mustached0 retweeted
These are the most important words a White House Chief of Staff have ever spoken…
Listen. You know I am right.
CZ threatening to sell his 0.05% bag of SPCX. No matter how rich you are, you’re really just a poor in telegram complaining about the dev.
100% of people making a big deal out of this press secretary “lawyer” thing are doing so in bad faith, btw.
In the wake of "lawyer v. attorney" kerfuffle, I learned folks feel very strongly about people claiming to be an attorney/lawyer if not able to practice law. I also learned that commentator Elie Mystal (who self-describes as an attorney) never got admitted in NY. It's the same
2
9
799
mustached0 retweeted
Not an *entire* case yet, sure.
But pro se litigants just beat a MTD in a major federal case against the University of Washington.
Their briefing quality was generally better than the median lawyer's.
You’re unable to view this Post because this account owner limits who can view their Posts. Learn more
WIF was only one part of the puzzle piece for solana going insane. Solana had years of builders onchain, the coin went to near-0 after FTX, and you had 3 massive wealth-generation forces: (1) Solana from $8 to $200+; (2) the whole defi/nft ecosystem airdropped users massively; (3) early onchain coins were limited (no pumpfun yet) and so a few big runners could inject stimmies. Then on top of that you had a well-known successful frontman in Ansem hard pushing it.
None of these are true yet on RH or any other chain. RH has no token. The defi ecosystem isn’t there and there have been no airdrops. FnF deployers fill the chain with slop. RH has no figurehead yet.
All of these *can* be true in time, but they aren’t true yet.
Cashcat to billions and the ecosystem will follow.
Its actually that simple
Once cashcat establishes at billions you will see much more happen on robinhood.
Study WIF starting solana onchain season and holding at billions for the entire cycle.
2
8
620
mustached0 retweeted
stuckfunds.eth.limo finds crypto you bridged but never claimed.
$135M+ sits unclaimed across 84 bridges on over 500k wallets (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, zkSync, Wormhole, CCTP...).
mustached0 retweeted
read the SEC's new crypto assets FAQ
the securities laws are starting to look opt-in now, at least as applied by the SEC to crypto
if you raise money by selling a non-rights-bearing token, are careful about what you represent or promise, and have a functional crypto system, there is now an extremely broad path outside the securities laws--arguably 'functionality' is not even necessary but there's some equivocation on this
the buyback guidance goes further than I expected. once the system is functional, even announcing a token buyback *program* (which I guess even could be a 'perpetual program') does not, in the staff's view, constitute a promise of essential managerial efforts. same for promises to improve the system or grow its network effects
so you can retain enormous influence over the thing, keep developing it, support its price with buybacks (including under a permanent "program"), and get many of the benefits of having a public investment instrument, without giving holders the rights or protections that normally come with one
they have opened a loophole in a regulatory regime whose whole point was supposed to be that you couldn't draft your way around economic reality (see e.g. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…)
can't really say if this is good or bad, but VCs etc. got a lot of what they wanted & the market should absorb all the implications of this
among others, I am growing skeptical how much of a 'long tail' there will be for tokenized equity. . .if you can get people to buy a coin in the style of BNB, HYPE, PUMP, etc., with minimal regulation, why voluntarily take on the burdens of selling them equity? if you are not mag-7 level, it doesn't seem there would be much reason to focus on equity securities for your capital-raising. . . if you want to access 'traditional buyers' you can wrap the token in an equity instrument like an ADR for those institutions. . .
the obvious next question is how far this extends beyond crypto businesses. can an ordinary company attach a functional token to its business and apply 100% of its profits to discretionary buybacks, without giving holders any right to those profits or making representations about future business efforts that independently trigger Howey? the FAQ doesn't expressly resolve that, but it opens a pretty enormous door
equity still gives investors something a discretionary buyback token doesn't. . .the question is whether the market will pay enough for those rights to make granting them worthwhile. otherwise the incentive is to keep the equity for insiders and sell everyone else the coin
crypto's current focus on hyping tokenized equity may be misguided, the bigger trend is "get all the benefits of equity with none of the burdens"
of course this is SEC guidance, not a repeal of the statutes or a command to the courts. a private plaintiff or a future SEC could have other ideas
but did not think I'd see it in my lifetime. . .the securities laws are being "disrupted" in substantial part by incentivizing making fewer commitments to investors. and if Warren Dems eventually take control and try to undo all this, after an entire market has organized around it, the resulting chaos will be something to behold
sec.gov/about/divisions-offi…
mustached0 retweeted
Can President Trump's Department of War designate Anthropic as a supply chain risk? Yes, per Judge Katsas, in a masterful and thorough opinion. In this leading exploration of the intersection of government and Super Intelligence, the government can make that determination here
Looking for a seller of a 5-10mw facility available by Christmas and available to contract this week. Please DM if any leads.
2
2
430
mustached0 retweeted
>be me
>discover effective altruism
>apparently normal charity is inefficient
>why donate to random sad thing when spreadsheet can tell you optimal sad thing
>fair enough
>buy mosquito nets
>save lives
>numbers look good
>feel powerful
>couple years later
>someone asks an innocent question
>why only count people alive today
>huh
>future people matter too
>obviously
>my grandchildren shouldn't matter less just because they haven't spawned yet
>reasonable.jpg
>keep following logic
>what about their grandchildren
>also yes
>what about people in 500 years
>sure
>5000 years
>why not
>500 million years
>starting to get weird but morality is morality
>open calculator
>humanity could survive for an astronomically long time
>could colonize galaxy
>could have trillions upon trillions of descendants
>maybe digital people too
>maybe simulated civilizations
>maybe dyson spheres full of happy uploaded minds
>calculator starts smoking
>realize currently living humans are rounding error
>8 billion people suddenly looking extremely beta
>future contains potentially 10^something people
>can't even fit beneficiaries in google sheets
>new moral priority unlocked
>protect the long-term future
>stop thinking in units of "people helped"
>start thinking in "fraction of cosmic endowment preserved"
>malaria?
>terrible
>but only kills existing humans
>AI extinction could delete the entire light cone
>nuclear war could permanently derail civilization
>bad institutions could lock in terrible values for ten million years
>someone invents wrong constitution in 2140
>quadrillions suffer
>better fund governance workshop now
>friend says maybe we should improve hospitals
>explain opportunity cost
>friend says hospitals are full of actual sick people
>explain scope sensitivity
>friend stops inviting me to dinner
>need to decide what to fund
>easy
>expected value
>suppose project has one in a million chance of preventing extinction
>sounds tiny
>but extinction destroys 10^50 future lives
>multiply
>mother of god
>$10 million project has expected value of several galaxies
>charity evaluation complete
>someone asks where the one-in-a-million number came from
>expert judgement
>which expert
>us
>how calibrated
>extremely thoughtfully
>reduce estimate to one in ten million to be conservative
>still beats curing cancer by 38 orders of magnitude
>epistemic robustness achieved
>someone says maybe project doesn't work
>assign 20% chance
>still astronomical
>maybe project makes problem worse
>assign 5% chance
>still astronomical
>why 5
>because 30 felt pessimistic
>publish 46-page report
>contains seventeen sensitivity analyses
>every sensitivity analysis begins after assuming intervention has positive sign
>critic says you're multiplying enormous hypothetical stakes by extremely uncertain probabilities
>yes
>that's literally why it's important
>critic says the uncertainty might be structural rather than numerical
>make probability smaller
>critic says no, I mean maybe your model is wrong
>make probability smaller again
>critic begins rubbing temples
>discover AI safety
>perfect longtermist cause
>AI might kill everyone
>or create utopia
>or seize galaxy
>or tile universe with paperclips
>or create billions of conscious software minds
>finally a problem with numbers big enough for me
>start AI safety nonprofit
>mission: prevent dangerous AI
>hire smartest people available
>smartest people immediately start building better AI to understand dangerous AI
>interesting
>we must understand capabilities to understand safety
>we must scale models to study alignment
>we must race ahead so less responsible actors don't get there first
>we must deploy systems to learn how deployment can go wrong
>we must build the thing quickly because building the thing quickly is dangerous
>outsider asks why the people most worried about AI apocalypse all work at AI companies
>complicated field
>company releases stronger model
>very concerned
>company begins training even stronger model
>extremely concerned
>company raises $14 billion
>concern reaches unprecedented levels
>need to influence government
>future is at stake
>normal democratic process too slow
>politicians don't understand exponential curves
>public doesn't understand x-risk
>experts must guide them
>who counts as expert
>people who understand x-risk
>who understands x-risk
>our friends
>someone objects that this seems politically convenient
>explain we're representing future generations
>future generations unavailable for comment
>develop concept of value lock-in
>terrifying possibility that one ideology controls civilization forever
>therefore extremely important that civilization adopts correct values before lock-in
>whose values
>let's circle back
>begin with impartial morality
>end with small group of people deciding what quadrillions of hypothetical beings would want
>beautiful arc
>meanwhile actual humans keep doing annoying things
>voting wrong
>having parochial attachments
>loving family more than strangers
>caring about local community
>getting upset when told their suffering is cosmically negligible
>evolutionary biases everywhere
>explain that moral intuition cannot be trusted
>except intuition that future digital people count
>and intuition that extinction is uniquely bad
>and intuition that our probability estimates are sane
>and intuition that our institutional choices improve the future
>those intuitions survived peer review
>someone donates $5k to local homeless shelter
>inefficient
>could have funded 0.0000000000003% of an AI governance researcher
>think of all the simulated people you just killed
>okay maybe don't phrase it that way publicly
>PR team says "future generations deserve a voice"
>much better
>journalist asks what longtermism means
>say "future people matter"
>everyone agrees
>great
>journalist asks what follows from that
>well technically we should redirect enormous resources toward low-probability interventions affecting astronomical futures
>journalist raises eyebrow
>return to "future people matter"
>motte has entered the chat
>critic: of course future people matter
>me: glad we agree
>critic: I don't agree that your institute knows how to help them
>me: why do you hate our grandchildren
>eventually notice uncomfortable implication
>if future value dominates everything
>then helping people today mostly matters through effects on future
>education matters because future institutions
>health matters because future productivity
>democracy matters because future trajectory
>human beings slowly become instrumental variables in their own moral philosophy
>see starving child
>feel compassion
>check spreadsheet
>child's direct welfare contribution negligible
>but perhaps childhood nutrition improves national institutional quality
>compassion restored
>tell myself this is impartial altruism
>one day assistant asks obvious question
>"how do you know your intervention actually improves the far future?"
>silence
>open spreadsheet
>increase column width
>add confidence interval
>assistant asks again
>"no, I mean how do you know the sign is positive?"
>stare into cosmic light cone
>10^50 people staring back
>none of them exist
>none of them can tell me
>none of them can falsify my assumptions
>realize I have invented the perfect constituency
>infinitely important
>completely silent
>and always represented by me
mustached0 retweeted
If you're comparing ARC to RH, something is seriously off with your analysis. RH has clear distribution to exactly the people we want, it's the biggest US retail brokerage, and it has a known + visible leader who wants to play ball and is incentivised to.
ARC has none of these.
Ah yes but the 5th "jup of ARC" is the one!
