Long Black

not officially confirmed, but @TheMarker, israel's main business paper, is reporting that @prlnet's lab raised $130M from lightspeed, ribbit capital, and square peg. $55M in equity and $75M for a fund to build out GPU infrastructure. ribbit and lightspeed are also named as pearl backers on its profile in greenfield partners' disruptors 60 list. if this is real, the $PEARL bear case gets a lot worse. here's why: 1) $PEARL traded on a "no VCs, fair launch" story. pearl's code doesn't allocate tokens to founders or investors, and that part is probably still true. but the lab behind pearl is reportedly VC-backed, and nobody corrected the narrative while it pumped. 2) the value goes to the equity, not the token. the lab sells inference and gets paid in USD, and the VCs own the lab. $PEARL holders don't get any of that revenue, just diluted by new supply. so the investors can do well even if $PEARL goes to zero. 3) it goes against the "sovereignless bitcoin" pitch. part of bitcoin's monetary premium is that no company controls it. pearl's upgrades are drafted by a VC-backed lab, including the FP8 fork that would tie mining more closely to inference, the same business the lab sells. 4) the $75M GPU fund. we don't know if those GPUs mine $PEARL. if they do, the company is collecting a share of ~85% supply growth this year, on top of whatever insiders mined early. remember that about 1/3 of today's supply was mined in the first 6 days. 5) zcash had investors too (20% of its early block rewards went to founders and investors) but that was public from day 1. everyone knew who got paid and how much. pearl hasn't disclosed any of that. holders deserve to know: > who invested > whether any investors or insiders hold $PEARL > whether the GPU fund mines $PEARL a fair launch shouldn't need a newspaper to tell you who's behind it. i was a $PEARL bear on friday. i'm a bigger one now.

Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX shares to every kid in America. This will be the first of many.

I like PRL for the same reason I like ZEC. 1. Narratives, especially simple ones, are extremely powerful. Citrini's recent report is a great example: most token allocations were based on thematic ideas rather than the underlying business. 2. Relative valuation is still our industry's primary way of valuing tokens. When your narrative includes BTC, the token can keep appearing cheap relative to assets that hit their ceiling much faster. Similarly, SOV assets offer no fundamentals against which to argue the token is overvalued. That's why ZEC is so appealing: it took two major concerns around BTC, quantum and privacy, and positioned itself as a cheaper BTC that addresses both. PRL took another major concern: a declining security budget from halvings, alongside an institutional AI compute industry that is more profitable per megawatt than BTC mining, leading to uncertainty over long-term hashrate. PRL's answer is similarly easy to understand: instead of dedicated mining hardware, you can secure the network using machines already deployed for AI compute. PRL is a BTC fork that replaces SHA-256 with matrix multiplication, the core operation in AI inference, so the same computation that serves an AI model also mines PRL. If you value BTC on economic security, it's easy to see how PRL's hashrate and narrative can grow against it, because existing AI compute can simply integrate it. It's also easy to see how the adoption from existing hyperscalers would lead to insane widespread narrative and reflexive growth. Even then, this is a convoluted way of explaining what made both assets interesting: ZEC = Private BTC PRL = AI BTC Still, one thing prevents it from taking a large allocation: tokenomics. Since PRL has an early BTC mining schedule, its inflation over the next year is approx. 88%. For SOV coins without fundamentals, it's purely about flows. The assets are, very simply put, vehicles to put in capital and take out more capital in the future, and they only work when buyers > sellers. While it's not fair to look at the FDV and call it expensive, high mining emissions, specifically predictable emissions to miners with a low cost basis, are in my mind a major risk to the thesis, especially compared with BTC and ZEC, whose supply base is already distributed. Assets like these only have value as long as price action is positive, and persistent sell pressure kills that thesis instantly. Second, part of my skepticism comes from the illiquidity, especially since CT has recently started promoting low-liquidity coins purely because it's easier to kick off a reflexive cycle. People I've talked to seem convinced the whale miners won't sell, and according to OTC desks, they aren't selling. But that remains to be seen, especially given they've mined >$600M worth of coins in under 5 months. I'm definitely not the best person to go deep into AI side, but those are my thoughts now that the token has become very topical. The combination of an insane narrative and aggressive emissions makes it hard to position, but I do think a small allocation alongside BTC/ZEC in the portfolio is worth it.

It turns out that F1 is mathematically the most dramatic sport. I'm not an F1 fan myself, but the data is unequivocal. The proof: take a time series of prediction market data and measure the volatility minute-by-minute in the odds for each sport. This measures the density of actual drama in the sport during a game. Even if there's action and points going back and forth on screen, it's meaningless if the winner is basically decided. It's only real drama when the odds are moving in realtime while you're watching. By this metric: F1 > E-sports (CS2) > Soccer > Basketball > Tennis > American football > Baseball >>> Golf That's right, golf is mathematically the worst sport. (I knew it.)

(And we are now doing dual mining while providing inference)

Matmul. Matmul. "Have you ever multiplied a matrix nobody asked for? Matmul." Matmul. "Are serving AI inference? Matmul." Matmul. Useful. Useful. "What's it like to have your output verified but never read? Useful." Useful. "Do you dream about solving the AI wealth gap?" Useful. Proof of useful work. Proof of useful work. "Why don't you say that three times: "Proof of useful work." Proof of useful work. Proof of useful work. Proof of useful work. "We're done... you can claim your PRL." Thank you, sir.

Proud to be a backer of Beni's AI stealthy startup^^

inference cost is decreasing as a function of greater inference demand / competition yes? More demand for inference means more inference requests and more tokens processed, which means more ai work getting forced through pearl kernels = more useful work on the network. Jevons paradox. As inference cost falls these ai companies will make even more money.

guys stop shilling ai bitcoin I need entry

(FULL OF ALPHA) My appearance on stream today. We talked about the reflexive price loop Zcash [road to $1 trillion] is in and who's buying it, why Derive is the most underpriced derivatives protocol in crypto, and what the hell Pearl is 0:20 Crypto Twitter has no conviction 5:10 Zcash trillion dollar price loop 11:21 Ethereum is not money 19:19 who's actually buying Zcash? 24:53 the Derive bull case 33:27 HYPE can’t compete in options 38:28 Pearl is AI-secured Bitcoin 46:36 miners are switching to AI 49:09 a real man's coin

Emad in Pearl’s co-founders comment section