HUMAIN), implying dependencies on data center real estate, power availability, and network connectivity, alongside procurement of standard server components, NICs/switching, racks, and cooling infrastructure. The Groq design narrative also emphasizes air cooling and reduced need for complex power/cooling infrastructure, which—if realized in deployments—can widen the set of feasible hosting locations and lower deployment friction relative to liquid-cooled, very high power density GPU racks. Against that backdrop, the strategic rationale for NVIDIA acquiring Groq can be framed as a set of overlapping objectives: inference silicon optionality, architectural hedging, competitive defense, and supply chain diversification, with the carve-out of GroqCloud signaling a preference to avoid direct cloud competition and to focus on IP and product portfolio control rather than operating a capital-intensive token-serving business. The deal, if confirmed, would occur at a valuation step-up of ~190% versus Groq’s reported ~$6.9B private valuation in the September $750M round, reinforcing that any acquisition logic would be predominantly strategic rather than a conventional financial multiple arbitrage. The most compelling strategic driver is inference. Training has historically been the center of gravity for cutting-edge GPU demand, but inference volume is structurally larger and more distributed as deployments scale, with economics dominated by cost-per-token, latency guarantees, and utilization under spiky demand. Inference workloads also create a strategic vulnerability for NVIDIA: hyperscalers and large platforms can justify bespoke ASICs (TPU, Trainium/Inferentia, Maia-class efforts) because inference is stable, repeatable, and can amortize software investment at massive scale. Groq’s core proposition—deterministic, compiler-scheduled inference with predictable latency—aligns directly with the segment where GPU generality is least valued and where “good enough” programmability plus superior unit economics can win share. Acquiring Groq would allow NVIDIA to own a credible inference-native architecture rather than relying solely on GPUs and software optimization to defend that segment. Competitive defense logic is also plausible. Groq occupies a specific competitive wedge: low-latency, high-throughput interactive inference, delivered via a simple API abstraction that reduces switching cost. That wedge directly pressures GPU inference margins in the long run because it makes inference price/performance comparisons more transparent at the token level, and it targets a developer persona that historically defaulted to CUDA-first ecosystems. Even if NVIDIA’s current-generation systems can achieve very high tokens/s per user with extensive optimization, the strategic risk is that competing architectures normalize the idea that inference is best served by special-purpose silicon with a simpler programming model, weakening CUDA lock-in at the application layer. NVIDIA has actively demonstrated that Blackwell-era systems can exceed 1,000 tokens/s per user in benchmarked configurations, but that performance leadership does not automatically translate to lowest cost-per-token across the full range of batch sizes, latency targets, and deployment environments. Groq’s existence as a credible alternative architecture forces NVIDIA to keep defending inference economics rather than only raw performance leadership. The “technology acquisition” rationale is unusually strong in this specific case because Groq’s differentiator is not a single block of silicon IP but an end-to-end methodology: compiler-led static scheduling, deterministic networking, and a system architecture designed around tensor-parallel inference rather than throughput-maximizing batch inference. NVIDIA’s stack is already compiler-heavy (TensorRT, Triton, CUDA graphs, kernel fusion, speculative decoding techniques), but GPUs remain dynamically scheduled devices with complex memory hierarchies and stochastic latency behaviors under contention. Groq’s approach provides an alternate design point: treating the entire inference execution (compute plus communication) as a statically schedulable program. In principle, that IP could be valuable even if Groq silicon itself is not adopted at massive scale, because it can inform how NVIDIA builds future inference-optimized products, compilers, and networking fabrics, especially as distributed inference with large models makes communication a first-order performance determinant. Supply chain diversification is a non-obvious but potentially important driver. If Groq’s mainstream product generation is truly based on a mature process node and avoids HBM, then the scaling constraints look different than those of state-of-the-art GPUs. NVIDIA’s ability to meet incremental demand has been tightly coupled to advanced packaging and HBM supply, and those constraints can remain binding even when wafer supply is available. An inference ASIC architecture that relies primarily on on-chip SRAM and scales by adding chips—while not costless—could reduce dependence on HBM availability and advanced packaging capacity, enabling NVIDIA to ship “inference capacity” in higher absolute volumes or into geographies and customer segments where the highest-end GPUs are economically or logistically difficult to deploy. This could be particularly relevant for latency-sensitive inference deployed in regional colocation footprints rather than centralized hyperscale campuses. The carve-out of GroqCloud, if accurate, is itself a strategic signal about NVIDIA’s priorities. Operating a token-serving cloud at scale is capital intensive, structurally lower margin than silicon IP rents, and creates channel conflict with hyperscalers and CSP partners who are core NVIDIA customers. NVIDIA has generally positioned its cloud offerings through partnerships rather than as a direct hyperscale competitor. Excluding GroqCloud would preserve neutrality with CSPs and avoid inheriting multi-region data residency obligations and partner contracts, while still allowing NVIDIA to acquire Groq’s silicon, compiler technology, and engineering talent. At the same time, excluding GroqCloud would also mean NVIDIA would not automatically acquire the commercial proof-point of Groq’s unit economics or the customer contracts that validate product-market fit at scale, increasing the importance of diligence on whether Groq’s cloud pricing is structurally profitable or partially subsidized by fundraising. There is also a “preemptive acquisition” angle. The reporting identifies recent investors in Groq’s latest round including large financial institutions and strategic/industry players. In that context, Groq represents an asset that could plausibly have been acquired by a competitor (AMD/Intel) or by a hyperscaler seeking to accelerate inference independence. NVIDIA acquiring Groq could be a defensive move to prevent a credible inference-native architecture from being weaponized by a rival with deep distribution. Even if GroqCloud is carved out, controlling the silicon roadmap and compiler IP would meaningfully constrain Groq’s ability to evolve into a standalone competitor, unless the carved-out entity retains long-term rights to the hardware and software stack. However, the strategic case is not one-sided; there are meaningful risks and potential contradictions that would need to be reconciled for the transaction to be value-accretive on a multi-year horizon. 1st, Groq’s architecture appears to rely on scaling out chip count to achieve capacity, which introduces system cost, networking complexity, and physical footprint considerations. The absence of external memory and limited on-chip SRAM implies very large models require substantial chip parallelism, and the economics then depend heavily on chip cost, yield, power efficiency, and interconnect overhead. SemiAnalysis explicitly frames Groq as trading space for time and raises questions about token economics and whether publicly advertised pricing reflects fully loaded costs or market share capture. 2nd, integration risk is non-trivial. Groq’s compiler-led deterministic model is philosophically and practically different from CUDA’s dominant programming and execution model. A poorly executed integration could create internal product confusion, dilute engineering focus, or alienate developers if the combined stack fragments. 3rd, there is cannibalization risk. If Groq-class inference silicon undercuts GPU inference economics, NVIDIA could face internal margin trade-offs, even if the goal is to defend share against hyperscaler ASICs. Cannibalization can still be rational if it prevents larger share loss, but it would require crisp portfolio segmentation and go-to-market discipline. The presence of NVIDIA’s own rapidly improving inference performance complicates the “need” for Groq but does not eliminate the “option value.” NVIDIA has demonstrated benchmark-leading tokens/s per user on Blackwell-based systems, suggesting that raw interactive throughput is not necessarily the limiting factor for NVIDIA’s product line. The more enduring strategic question is unit economics and architectural control: whether future inference demand is better monetized through general-purpose GPUs plus software optimization, or whether a bifurcated product portfolio (training GPUs plus inference-native ASICs) becomes necessary to defend total AI compute wallet share as hyperscaler ASIC penetration increases. Acquiring Groq could be a decisive move to ensure NVIDIA participates in both regimes rather than betting exclusively on GPUs to win inference forever. What is “special” about Groq’s technology relative to a typical accelerator roadmap is the tight coupling of determinism, compilation, and networking into a single scheduling problem. The LPU narrative emphasizes deterministic compute and networking, static scheduling, and direct chip-to-chip coordination that allows “hundreds” (more precisely, 100s) of chips to behave like a single scheduled resource. The architecture also explicitly targets tensor-parallel, latency-optimized distribution rather than pure data-parallel throughput scaling, which matters for real-time applications where a single response must arrive quickly rather than many requests being processed in bulk. The implication is that Groq is optimized for the time-to-first-token and steady token streaming behavior that defines user experience in interactive LLMs, and it attempts to achieve that without relying on large batch sizes that can degrade latency. From a portfolio manager’s perspective, the most important interpretation is that an NVIDIA-Groq combination would likely be less about “NVIDIA needs more inference speed” and more about controlling the architectural trajectory of inference acceleration and removing a fast-improving, developer-friendly competitor from the market. The carve-out of GroqCloud would reinforce that the transaction is aimed at IP, talent, and product optionality, not acquiring a cloud revenue stream. The valuation step-up implied by $20B versus $6.9B would therefore be justified only if the acquired assets materially reduce long-term competitive risk (hyperscaler ASIC displacement, inference margin compression) or enable new monetization vectors (inference ASIC product line, supply chain de-bottlenecking, improved software determinism) that would be difficult to achieve on a comparable timeline via internal R&D.

TheValueist

102,145 views • 8 months ago

👽 Did Grusch See Footage of Live Aliens? 👽 "Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it." ~JF 😶 What Left Congress Speechless, and Staffers with Their Eyes Popping Out of Their Heads? 😱 ~ "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (I'm gonna break all of this down and give you my speculation on what left Fox with his jaw on the floor, members of Congress speechless, and their senior staffers with their eyes popping out of their heads.) ~ James Fox: " Probably about two weeks ago (late May), we were having meetings on The Hill with members of Congress. We brought in a PR firm, 42 West, and we were having a meeting with staff members, bipartisan. We had Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office, Rep. Eric Burlison. We had a representative from Congressman Jared Moskowitz's office. We had a number of Chiefs of Staff (top staffer for a specific member of Congress), like, present." (Don't really know why they needed a public relations firm in attendance, but if it helps them with advice on how to handle this, so be it. Just know: it appears like members of that PR firm know what Grusch said, and we don't.) Fox: "And, I can't reveal what was said. I thought it was gonna be said at the actual event that we had yesterday (June 9th) in DC with Mr. Grusch." (Don't be mad at Fox for keeping his word to Grusch and not sharing what was said in that private meeting. But I don't blame people for being annoyed that Grusch shared this information six or so weeks ago and we still don't know what he said in that room.) Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes. Like, I can't wait for it to come out. "So I asked Mr. Grusch today, 'Can I talk about what I heard?' And he's like, 'No, but I will be addressing it very soon.'" (Like I said, it's almost been one month now (June 12) since Fox said this, so what does "very soon" mean? Was Grusch supposed to share this information on CNN with Jake Tapper last week but it didn't happen because that interview was, reportedly (Fox told us), postponed?) Fox: "So that's where we stand right now. But I can tell you, Mr. Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it. It's coming, it's coming." (We heard that Gruch's Op/Ed was coming soon and that was 2.5 years ago. It never happened. So, I don't blame people for being skeptical about this. If Grusch hasn't told us by this time next week, I propose someone (a member of Congress) who was in that room just tell us. That's fair, right? Total transparency from our elected representatives?) ~ Fox: "Mr. Grusch is legitimately concerned about his personal safety. He's coming out with it, I promise you, this is coming out. He assured me today that he will address this issue to the general public very soon, in the near future." (I'm glad Grusch told a room full of people what he saw, as that may offer him some protection from people who allegedly want him to stop talking.) Fox: "So I can't speak to what he's gonna say, but I'm just telling you from what I heard out of his mouth, sitting in an office of a member of Congress? And everybody (Fox laughs) in the room, you could have heard a pin drop." Clayton Morris: "Could you give us a hint? Is it related to craft? Can you maybe dance around it a little bit? I want to say, 'You're killing me, Smalls (laughs).'" Fox: "Yeah, so if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings. Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room. And I looked around the room, and I'm looking at these young, like, guys in their 20s, you know, the staff guys? And their eyeballs were popping out of their head. My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (There's a reason why I included that quote (living or deceased non-human intelligence) from the new Burlison/Carson/Crane legislation at the top of this tweet: At the very least, I'm confident Grusch told them that he saw photos of dead non-human beings. Bodies. But what about evidence of LIVING non-humans, aka aliens of unknown origin? More on that at the end. Fox: "My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (Would Grusch saying he saw photos of craft and dead non-humans have that type of effect on Fox? Seems like that's something he would have expected to hear.) ~ Fox: "It was an [out of] body experience when I heard that. But I can tell you...the impression I got, was that he felt a little more protected to talk about this because of President Trump's directive to release the files, and that this... Again, this is my speculation, okay? This is not what Mr. Grusch said. "I got the impression that he was much more relaxed - even though he was still not fully relaxed - because of President Trump's directive to release these files. And that it was something that he had seen during his official investigations just within the last few years." (Imagine how much more relaxed Grusch (and others) would feel if we had an actual Executive Order from Trump with strong language to protect whistleblowers?) Fox: "And that it...I think it had an extremely profound impact on his life when he saw this evidence that he described. Again I'm leaving it right there. I've been talking with Republicans, and they said if Joe Rogan tweets about this, that the President will hear it, And I can't overstate the significance of that." (Why hasn't Rogan already done that? No excuse. Fox has been on Rogan and I'm sure he has Joe's contact information. Make it happen.) Fox: "We need people. We're not asking for money, we're not asking to get on your show, we're just asking, Mr. President, please, as many people as possible, release the files that should not be associated with national security. And that's the alien or non-human sentient beings. That's it." ~~~ (I'm going to speculate on what Grusch may have said in that room.) Fox: "I think it had an extremely profound impact on [Grusch's] life when he saw this evidence that he described." (Grusch has said he started out as a skeptic when he started looking into this. If he was shown what he felt were photos of non-human bodies, I think that might be enough to have an, "extremely profound impact on his life." Depending on exactly what those photos showed, of course.) In "Moment of Contact," Eric Davis had this exchange with Fox: James Fox: "Put me wherever you were when you got to see photographs of crash retrieval and documents. What did that feel like?" Dr. Eric Davis: "That was startling, when I actually see recorded evidence with my own eyes. Photographs, reports, and whatnot. That took it to a higher level, that kicked it up several notches of reality. And that made it very clear that this reality is very hard, very physical, very real. "And this type of evidence, you can't come by in the open literature, it's not public, it's classified. And I can't discuss what it was, but I can tell you, yeah, it's a crash retrieval, there's a craft, and there's alien bodies. That's all I can say about it." Fox: "You swear on your life that you saw those pictures?" Davis: "Oh, I swear on my life, and everybody's...my children's life, so (laughs). Yeah, I'm absolutely telling you the truth. I saw the evidence, and it's stark! I can't tell you the exact number, because it's classified, but I'll just say, there's a few dozen total retrievals." Full exchange with video... ~~~ As I said in my other post, I think Davis, Semivan, Puthoff, Kelleher, Grusch, Lacatski, Stratton, aka The AAWSAP Gang (I just made that up), may have seen the same evidence of photos and reports. Has Grusch seen more than that? I don't know. In 2025, Davis said this... Burlison: "Can you comment on whatever species have been piloting these craft? Are they largish? Are they multiple species? What was their size, and how many are usually on a craft?" Davis: "They're typically the multiple species people are familiar with. The Greys, the Nordics. People have talked about Reptilians and Insectoids. It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type. A humanoid, because they have this...a hand, and four limbs, and a torso, so..." Burlison: "Large? Small?" Davis: "Human size, human scale." Burlison: "How many are in a crew?" Davis: "Well, the group, well, the Greys I'm familiar with from investigating the crash at Corona, which is misnamed the crash at Roswell. It's not the crash at Roswell, it's the crash at Corona, New Mexico. Those were Greys, those were four-foot tall. And the Nordics are typically human-sized, probably...I've heard five, six-feet tall. And same with the people who mislabel Reptilian and Insectoid. They're roughly that height, too. I haven't heard anything about anything seven or eight feet or nine-foot tall, of that nature." Full post with video... ~ And this past Sunday, Davis said this to The Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford... Davis: "I can say to you guys that there are a minimum of four different alien species. The credibility of that ranges on the spectrum from no credibility to high credibility. The high credibility is the classified part." Full post: My Final Thoughts (Based on everything Davis has shared, it seems he saw classified photos of what appeared to him to be non-human craft and photos that appeared to show dead non-humans (bodies) with enough detail that he could see that some resembled reptiles and others resembled insects. Were there also photos of Greys and beings that looked human (Nordic)? I don't know. These images of non-humans would fall into what Davis deemed "high credibility" and "the classified part.") Davis: "I saw the evidence, and it's stark!" (If Davis saw close-up photos that showed details of beings that looked like Reptilians and Mantids, I'd say that qualifies as stark!) Back to what Fox said... Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes." (I think what caused that reaction was Grusch describing seeing close-up photos of different types of non-human beings. Maybe.) However, Fox also said this: "...if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings (This is the Varginha, Brazil case. ~Joe). Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room." (The biggest CLAIM in that film and from that case is that a live, non-human being was captured and that Dr. Italo saw video of it, and then stood next to it for a few minutes when it was in the hospital, in a bed, being cared for by another doctor. Did Grusch say he saw evidence (photos or videos) of a live being that appeared to be non-human? Joe Rogan asked him that in his November 2023 interview... Grusch: "Once you realize the phenomenon's real, then you realize we've recovered artifacts and, you know, biologics or, you know, dead pilots, if you will, even though it's kind of creepy to think about in your world view. You don't think they were ever, you know, alive sometimes, too, right? And I'll leave it at that, only because, you know, that is something the President and his cabinet need to disclose this in a controlled manner." (He was either hinting that he's seen them alive or that them being alive and on this planet is a huge deal and not his responsibility to announce. I think it's the latter.) Rogan: "Are there discussions of interactions with live beings?" Grusch: "Uhh, there was some water-cooler talk about that kind of thing." Rogan: "But that's it?" Grusch: "But, you know, I don't even wanna get into it because it's like, uh, there was some details provided to me but it's like, it's secondary and I don't know if that's like, the telephone game and I don't know if it was hyperbolized in any way...um, you know, in the break room, so to speak. So I just... I'm so anal about making sure what I say is accurate...I don't, you know, I don't know." (Based on what he said there, it seems like he has NOT seen any evidence of live beings. If he now comes out and says that he has, it will seem like a flip flop. So, I'm gonna go with Grusch said he saw photos of non-human bodies and they were of the different types/species that Dr. Eric Davis referenced. One more flashback to what Davis said in that public, congressional briefing in May of 2025.) Davis: "It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type." (That sounds like someone who has seen exactly what they look like, via photos.) Final point... "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (That language was in the original UAPD Disclosure Act co-sponsored by Senators Schumer and Rounds, and four other senators. Why put that language in there if you haven't heard credible reports of living or deceased (bodies) non-human intelligence? Are there stories of living, non-humans on this planet? Yes, and I'll leave you with one of them.) ) (Just to make it clear: I think Grusch will say that he saw clear photos of different types of non-human bodies and some looked like reptiles and others looked like insects. It would be amazing to hear Grusch say he saw video or film of living beings, but I don't expect that. However...this still bothers me... Would Grusch describing seeing photos of craft and different kinds of dead aliens leave veteran-of-the-UFO-field, James Fox, with his jaw on the floor? I guess we're gonna see. And hopefully soon.)
4:25

👽 Did Grusch See Footage of Live Aliens? 👽 "Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it." ~JF 😶 What Left Congress Speechless, and Staffers with Their Eyes Popping Out of Their Heads? 😱 ~ "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (I'm gonna break all of this down and give you my speculation on what left Fox with his jaw on the floor, members of Congress speechless, and their senior staffers with their eyes popping out of their heads.) ~ James Fox: " Probably about two weeks ago (late May), we were having meetings on The Hill with members of Congress. We brought in a PR firm, 42 West, and we were having a meeting with staff members, bipartisan. We had Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office, Rep. Eric Burlison. We had a representative from Congressman Jared Moskowitz's office. We had a number of Chiefs of Staff (top staffer for a specific member of Congress), like, present." (Don't really know why they needed a public relations firm in attendance, but if it helps them with advice on how to handle this, so be it. Just know: it appears like members of that PR firm know what Grusch said, and we don't.) Fox: "And, I can't reveal what was said. I thought it was gonna be said at the actual event that we had yesterday (June 9th) in DC with Mr. Grusch." (Don't be mad at Fox for keeping his word to Grusch and not sharing what was said in that private meeting. But I don't blame people for being annoyed that Grusch shared this information six or so weeks ago and we still don't know what he said in that room.) Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes. Like, I can't wait for it to come out. "So I asked Mr. Grusch today, 'Can I talk about what I heard?' And he's like, 'No, but I will be addressing it very soon.'" (Like I said, it's almost been one month now (June 12) since Fox said this, so what does "very soon" mean? Was Grusch supposed to share this information on CNN with Jake Tapper last week but it didn't happen because that interview was, reportedly (Fox told us), postponed?) Fox: "So that's where we stand right now. But I can tell you, Mr. Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it. It's coming, it's coming." (We heard that Gruch's Op/Ed was coming soon and that was 2.5 years ago. It never happened. So, I don't blame people for being skeptical about this. If Grusch hasn't told us by this time next week, I propose someone (a member of Congress) who was in that room just tell us. That's fair, right? Total transparency from our elected representatives?) ~ Fox: "Mr. Grusch is legitimately concerned about his personal safety. He's coming out with it, I promise you, this is coming out. He assured me today that he will address this issue to the general public very soon, in the near future." (I'm glad Grusch told a room full of people what he saw, as that may offer him some protection from people who allegedly want him to stop talking.) Fox: "So I can't speak to what he's gonna say, but I'm just telling you from what I heard out of his mouth, sitting in an office of a member of Congress? And everybody (Fox laughs) in the room, you could have heard a pin drop." Clayton Morris: "Could you give us a hint? Is it related to craft? Can you maybe dance around it a little bit? I want to say, 'You're killing me, Smalls (laughs).'" Fox: "Yeah, so if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings. Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room. And I looked around the room, and I'm looking at these young, like, guys in their 20s, you know, the staff guys? And their eyeballs were popping out of their head. My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (There's a reason why I included that quote (living or deceased non-human intelligence) from the new Burlison/Carson/Crane legislation at the top of this tweet: At the very least, I'm confident Grusch told them that he saw photos of dead non-human beings. Bodies. But what about evidence of LIVING non-humans, aka aliens of unknown origin? More on that at the end. Fox: "My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (Would Grusch saying he saw photos of craft and dead non-humans have that type of effect on Fox? Seems like that's something he would have expected to hear.) ~ Fox: "It was an [out of] body experience when I heard that. But I can tell you...the impression I got, was that he felt a little more protected to talk about this because of President Trump's directive to release the files, and that this... Again, this is my speculation, okay? This is not what Mr. Grusch said. "I got the impression that he was much more relaxed - even though he was still not fully relaxed - because of President Trump's directive to release these files. And that it was something that he had seen during his official investigations just within the last few years." (Imagine how much more relaxed Grusch (and others) would feel if we had an actual Executive Order from Trump with strong language to protect whistleblowers?) Fox: "And that it...I think it had an extremely profound impact on his life when he saw this evidence that he described. Again I'm leaving it right there. I've been talking with Republicans, and they said if Joe Rogan tweets about this, that the President will hear it, And I can't overstate the significance of that." (Why hasn't Rogan already done that? No excuse. Fox has been on Rogan and I'm sure he has Joe's contact information. Make it happen.) Fox: "We need people. We're not asking for money, we're not asking to get on your show, we're just asking, Mr. President, please, as many people as possible, release the files that should not be associated with national security. And that's the alien or non-human sentient beings. That's it." ~~~ (I'm going to speculate on what Grusch may have said in that room.) Fox: "I think it had an extremely profound impact on [Grusch's] life when he saw this evidence that he described." (Grusch has said he started out as a skeptic when he started looking into this. If he was shown what he felt were photos of non-human bodies, I think that might be enough to have an, "extremely profound impact on his life." Depending on exactly what those photos showed, of course.) In "Moment of Contact," Eric Davis had this exchange with Fox: James Fox: "Put me wherever you were when you got to see photographs of crash retrieval and documents. What did that feel like?" Dr. Eric Davis: "That was startling, when I actually see recorded evidence with my own eyes. Photographs, reports, and whatnot. That took it to a higher level, that kicked it up several notches of reality. And that made it very clear that this reality is very hard, very physical, very real. "And this type of evidence, you can't come by in the open literature, it's not public, it's classified. And I can't discuss what it was, but I can tell you, yeah, it's a crash retrieval, there's a craft, and there's alien bodies. That's all I can say about it." Fox: "You swear on your life that you saw those pictures?" Davis: "Oh, I swear on my life, and everybody's...my children's life, so (laughs). Yeah, I'm absolutely telling you the truth. I saw the evidence, and it's stark! I can't tell you the exact number, because it's classified, but I'll just say, there's a few dozen total retrievals." Full exchange with video... ~~~ As I said in my other post, I think Davis, Semivan, Puthoff, Kelleher, Grusch, Lacatski, Stratton, aka The AAWSAP Gang (I just made that up), may have seen the same evidence of photos and reports. Has Grusch seen more than that? I don't know. In 2025, Davis said this... Burlison: "Can you comment on whatever species have been piloting these craft? Are they largish? Are they multiple species? What was their size, and how many are usually on a craft?" Davis: "They're typically the multiple species people are familiar with. The Greys, the Nordics. People have talked about Reptilians and Insectoids. It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type. A humanoid, because they have this...a hand, and four limbs, and a torso, so..." Burlison: "Large? Small?" Davis: "Human size, human scale." Burlison: "How many are in a crew?" Davis: "Well, the group, well, the Greys I'm familiar with from investigating the crash at Corona, which is misnamed the crash at Roswell. It's not the crash at Roswell, it's the crash at Corona, New Mexico. Those were Greys, those were four-foot tall. And the Nordics are typically human-sized, probably...I've heard five, six-feet tall. And same with the people who mislabel Reptilian and Insectoid. They're roughly that height, too. I haven't heard anything about anything seven or eight feet or nine-foot tall, of that nature." Full post with video... ~ And this past Sunday, Davis said this to The Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford... Davis: "I can say to you guys that there are a minimum of four different alien species. The credibility of that ranges on the spectrum from no credibility to high credibility. The high credibility is the classified part." Full post: My Final Thoughts (Based on everything Davis has shared, it seems he saw classified photos of what appeared to him to be non-human craft and photos that appeared to show dead non-humans (bodies) with enough detail that he could see that some resembled reptiles and others resembled insects. Were there also photos of Greys and beings that looked human (Nordic)? I don't know. These images of non-humans would fall into what Davis deemed "high credibility" and "the classified part.") Davis: "I saw the evidence, and it's stark!" (If Davis saw close-up photos that showed details of beings that looked like Reptilians and Mantids, I'd say that qualifies as stark!) Back to what Fox said... Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes." (I think what caused that reaction was Grusch describing seeing close-up photos of different types of non-human beings. Maybe.) However, Fox also said this: "...if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings (This is the Varginha, Brazil case. ~Joe). Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room." (The biggest CLAIM in that film and from that case is that a live, non-human being was captured and that Dr. Italo saw video of it, and then stood next to it for a few minutes when it was in the hospital, in a bed, being cared for by another doctor. Did Grusch say he saw evidence (photos or videos) of a live being that appeared to be non-human? Joe Rogan asked him that in his November 2023 interview... Grusch: "Once you realize the phenomenon's real, then you realize we've recovered artifacts and, you know, biologics or, you know, dead pilots, if you will, even though it's kind of creepy to think about in your world view. You don't think they were ever, you know, alive sometimes, too, right? And I'll leave it at that, only because, you know, that is something the President and his cabinet need to disclose this in a controlled manner." (He was either hinting that he's seen them alive or that them being alive and on this planet is a huge deal and not his responsibility to announce. I think it's the latter.) Rogan: "Are there discussions of interactions with live beings?" Grusch: "Uhh, there was some water-cooler talk about that kind of thing." Rogan: "But that's it?" Grusch: "But, you know, I don't even wanna get into it because it's like, uh, there was some details provided to me but it's like, it's secondary and I don't know if that's like, the telephone game and I don't know if it was hyperbolized in any way...um, you know, in the break room, so to speak. So I just... I'm so anal about making sure what I say is accurate...I don't, you know, I don't know." (Based on what he said there, it seems like he has NOT seen any evidence of live beings. If he now comes out and says that he has, it will seem like a flip flop. So, I'm gonna go with Grusch said he saw photos of non-human bodies and they were of the different types/species that Dr. Eric Davis referenced. One more flashback to what Davis said in that public, congressional briefing in May of 2025.) Davis: "It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type." (That sounds like someone who has seen exactly what they look like, via photos.) Final point... "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (That language was in the original UAPD Disclosure Act co-sponsored by Senators Schumer and Rounds, and four other senators. Why put that language in there if you haven't heard credible reports of living or deceased (bodies) non-human intelligence? Are there stories of living, non-humans on this planet? Yes, and I'll leave you with one of them.) ) (Just to make it clear: I think Grusch will say that he saw clear photos of different types of non-human bodies and some looked like reptiles and others looked like insects. It would be amazing to hear Grusch say he saw video or film of living beings, but I don't expect that. However...this still bothers me... Would Grusch describing seeing photos of craft and different kinds of dead aliens leave veteran-of-the-UFO-field, James Fox, with his jaw on the floor? I guess we're gonna see. And hopefully soon.)

Joe Murgia

203,845 views • 1 month ago