正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

This wasn’t supposed to happen. The original plan was simpler: a community-driven project that brought utility, storytelling, and real-world product design to AVAX NFTs. That was NOODs. We flew across the world, met factories, ran the numbers - only to realize what most founders never admit: even if NOODs... worked, it wouldn’t return enough value to holders. Not with 5,000+ NFTs. The math didn’t lie. So we didn’t pivot out of desperation. We evolved with purpose. While others launched projects, rugged, then launch another project, we never left. No new token. No new narrative. Just a team that stayed, silent, searching for how to add innovation and real value. Because when we saw the cracks in the ecosystem - accusations, shame boards, cancelled founders, rigged disputes, hidden wallets - we saw a bigger opportunity. The real value wasn’t a product you could touch. It was a product that could change the way trust works. Enter Judge ANON. An AI-powered arbitrator that replaces subjective outrage with neutral, scalable verdicts. Web3 is full of chaos: • DAO drama that never gets resolved. • Founders called scammers with zero evidence. • KOLs accused of rugs with no way to clear their name. • Creators banned by mods who carry personal vendettas. Accusations stick. Proof gets lost. Reputations die without a trial. So we flipped the system. Now? If you’re accused - you launch a market. If you’re right, you profit. If you’re wrong, you’re exposed. Disputes become data. Receipts get judged. The crowd becomes the defense or prosecution, and AI becomes the gavel. But why burn Dokyo? Why not just launch something new? Because that’s what everyone else does. We won’t abandon our holders. We’re turning them into stakeholders. Burning is a choice. To sacrifice comfort for conviction. To say: I’d rather risk everything for something real. Those who burn are no longer bystanders - they become the first to step into the world of AI arbitration. They don’t just get token allocation. They get skin in the future of truth itself. This isn’t about NFTs anymore. This is about solving billion-dollar disputes: DAOs, chargebacks, prenups, prediction markets, fraud claims. Truth, on-chain. Final. Fair. Fast. Judge ANON isn’t a gimmick. It’s infrastructure. A neutral layer of justice for the trustless world. So ask yourself: Will you stay clinging to what was? Or will you burn the mask and become part of what’s next?show more

Dokyo

19,062 subscribers

15,611 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治科学技术财经

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 条评论

ARK Electronics 的头像

ARK Electronics2 年前

Excited about the latest tech for your drone product? Our NDAA-compliant, US-made flight controllers are designed to accelerate your path to market and provide a solid platform for developing your autonomous software. Check them out! #Drones #UAV #UAS #Robotics #MadeInUSA

Belac 的头像

Belac1 年前

I didn't get past the part where it took them thousands of dollars and time wasted travelling the world(snorting meth & fucking ladyboys) to find out what literally everyone was telling them: Noods was a terrible idea.

M🔺SH 的头像

M🔺SH1 年前

what in the yap

qdowg.avax(💀,💀) 的头像

qdowg.avax(💀,💀)1 年前

The judge spoke a long time ago and his sentence is irrevocable.

⚔️NiKoLa TeSlA⚔️ 的头像

⚔️NiKoLa TeSlA⚔️1 年前

@0xBrando Can’t read all this. Congrats, or I am sorry 🤝⚡️

$GOOD 💚L1🔺️ 的头像

$GOOD 💚L1🔺️1 年前

If Brando or Fish don’t like how others are building, that’s a personal problem — not a community crisis. Have a respectful conversation, or stay in your lane. Web3 doesn’t need more drama disguised as disruption. We need GOODFi and positive reinforcement but this ain't it 😒

TheHasmus 的头像

TheHasmus1 年前

A mosquito buzzing about how to suck more blood

Goodzila 的头像

Goodzila1 年前

Bullshito Patronum 🪄

NiFTy | 🇨🇦 Oh Crypto Canada! 🇨🇦 的头像

NiFTy | 🇨🇦 Oh Crypto Canada! 🇨🇦1 年前

We got MILFS, we good bro.

✨Sheena✨ 的头像

✨Sheena✨1 年前

I have nothing to do with all of this drama but I'm not stupid either. I remember a lot of posts about how stupid people are to see nfts as something bigger than just art etc from you. And now acting like you built since always is weird. I wish no one anything bad and if you really make something cool - awesome. But I don't like lying to the community if you did mistakes, stay with it and don't build a new fake story. You are in the position to deliver first before you earn trust again. Shouldn't be a problem if you built something the whole time 🙃

相关视频

Renowned investor and philanthropist Mohnish Pabrai on the single worst reason to start a company: "When we embark on a startup, we should never do a startup to make money. It's the worst reason to start a company." It's a bold claim, especially in a world where valuations, funding rounds, and exit strategies dominate the startup conversation. So if money shouldn't be the goal, what should be? "The purpose of business is not to make money. The purpose of business is to deliver an incredible product or service to humanity." The distinction matters. Founders who chase profit first tend to optimise for the wrong things, while founders who chase genuine value creation tend to build something people actually want. And when you get that right, the financial reward takes care of itself: "If you do that, the money is a side effect. It'll happen. We don't need to focus on it." Mohnish Pabrai leaves aspiring founders with one essential question to ask themselves before starting anything: "Do we have a product or a service that we are thinking about that we could bring into this world that is going to improve the world in some way?" That's the filter. Not "can this make money?" but "can this make a difference?"

Renowned investor and philanthropist Mohnish Pabrai on the single worst reason to start a company: "When we embark on a startup, we should never do a startup to make money. It's the worst reason to start a company." It's a bold claim, especially in a world where valuations, funding rounds, and exit strategies dominate the startup conversation. So if money shouldn't be the goal, what should be? "The purpose of business is not to make money. The purpose of business is to deliver an incredible product or service to humanity." The distinction matters. Founders who chase profit first tend to optimise for the wrong things, while founders who chase genuine value creation tend to build something people actually want. And when you get that right, the financial reward takes care of itself: "If you do that, the money is a side effect. It'll happen. We don't need to focus on it." Mohnish Pabrai leaves aspiring founders with one essential question to ask themselves before starting anything: "Do we have a product or a service that we are thinking about that we could bring into this world that is going to improve the world in some way?" That's the filter. Not "can this make money?" but "can this make a difference?"

Big Brain Business

29,133 次观看 • 7 个月前

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,949 次观看 • 2 年前

I hadn't listened to it since he delivered it in 2020, but I pulled MacArthur's sermon up again today that people are pointing to as evidence of a tremendous and destructive problem in his theology. What I had forgotten was that this was a sermon reflecting on the clarity the Lord had provided through the many battles and trials the church was enduring in that time–COVID, government oppression, weekly fines, ongoing legal battles, the theological fallout of wokeness and the social justice movement, pastors failing left and right, and the election of Joe Biden and the prospect of persecution likely to come from his administration's hostility toward the truth. MacArthur's comments on how we should not expect to win according to an earthly understanding still make perfect sense now as they did then, and they were a reminder of how committed he was to remaining steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord for the glory of God regardless of the trials we face down here. He understood that our hope was in Christ, not in our earthly circumstances: "John 15, just read a couple of verses here. Our Lord talks to the disciples, chapter 15, verse 19. Verse 19 – well, verse 18, let’s start there. “If the world hates you, you know that it has,” what? We don’t win here, you get this? They killed Him, they killed the apostles, and in every generation they kill the people who proclaim the truth. “You know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world,” – verse 19 – “the world would love its own; but because you’re not of the world,” – so if you want the world to love you, you’ve got to convince them that you’re not against them. But we are against them, not out of animosity, but out of love. “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you’re not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.” Chapter 16, verse 33, all the way at the end of that chapter our Lord says the end of the verse, “In the world you’ll have trouble. Take courage,” – what? – “I’ve overcome the world.” We don’t win the battle here, you can’t, can’t fight. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” John 18. “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would” – what? – “fight.” We’re not fighting this world, we get it. “Blessed are those who are persecuted.” No, we don’t win here. In fact, it gets worse, doesn’t it? Evil men get worse and worse. I mean, read the prophetic declarations of our Lord in the sermon on His second coming. Read the book of Revelation. It’s not going to get better, it’s going to get continually worse. And every generation of Christians is going to suffer for two reasons: because the world hates it, and because suffering perfects our faith and gives validity to our testimony. So we’re not going to win. You think we lost an election? No. No. We don’t win anything in this world. We’re not trying to gain this. Is there anything in this world we’re trying to gain? “For to me to live again is” – what? – “Christ.” And then I look at evangelicalism and I see this clarity that’s coming in the culture. I love the fact there’s going to be the true church and the people who hate the truth. There’s going to be the truth and lies. There’s going to be church and anti-church. There’s Christ and Antichrist. I love that clarity. These are the best of times. Incredibly wonderful to have that kind of clarity, where there’s no reason to be a compromiser, because the price is too high. Persecution always does that, right? Nobody goes to the gulag for something they’re faking. And then I just look at it from an evangelical side and I watch the sifting of evangelical leadership, people who used to be preachers that people wanted to listen to, nobody cares what they say. Used to be bloggers people wanted to read, and nobody cares what they write. They wrote books that you read; they can’t get off the shelf. So much compromise, horrible compromise; much of it because of the social justice issue. That is a disaster maybe more than any single disaster, but collectively with everything else, has done irreparable damage. Said it would, and it has, and it’s not nearly done. But the whole evangelical, seemingly elite, rolled over and bought into social justice, critical race theory, intersectionality, racial identity. And now we’re going to have the fruit of it. I’ll give you an illustration. America’s always functioned with equal justice. Get that? Equal justice. I mean, the modifier is clear, right? Equal. Equal for everybody. Everybody’s equal under the law, that’s equal justice. No, it’s gone. Now we have social justice. What social justice means is unequal justice. It means that it’s justice to basically determine by whether you’re a part of the oppressed group or the oppressors. What you’re seeing in America when the new President says, “In the future all the money from the government is going to go to homosexuals, LGBTQ, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera,” that is social justice. That’s not equal justice. When you hear the new Attorney General say, “In the future all charities are going to have to give their money to disenfranchised, oppressed minorities like homosexuals,” you’re realizing that you have just seen the death of equal justice. How could a Christian jump on that bandwagon? Something’s pretty clear. God does not hold somebody else responsible for what’s wrong with you, He holds you responsible. Social justice blames someone else for your defects and sin. How could Christians get anywhere near that? I did a whole series on Ezekiel 18, trying to make that clear. So we’re stepping into an era of injustice. We’re stepping into an era where there’s no need to cover sin. There’s no real need to be a hypocrite. Everything is in the open. Stepping into an era where hatred of the truth is going to go to a level we haven’t seen it. We’re stepping into an era where compromising leaders in the evangelical movement have basically nullified themselves, neutralized themselves, taking themselves off the battlefield out of the fight. That’s sad, but I still love the clarity. Do we have a hard future? Sure. We don’t win here, we just die. I mean, do you understand that? The Christian life is about two crucifixions. The Christian life is about two crucifixions. It’s about the crucifixion of Christ and it’s about the crucifixion of the believer. Do you understand that? You signed up, you signed up for death." And his closing comment: "The kingdom is here, the King is alive, and He’s ruling in His church." If that's loser theology, I'll take it.

I hadn't listened to it since he delivered it in 2020, but I pulled MacArthur's sermon up again today that people are pointing to as evidence of a tremendous and destructive problem in his theology. What I had forgotten was that this was a sermon reflecting on the clarity the Lord had provided through the many battles and trials the church was enduring in that time–COVID, government oppression, weekly fines, ongoing legal battles, the theological fallout of wokeness and the social justice movement, pastors failing left and right, and the election of Joe Biden and the prospect of persecution likely to come from his administration's hostility toward the truth. MacArthur's comments on how we should not expect to win according to an earthly understanding still make perfect sense now as they did then, and they were a reminder of how committed he was to remaining steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord for the glory of God regardless of the trials we face down here. He understood that our hope was in Christ, not in our earthly circumstances: "John 15, just read a couple of verses here. Our Lord talks to the disciples, chapter 15, verse 19. Verse 19 – well, verse 18, let’s start there. “If the world hates you, you know that it has,” what? We don’t win here, you get this? They killed Him, they killed the apostles, and in every generation they kill the people who proclaim the truth. “You know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world,” – verse 19 – “the world would love its own; but because you’re not of the world,” – so if you want the world to love you, you’ve got to convince them that you’re not against them. But we are against them, not out of animosity, but out of love. “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you’re not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.” Chapter 16, verse 33, all the way at the end of that chapter our Lord says the end of the verse, “In the world you’ll have trouble. Take courage,” – what? – “I’ve overcome the world.” We don’t win the battle here, you can’t, can’t fight. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” John 18. “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would” – what? – “fight.” We’re not fighting this world, we get it. “Blessed are those who are persecuted.” No, we don’t win here. In fact, it gets worse, doesn’t it? Evil men get worse and worse. I mean, read the prophetic declarations of our Lord in the sermon on His second coming. Read the book of Revelation. It’s not going to get better, it’s going to get continually worse. And every generation of Christians is going to suffer for two reasons: because the world hates it, and because suffering perfects our faith and gives validity to our testimony. So we’re not going to win. You think we lost an election? No. No. We don’t win anything in this world. We’re not trying to gain this. Is there anything in this world we’re trying to gain? “For to me to live again is” – what? – “Christ.” And then I look at evangelicalism and I see this clarity that’s coming in the culture. I love the fact there’s going to be the true church and the people who hate the truth. There’s going to be the truth and lies. There’s going to be church and anti-church. There’s Christ and Antichrist. I love that clarity. These are the best of times. Incredibly wonderful to have that kind of clarity, where there’s no reason to be a compromiser, because the price is too high. Persecution always does that, right? Nobody goes to the gulag for something they’re faking. And then I just look at it from an evangelical side and I watch the sifting of evangelical leadership, people who used to be preachers that people wanted to listen to, nobody cares what they say. Used to be bloggers people wanted to read, and nobody cares what they write. They wrote books that you read; they can’t get off the shelf. So much compromise, horrible compromise; much of it because of the social justice issue. That is a disaster maybe more than any single disaster, but collectively with everything else, has done irreparable damage. Said it would, and it has, and it’s not nearly done. But the whole evangelical, seemingly elite, rolled over and bought into social justice, critical race theory, intersectionality, racial identity. And now we’re going to have the fruit of it. I’ll give you an illustration. America’s always functioned with equal justice. Get that? Equal justice. I mean, the modifier is clear, right? Equal. Equal for everybody. Everybody’s equal under the law, that’s equal justice. No, it’s gone. Now we have social justice. What social justice means is unequal justice. It means that it’s justice to basically determine by whether you’re a part of the oppressed group or the oppressors. What you’re seeing in America when the new President says, “In the future all the money from the government is going to go to homosexuals, LGBTQ, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera,” that is social justice. That’s not equal justice. When you hear the new Attorney General say, “In the future all charities are going to have to give their money to disenfranchised, oppressed minorities like homosexuals,” you’re realizing that you have just seen the death of equal justice. How could a Christian jump on that bandwagon? Something’s pretty clear. God does not hold somebody else responsible for what’s wrong with you, He holds you responsible. Social justice blames someone else for your defects and sin. How could Christians get anywhere near that? I did a whole series on Ezekiel 18, trying to make that clear. So we’re stepping into an era of injustice. We’re stepping into an era where there’s no need to cover sin. There’s no real need to be a hypocrite. Everything is in the open. Stepping into an era where hatred of the truth is going to go to a level we haven’t seen it. We’re stepping into an era where compromising leaders in the evangelical movement have basically nullified themselves, neutralized themselves, taking themselves off the battlefield out of the fight. That’s sad, but I still love the clarity. Do we have a hard future? Sure. We don’t win here, we just die. I mean, do you understand that? The Christian life is about two crucifixions. The Christian life is about two crucifixions. It’s about the crucifixion of Christ and it’s about the crucifixion of the believer. Do you understand that? You signed up, you signed up for death." And his closing comment: "The kingdom is here, the King is alive, and He’s ruling in His church." If that's loser theology, I'll take it.

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

36,024 次观看 • 3 个月前

Evan Spiegel on the lesson that killed his first startup and led to Snapchat: "We focused on building the perfect product for way too long before we got feedback. We worked for like eighteen months to build this perfect full-featured product, which was in direct contravention to how I was always taught to build things. Build a prototype, build an MVP, get it in front of people, learn as quickly as possible. But we had spent all this time building this perfect piece of software and we hadn't thought enough about distribution. While we built this great piece of software, our competitor at the time, Naviance, had secured distribution through all the different college counselors. What piece of software are you going to choose to help your kid get into college? The one recommended by the college counselors or the one from two kids at Stanford? I think it's a pretty easy choice. So we saw very early that we had no distribution advantage. Even if we loved our software, people weren't going to use it because we didn't have a scalable way to get it in people's hands. Around that time when we saw the emergence of the App Store on iPhone, it was very clear that was a distribution channel we could really use and benefit from. But we also needed to build things we could build quickly, things we really were going to use together with our friends so we could be the first early customers. Ultimately Peekaboo and Snapchat represented that." This is exactly the asymmetry Peter Thiel describes in Zero to One: superior distribution by itself can create a monopoly, even with no product differentiation. The converse is not true. Thiel puts an even finer point on it: most businesses get zero distribution channels to work. Poor sales rather than bad product is the most common cause of failure. If you can get just one distribution channel to work, you have a great business. Estée Lauder said: it's not enough to have the most wonderful product in the world. You must be able to sell it. Many founders over-index on product perfection and under-invest in distribution. The world is full of great products nobody knows about, and mediocre products with massive distribution that dominate markets. Evan Spiegel lived it. He built the better product, watched it lose, and then built something he could actually distribute.

Evan Spiegel on the lesson that killed his first startup and led to Snapchat: "We focused on building the perfect product for way too long before we got feedback. We worked for like eighteen months to build this perfect full-featured product, which was in direct contravention to how I was always taught to build things. Build a prototype, build an MVP, get it in front of people, learn as quickly as possible. But we had spent all this time building this perfect piece of software and we hadn't thought enough about distribution. While we built this great piece of software, our competitor at the time, Naviance, had secured distribution through all the different college counselors. What piece of software are you going to choose to help your kid get into college? The one recommended by the college counselors or the one from two kids at Stanford? I think it's a pretty easy choice. So we saw very early that we had no distribution advantage. Even if we loved our software, people weren't going to use it because we didn't have a scalable way to get it in people's hands. Around that time when we saw the emergence of the App Store on iPhone, it was very clear that was a distribution channel we could really use and benefit from. But we also needed to build things we could build quickly, things we really were going to use together with our friends so we could be the first early customers. Ultimately Peekaboo and Snapchat represented that." This is exactly the asymmetry Peter Thiel describes in Zero to One: superior distribution by itself can create a monopoly, even with no product differentiation. The converse is not true. Thiel puts an even finer point on it: most businesses get zero distribution channels to work. Poor sales rather than bad product is the most common cause of failure. If you can get just one distribution channel to work, you have a great business. Estée Lauder said: it's not enough to have the most wonderful product in the world. You must be able to sell it. Many founders over-index on product perfection and under-invest in distribution. The world is full of great products nobody knows about, and mediocre products with massive distribution that dominate markets. Evan Spiegel lived it. He built the better product, watched it lose, and then built something he could actually distribute.

David Senra

27,206 次观看 • 6 个月前

"When social media first started rising, we didn't necessarily realize how much of that was actually just foundational infrastructure for the future of humanity.” Ben Fielding of gensyn on why AI is about to repeat the mistake social media made, and how we can still fix it: "This isn't just a product that you chat with. It's actually new fundamental infrastructure for humanity, and we should build that learning from the lessons from before. If we let a single company build AI, they hold an enormous amount of power in the world." "If you actually distribute that out and provide it in a kind of sovereign way — it's on all of our own devices and we own it — then actually you steer the world in a very different social direction."

"When social media first started rising, we didn't necessarily realize how much of that was actually just foundational infrastructure for the future of humanity.” Ben Fielding of gensyn on why AI is about to repeat the mistake social media made, and how we can still fix it: "This isn't just a product that you chat with. It's actually new fundamental infrastructure for humanity, and we should build that learning from the lessons from before. If we let a single company build AI, they hold an enormous amount of power in the world." "If you actually distribute that out and provide it in a kind of sovereign way — it's on all of our own devices and we own it — then actually you steer the world in a very different social direction."

a16z crypto

79,441 次观看 • 6 个月前

New Turning Point video shows exactly why Charlie Kirk was the greatest CEO in the history of grassroots political organizations. Take just two minutes to watch this. These are the words of a transformational leader: “Well, you [Turning Point staff] are about to embark on something that is much bigger than yourself. So check your ego at the door. This is not about you, okay? I don’t care about your feelings. If you’re having a bad day, you know, go figure that out yourself. This is about us. This is about the country. And the eyes of the whole nation are, again, on Turning Point. “We do the best events in the movement. In fact, we do the only event. Are there any other events in the movement? No. We’ve kind of put everyone else out of business, right? So we are the only standard of excellence. And so we hold ourselves to a higher standard. We don’t do mediocre around here. We try to raise the level of excellence because we are constantly trying to push the conservative movement and the country to a place it’s never been before. “You guys know this. Turning Point USA is the most important organization in the country, period. Find me another organization that’s been able to move millions of people the way that we have, that does the events, that does training. Nobody does what we do at Turning Point USA, but it starts with all of you. We’re building something bigger than you, bigger than me. “We’re building an experience to help save the country. And if this type of intensity bothers you, well, then, don’t go work for Turning Point USA. You can go work for the Department of Labor or something, okay? Because here we do excellent things. We do big things. We make history here at Turning Point USA. “It’s going to be early mornings. It’s going to be late nights, but you all get to know that you’re doing something rewarding that is not just, oh, a career. And you check the box, but lives will be changed. How blessed are we that we get to be here celebrating the country. And this is our job. It’s pretty awesome. “There’s the one thing that I hear from speakers throughout all the years. Your team is so impressive and they’re so young. Why is it everybody? Because for us, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. This is not just another DC gig. This is about saving Western civilization. “We are the most important organization in the country. You are part of it. It’s something bigger than all of us, and it will have ramifications across the country. I’m so thankful for you guys. You guys have really defied gravity. And let’s continue to make history here.”

New Turning Point video shows exactly why Charlie Kirk was the greatest CEO in the history of grassroots political organizations. Take just two minutes to watch this. These are the words of a transformational leader: “Well, you [Turning Point staff] are about to embark on something that is much bigger than yourself. So check your ego at the door. This is not about you, okay? I don’t care about your feelings. If you’re having a bad day, you know, go figure that out yourself. This is about us. This is about the country. And the eyes of the whole nation are, again, on Turning Point. “We do the best events in the movement. In fact, we do the only event. Are there any other events in the movement? No. We’ve kind of put everyone else out of business, right? So we are the only standard of excellence. And so we hold ourselves to a higher standard. We don’t do mediocre around here. We try to raise the level of excellence because we are constantly trying to push the conservative movement and the country to a place it’s never been before. “You guys know this. Turning Point USA is the most important organization in the country, period. Find me another organization that’s been able to move millions of people the way that we have, that does the events, that does training. Nobody does what we do at Turning Point USA, but it starts with all of you. We’re building something bigger than you, bigger than me. “We’re building an experience to help save the country. And if this type of intensity bothers you, well, then, don’t go work for Turning Point USA. You can go work for the Department of Labor or something, okay? Because here we do excellent things. We do big things. We make history here at Turning Point USA. “It’s going to be early mornings. It’s going to be late nights, but you all get to know that you’re doing something rewarding that is not just, oh, a career. And you check the box, but lives will be changed. How blessed are we that we get to be here celebrating the country. And this is our job. It’s pretty awesome. “There’s the one thing that I hear from speakers throughout all the years. Your team is so impressive and they’re so young. Why is it everybody? Because for us, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. This is not just another DC gig. This is about saving Western civilization. “We are the most important organization in the country. You are part of it. It’s something bigger than all of us, and it will have ramifications across the country. I’m so thankful for you guys. You guys have really defied gravity. And let’s continue to make history here.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

288,614 次观看 • 1 年前

THIS WEEKEND, IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU. IT’S ABOUT THEM. Memorial Day isn’t a day of sadness—It’s a day of honor. It’s a day to pay respect to the men and women who gave everything. Not just for a flag. Not for glory. But for the person to their left and their right. For this country—for something greater than themselves. We get to live with the benefits of their sacrifice. The freedoms. The opportunities. The respect that the uniform still commands. But make no mistake—we didn’t earn that. THEY did. Say their names. Say them proud. Say them with honor. Say them with respect. As bad as it hurts, it’s what THEY would want. If any of us gave our lives for this country wouldn’t want a single tear, a single moment of sadness. We’d want the world to know: we died with honor and dignity, for something greater than ourselves. And don’t you dare tell others to honor them, to respect them, or to live a life worthy of their sacrifice—if you’re not doing the same. Don’t post for attention. Don’t make it about your feelings. Don’t turn it into a day about you. Make it about them. Live in a way that’s worthy of what they gave up. Make this weekend an act of honor. Because they gave their tomorrows for our todays. Happy Memorial Day. GYSGT KENEFICK LT JOHNSON GYSGT JOHNSON DOC LAYTON DOC CANNON SGT WRIGHTSMAN

THIS WEEKEND, IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU. IT’S ABOUT THEM. Memorial Day isn’t a day of sadness—It’s a day of honor. It’s a day to pay respect to the men and women who gave everything. Not just for a flag. Not for glory. But for the person to their left and their right. For this country—for something greater than themselves. We get to live with the benefits of their sacrifice. The freedoms. The opportunities. The respect that the uniform still commands. But make no mistake—we didn’t earn that. THEY did. Say their names. Say them proud. Say them with honor. Say them with respect. As bad as it hurts, it’s what THEY would want. If any of us gave our lives for this country wouldn’t want a single tear, a single moment of sadness. We’d want the world to know: we died with honor and dignity, for something greater than ourselves. And don’t you dare tell others to honor them, to respect them, or to live a life worthy of their sacrifice—if you’re not doing the same. Don’t post for attention. Don’t make it about your feelings. Don’t turn it into a day about you. Make it about them. Live in a way that’s worthy of what they gave up. Make this weekend an act of honor. Because they gave their tomorrows for our todays. Happy Memorial Day. GYSGT KENEFICK LT JOHNSON GYSGT JOHNSON DOC LAYTON DOC CANNON SGT WRIGHTSMAN

Dakota Meyer

43,245 次观看 • 1 年前

Just like with Obama, you won't really see how bad of a decision this was until a few years. Obama literally paved the way for the LGBTQ movement through legislation and they called us homophobic. Now when we warn you of what is to come they will call us Islamaphobic. Just remember the world is bigger than the U.S. The world is bigger than Republican vs Democrat. We have become so woke we don't want to hurt people's feelings and that is what will be the thing that brings us to our knees.

Just like with Obama, you won't really see how bad of a decision this was until a few years. Obama literally paved the way for the LGBTQ movement through legislation and they called us homophobic. Now when we warn you of what is to come they will call us Islamaphobic. Just remember the world is bigger than the U.S. The world is bigger than Republican vs Democrat. We have become so woke we don't want to hurt people's feelings and that is what will be the thing that brings us to our knees.

Trump Girl 🇺🇲🦅🇺🇲

141,959 次观看 • 1 年前

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”

Startup Archive

17,333 次观看 • 9 个月前

Every major decision in human history has been made the same way. Guess. Execute. Hope it doesn’t break the world. That era is ending. Simile CEO Joon Sung Park just revealed what the most serious AI researchers are actually building toward. Park: “Our goal eventually is to ask ourselves what would it mean if we can create simulations of 8 billion people? The entire Earth.” Not a metaphor. A literal, bottom-up digital replica of civilization. We assumed the ultimate goal of AI was to predict the future. Park says that’s thinking too small. He points to The Oracle in The Matrix to explain the real paradigm shift. Park: “You’re not necessarily here to make a decision. You’ve already made that decision. You’re here to understand the decision and why you made that.” AI isn’t a crystal ball to tell us what happens next. It’s an x-ray to show us why. Think about how civilization actually operates right now. We guess. We pass a law. We shift an economic policy. We launch a product. Then we wait a decade to find out if it broke the world. The simulation ends that. Before a government passes a policy, they run a dry-run on 8 billion digital agents. Before a company ships a product, they trace the exact moment the market breaks. Park: “Creating these kind of bottom up simulations where we can actually go back and trace through the audit logs of how society might unfold is an amazing way to gain that interpretability layer of our reality.” Let that phrase land. The interpretability layer of our reality. We spent the last twenty years extracting data from the physical world. We are about to spend the next twenty years using that data to build a mirror world. One where every policy gets stress-tested before it’s enacted. Every product before it ships. Every decision before its consequences become irreversible. Park: “If you want to shape new policies, new products that would actually serve the people, the best way is actually to understand those people and communicating with them at a scalable way to basically create those policies.” We are not moving from ignorance to prediction. We are moving from blind execution to total societal foresight. And once that capability exists, everything changes. Wars modeled before they’re fought. Economies stress-tested before they collapse. Policies run through billions of digital lives before a single real one is affected. Reality becomes the place we execute what the mirror world already proved would work. The ultimate application of artificial intelligence was never about replacing human judgment. It was always about perfecting it. We aren’t just predicting the future anymore. We are rehearsing it. And when you can rehearse the future before you live it, the most catastrophic word in human history finally becomes extinct. That word is surprise.

Every major decision in human history has been made the same way. Guess. Execute. Hope it doesn’t break the world. That era is ending. Simile CEO Joon Sung Park just revealed what the most serious AI researchers are actually building toward. Park: “Our goal eventually is to ask ourselves what would it mean if we can create simulations of 8 billion people? The entire Earth.” Not a metaphor. A literal, bottom-up digital replica of civilization. We assumed the ultimate goal of AI was to predict the future. Park says that’s thinking too small. He points to The Oracle in The Matrix to explain the real paradigm shift. Park: “You’re not necessarily here to make a decision. You’ve already made that decision. You’re here to understand the decision and why you made that.” AI isn’t a crystal ball to tell us what happens next. It’s an x-ray to show us why. Think about how civilization actually operates right now. We guess. We pass a law. We shift an economic policy. We launch a product. Then we wait a decade to find out if it broke the world. The simulation ends that. Before a government passes a policy, they run a dry-run on 8 billion digital agents. Before a company ships a product, they trace the exact moment the market breaks. Park: “Creating these kind of bottom up simulations where we can actually go back and trace through the audit logs of how society might unfold is an amazing way to gain that interpretability layer of our reality.” Let that phrase land. The interpretability layer of our reality. We spent the last twenty years extracting data from the physical world. We are about to spend the next twenty years using that data to build a mirror world. One where every policy gets stress-tested before it’s enacted. Every product before it ships. Every decision before its consequences become irreversible. Park: “If you want to shape new policies, new products that would actually serve the people, the best way is actually to understand those people and communicating with them at a scalable way to basically create those policies.” We are not moving from ignorance to prediction. We are moving from blind execution to total societal foresight. And once that capability exists, everything changes. Wars modeled before they’re fought. Economies stress-tested before they collapse. Policies run through billions of digital lives before a single real one is affected. Reality becomes the place we execute what the mirror world already proved would work. The ultimate application of artificial intelligence was never about replacing human judgment. It was always about perfecting it. We aren’t just predicting the future anymore. We are rehearsing it. And when you can rehearse the future before you live it, the most catastrophic word in human history finally becomes extinct. That word is surprise.

Dustin

33,289 次观看 • 8 个月前

The best founders in the world like Elon Musk or tobi lutke “go ultra-hardcore on deletion and simplification.” Luca Ferrari says Bending Spoons employs this idea of “Relentless Simplification” across their businesses: “Humans have a tendency to add complexity and do things that destroy value.” “If you leave an organization, almost any environment unattended, and you don't provide guidance in this regard, it will tend to become more complicated. People will add parts. It could be expanding a team or adding a step to a process, or adding an entire new process. If it's a product, adding a feature to the product. New rules. It applies to almost any human endeavor.” “People tend to add pieces, they very rarely remove pieces.” “If you don't make a conscious effort to achieve simplicity, and avoid this increasing value-destroying complexity, that's how we got to our modern society with all the bureaucracy and complicated regulation.” “We have this principle whereby we ask everyone who works here, every time someone is suggesting that we should be adding complexity, the burden of proof is on those making that suggestion. The people who support the thesis that we shouldn't be adding complexity don't need to prove it. They just have to raise a flag and say, ‘I don't think we should.’ The burden of proof is on those who want to add complexity.” “The other part of relentless simplification is that we want people to be on the lookout for existing complexity and suggest that we should remove it.”

The best founders in the world like Elon Musk or tobi lutke “go ultra-hardcore on deletion and simplification.” Luca Ferrari says Bending Spoons employs this idea of “Relentless Simplification” across their businesses: “Humans have a tendency to add complexity and do things that destroy value.” “If you leave an organization, almost any environment unattended, and you don't provide guidance in this regard, it will tend to become more complicated. People will add parts. It could be expanding a team or adding a step to a process, or adding an entire new process. If it's a product, adding a feature to the product. New rules. It applies to almost any human endeavor.” “People tend to add pieces, they very rarely remove pieces.” “If you don't make a conscious effort to achieve simplicity, and avoid this increasing value-destroying complexity, that's how we got to our modern society with all the bureaucracy and complicated regulation.” “We have this principle whereby we ask everyone who works here, every time someone is suggesting that we should be adding complexity, the burden of proof is on those making that suggestion. The people who support the thesis that we shouldn't be adding complexity don't need to prove it. They just have to raise a flag and say, ‘I don't think we should.’ The burden of proof is on those who want to add complexity.” “The other part of relentless simplification is that we want people to be on the lookout for existing complexity and suggest that we should remove it.”

David Senra

309,130 次观看 • 1 个月前

Steve Jobs on how to build a great brand After re-joining Apple in 1996, Steve Jobs announced the “Think different” campaign with the following statement: “To me, marketing is about values. This is a very complicated and noisy world. We’re not going to get a chance to get people to remember much about us. No company is. So we have to be really clear on what we want them to know about us.” He cites Nike as one of the greatest jobs of marketing the universe has ever seen: “Remember, Nike sells a commodity—they sell shoes! And yet when you think of Nike, you feel something different than a shoe company. In their ads, they don’t ever talk about the product. They don’t ever tell you about their air soles and why they are better than Reebok’s air soles. What does Nike do in their advertising? They honor great athletes, and they honor great athletics. That’s who they are, that’s what they are about.” Marketing guru Seth Godin also used Nike as an example of great branding in a blog post a few years ago: “If Nike announced that they were opening a hotel, you’d have a pretty good guess about what it would be like. But if Hyatt announced that they were going to start making shoes, you would have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what those shoes would be like. That’s because Nike owns a brand and Hyatt simply owns real estate.” Jobs goes on to explain how the Apple team arrived at the “Think Different” campaign: “Our customers want to know who is Apple and what is it that we stand for. Where do we fit in this world? What we’re about isn’t making boxes for people to get their jobs done—although we do that well. We do that better than almost anybody, in some cases. But Apple is about something more than that. Apple at the core—its core value—is that we believe people with passion can change the world for the better… And that those people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world are the ones who actually do.” He continues: “And so, what we’re going to do in our first brand marketing campaign in several years is to get back to that core value. A lot of things have changed. The market is in a totally different place than it was a decade ago, and Apple is totally different… the products and the distribution strategy and the manufacturing are totally different. And we understand that. But values and core values—those things shouldn’t change. The things that Apple believed in, at its core, are the same things that Apple really stands for today.” Apple’s “Think Different” campaign was designed to honor those people who have changed the world. And as Jobs so eloquently put it: “Some of them are living. Some of them are not. But the ones that aren’t, you’ll know that if they ever used a computer, it would’ve been a Mac. The theme of the campaign is ‘Think Different.’ It’s honoring the people who think different and who move this world forward. And it is what we are about. It touches the soul of this company.” If you’re looking to create a great brand, I’d start out by asking: what are your core values and what does your company honor?

Startup Archive

338,105 次观看 • 2 年前

🚨 This message is for Donald J. Trump from a Farmer Who Voted For You. MUST WATCH! 🔥🔥🔥 We had your back. Through the smears, the witch hunts, the stolen election—we rode for you. Boat parades. Truck convoys. We turned out because you promised to drain the swamp. But now you're sitting on the Epstein client list… and staying silent? You don’t get to preach “law and order” while protecting the worst predators alive. You don’t get to wrap yourself in the flag and then bury justice just because it’s inconvenient or involves your party. You weren’t elected to protect elites. You were elected to expose them. And if this was about protecting Israel, or cutting backroom deals to pass a “big beautiful bill” — we don’t care. Because kids were hurt. Lives were destroyed. And we’re supposed to believe there’s no list? Get real. We know you weren’t like the rest of them on that plane. But if you’re not one of them — why protect them? We didn’t put you in office so you could shield the swamp. We put you there to burn it down. This ain’t about politics anymore. It’s about right and wrong. You can't stay quiet on Epstein SHARE THIS AND TAG EVERYONE IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

🚨 This message is for Donald J. Trump from a Farmer Who Voted For You. MUST WATCH! 🔥🔥🔥 We had your back. Through the smears, the witch hunts, the stolen election—we rode for you. Boat parades. Truck convoys. We turned out because you promised to drain the swamp. But now you're sitting on the Epstein client list… and staying silent? You don’t get to preach “law and order” while protecting the worst predators alive. You don’t get to wrap yourself in the flag and then bury justice just because it’s inconvenient or involves your party. You weren’t elected to protect elites. You were elected to expose them. And if this was about protecting Israel, or cutting backroom deals to pass a “big beautiful bill” — we don’t care. Because kids were hurt. Lives were destroyed. And we’re supposed to believe there’s no list? Get real. We know you weren’t like the rest of them on that plane. But if you’re not one of them — why protect them? We didn’t put you in office so you could shield the swamp. We put you there to burn it down. This ain’t about politics anymore. It’s about right and wrong. You can't stay quiet on Epstein SHARE THIS AND TAG EVERYONE IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

Project Constitution

264,231 次观看 • 1 年前

Suozzi: When something crazy is being proposed—something outlandish—we need to fight and resist. But when something addresses the concerns of the American people, we need to find common ground and get things done. This isn’t just about the election in 2026 or the election in 2028. It’s about right now. It’s about making people’s lives better now. A lot of people will say, “Well, the Republicans didn’t do that. They didn’t help Biden get things done. They didn’t work across party lines when they controlled the House.” And that’s true. It was the least productive Congress in modern history… But just because that’s what they did doesn’t mean that’s what we should do. It’s not just about winning. It’s about trying to move the country forward, solve problems, and make people’s lives better. This business isn’t worth it for the ego or just for the competition—“I’m right, you’re wrong; I win, you lose.” It’s only worth it if we’re actually making the world a better place to live in. We need to call out the Republicans when they do crazy stuff, when they’re extreme. But we also need to work with them when we can find ways forward to make our country a better place to live in.

Suozzi: When something crazy is being proposed—something outlandish—we need to fight and resist. But when something addresses the concerns of the American people, we need to find common ground and get things done. This isn’t just about the election in 2026 or the election in 2028. It’s about right now. It’s about making people’s lives better now. A lot of people will say, “Well, the Republicans didn’t do that. They didn’t help Biden get things done. They didn’t work across party lines when they controlled the House.” And that’s true. It was the least productive Congress in modern history… But just because that’s what they did doesn’t mean that’s what we should do. It’s not just about winning. It’s about trying to move the country forward, solve problems, and make people’s lives better. This business isn’t worth it for the ego or just for the competition—“I’m right, you’re wrong; I win, you lose.” It’s only worth it if we’re actually making the world a better place to live in. We need to call out the Republicans when they do crazy stuff, when they’re extreme. But we also need to work with them when we can find ways forward to make our country a better place to live in.

Acyn

47,870 次观看 • 2 年前

Figma CEO Dylan Field predicts "design is the new code" within a year as AI turns coding into raw material and pushes value into taste, product, and judgment: "A year from now, the same thing I think is very obvious now, which is that design is the new code." "If you believe that coding models will continue to get better, then it's the decisions you make about how to build a system that matter, not the code itself. The code is material." "The value rises to the top and that becomes brand, product design, your marketing, your point of view in the world, your judgment calls and strategy. Product design is really at the center of a lot of that." "Designers will have a bigger role to play if they step up. Not everyone will step up. Some people will be like, 'But I like what I was doing.'" Figma

MTS

18,847 次观看 • 29 天前

If you're an $XRP hater, you need to listen here 👇🚨 The XRP Army gets mocked daily. We’re called shills, bots, or worse, just for believing in a project solving a real-world problem. But here’s the truth most won’t admit: We’re not paid. We’re not recruited. We’re investors who saw utility, real vision, and the need for change. We didn’t jump on hype, we held through silence. We’re here because we see what blockchain can unlock for everyday people: Banking the unbanked, eliminating middlemen, giving the little guy a seat at the financial table. Ripple is already delivering on that vision. Governments, banks, and top financial institutions are partnering. While others are still making promises, Ripple is integrating. You can scream decentralization all day, but eventually, real systems need rails that work. That’s why XRP is still standing. Mock us now, or take the time to understand what we actually stand for. Repost if you’re part of the $XRP Army that never folded. Follow me if you want real insight, not just headlines and hopium 👇

If you're an $XRP hater, you need to listen here 👇🚨 The XRP Army gets mocked daily. We’re called shills, bots, or worse, just for believing in a project solving a real-world problem. But here’s the truth most won’t admit: We’re not paid. We’re not recruited. We’re investors who saw utility, real vision, and the need for change. We didn’t jump on hype, we held through silence. We’re here because we see what blockchain can unlock for everyday people: Banking the unbanked, eliminating middlemen, giving the little guy a seat at the financial table. Ripple is already delivering on that vision. Governments, banks, and top financial institutions are partnering. While others are still making promises, Ripple is integrating. You can scream decentralization all day, but eventually, real systems need rails that work. That’s why XRP is still standing. Mock us now, or take the time to understand what we actually stand for. Repost if you’re part of the $XRP Army that never folded. Follow me if you want real insight, not just headlines and hopium 👇

X Finance Bull

188,212 次观看 • 1 年前

Kevin O’Leary says the quiet part out loud about what Secretary Rubio’s speech meant in Munich: “You’re either with us — or you’re not.” O’Leary then laid out the nightmarish dystopian future if China were to win global dominance. This was a direct warning to all of Europe. O’LEARY: “This all started a few weeks ago at Davos on the famous speech Carney gave, the prime minister of Canada, with the words ‘new world order.’ That did not go well with the Trump administration, as you remember.” “Actually, it hurt relations with Canada at this point, which hasn’t really restarted on the tariff front.” “The point is though we are getting to a place now where there’s only adversary, and I think it’s time to just call it out, China. That’s it.” “And so you either are with us, so to speak, against China, or you’re not.” “Because China is getting ready for world dominance.” “I call it what it is. Economically, militarily, AI, power, you name it, those guys are not fooling around, and if we don’t wake up and get together on this, they will be the superpower.” “Now, if you’re okay with that and you want to live in that kind of a world, well, I don’t. So I’d like to see this thing worked out pretty damn fast.” “Because Europe has to get on board, Canada has to get on board, everybody that believes in democracy, freedom and capitalism has to get on board.” “Or, you will see those guys walk into your country one day.”

Kevin O’Leary says the quiet part out loud about what Secretary Rubio’s speech meant in Munich: “You’re either with us — or you’re not.” O’Leary then laid out the nightmarish dystopian future if China were to win global dominance. This was a direct warning to all of Europe. O’LEARY: “This all started a few weeks ago at Davos on the famous speech Carney gave, the prime minister of Canada, with the words ‘new world order.’ That did not go well with the Trump administration, as you remember.” “Actually, it hurt relations with Canada at this point, which hasn’t really restarted on the tariff front.” “The point is though we are getting to a place now where there’s only adversary, and I think it’s time to just call it out, China. That’s it.” “And so you either are with us, so to speak, against China, or you’re not.” “Because China is getting ready for world dominance.” “I call it what it is. Economically, militarily, AI, power, you name it, those guys are not fooling around, and if we don’t wake up and get together on this, they will be the superpower.” “Now, if you’re okay with that and you want to live in that kind of a world, well, I don’t. So I’d like to see this thing worked out pretty damn fast.” “Because Europe has to get on board, Canada has to get on board, everybody that believes in democracy, freedom and capitalism has to get on board.” “Or, you will see those guys walk into your country one day.”

Overton

301,984 次观看 • 8 个月前