CommonSenseCarl

K.I.S.S...Keep it simple stupid.

[Bitcoin B2B for Freedom @BTC_for_Freedom]

- You: "My stocks went up 10%."

- Government: "Congratulations! That's taxable."

- You: "But inflation was 8%. I only really gained 2%."

- Government: "We tax the full 10%."

- You: "You tax the inflation you created?"

- Government: "Capital gains are capital gains."

- You: "So you profit from debasing my money twice?"

- Government: "You're not an economist."

[bg2clips @bg2clips]

😳 Brad Gerstner on the ex-Anthropic researcher who told America AI could end humanity in three years:

"To go on national television in a highly coordinated way and sit in the living room on NBC, on ABC, on CBS, on Fox, and have a single researcher who spent six weeks at Anthropic tell the moms and dads of America that this can kill all of humanity in the next three years without any countervailing conversation is deeply irresponsible.

Jensen Huang yesterday called it deeply untrue. Andrew Feldman, the founder of Cerebras, who spent decades studying this, called it utter horseshit. Elon himself said it was a coordinated psyop."

- @altcap with Scott Wapner @TheJudgeCNBC on CNBC Friday, Sept 11th, 2026

[Kevin Bass @kevinnbass]

I have conducted an audit of Anthropic's finances.

What I have found is so shocking that I am calling for a Congressional investigation.

Anthropic is not just seeking regulatory capture.

It has built a regulatory capture machine that cannot be turned off.

Structural financial incentives make it impossible for Anthropic -- I call it the Anthropic Network -- to turn off its own AI doom cycle.

It starts with METR.

Dario Amodei proposes "third-party evaluators" to assess the risk of Anthropic's models.

He proposes METR for this purpose.

But METR is financially dependent on the Anthropic's success -- specifically, on the explosive growth of more than $7 billion dollars in Anthropic stock.

Dustin Moskovitz invested this stock into Good Ventures Foundation, where it represents the majority of that organization's portfolio.

And GVF is the overwhelming funder of the entire Anthropic Network ecosystem.

This stock was worth $500 million early last year.

It is worth more than $7.7 billion just ~16 months later.

METR -- and all of those building a career its parent organizations -- cannot afford to disrupt that growth.

Because if Anthropic goes under, many of the organizations that fund METR go under as well.

But if Anthropic succeeds, METR and its parent organizations become more richly financed to regulate AI -- something those at METR want very much.

The "third-party evaluator" is not "third-party" at all.

The evaluator is on Anthropic's payroll.

If this were the end of it, that's bad.

But that isn't all.

The same organizations that fund METR also fund the many organizations, such as the Tarbell Center, that promote AI Doom.

The Tarbell Center publishes AI Doom articles in The Verge, Science, LA Times, The Dispatch, TIME, and others.

They are selling the problem, and then selling the solution to the problem -- from the same money pile: Anthropic's.

All of these organizations are financially dependent on the same exploding $7 billion money pile.

As Anthropic grows more and more powerful, its AI Doom Machine grows better and better financed -- louder and louder.

Meanwhile, the regulatory regime seeded in METR grows larger to solve the increasingly loud -- now hysterical -- problem of AI Doom that the Anthropic Network itself created.

From this standpoint, as Anthropic becomes more powerful, AI might be getting scarier, sure -- but the positive feedback loop also becomes more deafening -- independent of objective facts.

This itself is an objective fact.

The deafening AI Doom is part of an business model, that, as it expands, so too does the AI Doom messaging -- there is simply more money to do it.

But the problem also goes in the other direction:

If Anthropic dies, the Regulatory Regime and the AI Doom Machine are crippled or die.

Neither METR nor Tarbell nor the other organizations in the Anthropic Network can allow that to happen.

Hence, neither METR or the AI Doom Machine can be trusted to provide independent assessments of Anthropic's models or AI more broadly.

They simply are not organizations independent of Anthropic.

And Anthropic cannot detach itself from METR or Tarbell or countless other safety orgs (not shown here), either, because they drive hype for the models and the possibility of eventual regulatory capture, and Anthropic will not give that up willingly.

What's more, the people at all of these organizations are all the same ecosystem, the same community. They just shuffle between organizations.

The Anthropic Network is therefore, so long as it is successful, locked into a self-amplifying feedback loop inside an ideological monoculture.

And that feedback loop is winning.

That's what Jacob Coxon is.

China is keeping messaging tight. That is why optimism for AI is so high in China.

America has Anthropic: a massive company pushing anti-AI propaganda at a state level.

Anthropic will either create hysteria until American AI slows down and China wins, or it will create fractures throughout American society with severe political consequences.

Ironically, because of the structural financial incentives underpinning the Anthropic Network, it has become the same kind of self-amplifying virus that it fantasizes AI to become in the future -- while hiding its tracks just as carefully.

It is the mirror of the same AI virus that it hypothesizes to consume America.

Anthropic's business model, models itself after the very thing it claims to fear.

Except Anthropic's ideology infects humans, not computers.

Congress must investigate.

Evidence and Github in next post.

Then some supplementary figures.

[CommonSenseCarl @CommonSenseCar1]

There is ~363 companies in the US right now that have a market cap over $500mm and holds zero long term debt on their balance sheets. There MIGHT be 200ish companies that hold 18 months worth of cash reserves with zero LTD.

I’d love to see how the names you are currently investing in stack up from a balance sheet perspective…

Why are you wanting to put 87 octane in a Ferrari?

[KanekoaTheGreat @KanekoaTheGreat]

Chamath Palihapitiya argues Nike got fat, woke, and lost the north star that made it great: athletic mastery and excellence.

Nike stock has collapsed 78% from its 2021 peak.

@chamath says Nike used to sell aspiration: Michael Jordan. Tiger Woods. Serena Williams.

Mastery. Excellence. Greatness.

“I don’t aspire to be a fat person. I aspire to be Michael Jordan.”

So true lol

[Matt Cole @ColeMacro]

One year ago today, I wrote this after Charlie Kirk was murdered.

Two days later, Strive became a public company. It was one of the biggest moments of my professional life, and yet I could not get my mind off Charlie, his family, and what his life had meant to mine. If you look back at what I was talking about publicly during those days, it was mostly about Charlie, because that was where my mind and heart were, and it felt inauthentic to spend that moment talking only about Strive.

During COVID, my wife and I were living in Northern California. @GavinNewsom had deemed churches “non-essential” and ordered them closed while “peaceful protests” were encouraged. In May 2020, @destinyrocklin church, which was close to where we lived at the time, opened its doors in defiance of those orders. We believed at the time that its pastor could potentially be arrested for taking that stand. He did not care, and neither did the people who filled that building, including my wife and me. We were there because church is essential and because nothing is more important than our faith in Christ.

We had never been to Destiny and probably never would have walked through its doors that weekend without Charlie. We heard on The Charlie Kirk Show that he would be there supporting the church, so my wife and I went. We found a church full of Christians on fire for God, unafraid to live their faith publicly, and that experience helped set my family on the Christian journey we have been on ever since. It also directly gave my wife and me the conviction to take a stand against the ramifications of ESG and DEI, which we came to believe represented not only breaches of fiduciary duty, but a broader cultural movement increasingly hostile to Christian conviction. We would not be where we are in our Christian journey without Charlie, and I am certain I would not be at Strive without Charlie Kirk.

When Strive was founded in 2022, Charlie was a seed investor. He supported Strive from the beginning in its fight against ESG and DEI, and he was excited about Strive’s evolution into a Bitcoin-focused company. Charlie understood that these fights were about much more than markets or business, and his energy and conviction were unmistakable.

I spend a lot of time talking about Bitcoin, the debt crisis, markets and Strive, and I have always promised myself that I will be authentic about what is actually on my mind and speak what I believe to be true. I could not live my life any other way. Make no mistake about what sits beneath all of it for me: Christ comes first. My faith is my foundation, my inspiration and ultimately my why.

Charlie blessed this country with an extraordinary amount of energy during a tragically short life. It is fitting to me that his final book was about honoring the Sabbath. Of all the subjects Charlie could have chosen to write about, his final message pointed people back toward God. A year later, what I wrote that day remains true: Charlie changed my family’s life, and his legacy lives on in our home and in countless others.

We will never forget Charlie Kirk.

[CommonSenseCarl @CommonSenseCar1]

@idahohodl @TNorth @IIICapital Niiiice!

[Matt Cole @ColeMacro]

Another very long macro post, but I don't write these often. We are watching the most interesting macro backdrop of the last several decades take shape in real time.

One important piece of the long-term dollar view I wrote about last week is what happens at the long end of the Treasury market. Stan Druckenmiller published an excellent piece in the WSJ last night titled "Let the Bond Market Speak". The U.S. fiscal trajectory is unsustainable, running deficits near 6% of GDP at full employment with inflation still above target is reckless, the entitlement trajectory is generational theft, and attempting to suppress long-term Treasury yields does nothing to fix the underlying fiscal problem.

Druckenmiller's argument is that suppressing yields delays the fiscal reckoning that higher rates would otherwise impose on Washington. He is right about the economic logic, but I am not even sure our expectations for what ultimately happens are different. By the mid-2010s, I had come to the conclusion that there was never going to be a realistic path where sustained pressure from the bond market produced the kind of fiscal conservatism necessary to solve this problem. That realization was a major part of why I became a Bitcoiner in the first place, and Druckenmiller's own investments in Bitcoin and other hard assets suggest to me that he has come to the same underlying conclusion.

I read his piece less as a prediction of what Washington will actually do and more as a warning about what it should do before it is too late. I view it as a Hail Mary from one of the greatest macro investors of all time telling policymakers to let the market impose the discipline that the political system has been incapable of imposing on itself. I hope they listen, but unfortunately I know they won't.

Druckenmiller makes the political constraint explicit himself when he writes that neither party will run on entitlement reform. That is precisely the problem. The fiscal solution that works mathematically is not a solution that wins elections, and the people administering Treasury and other parts of the government are appointed officials operating within mandates ultimately created by elected politicians and the voters who put them there.

That distinction matters because the appointed officials can be extraordinarily intelligent, deeply patriotic and genuinely committed to making the country stronger while still being constrained by a political system with completely different incentives. Scott Bessent obviously understands the fiscal problem, and I believe he and Druckenmiller agree on the underlying diagnosis. But Bessent is running Treasury inside a political system whose mandate is set by elected officials, not by the optimal answer on a macroeconomic spreadsheet.

We just saw a version of this with DOGE. Elon Musk, the most capable private-sector operator of our generation, entered government with an explicit mandate to dramatically reduce spending. The institutional and political forces were stronger, DOGE did not change the fiscal trajectory, and the deficit continued moving in the wrong direction.

That is not an indictment of the intelligence or intentions of the people involved. It is evidence that the constraint is structural, and that is why we have to invest in the world that exists rather than the world we wish existed.

As the fiscal arithmetic continues to deteriorate and policymakers refuse to allow long-term interest rates to fully reflect it, the adjustment will not disappear. It will be expressed somewhere else, and the dollar will be the release valve.

The Treasury market is already far from an untouched free market. The Federal Reserve owns approximately $1.6 trillion of Treasuries with more than ten years remaining, roughly 28% of the entire >10-year maturity bucket. Treasury has now also doubled its planned purchases of 10-to-30-year securities after long-term yields pushed toward levels not seen in nearly two decades, while making clear that the size of those operations can increase materially further.

Those actions are important less because of their current size than because of what they reveal about the government's reaction function. Treasury has now told the market that it is sensitive to the level of long-term yields before committing enough capital to actually change their trajectory, and the market has already largely looked through the initial announcement. Druckenmiller is right that once the market believes Treasury is defending a price, every further increase in yields becomes another test of how much policymakers are actually willing to do.

I think Treasury will ultimately regret going this small this early. By showing its sensitivity without overwhelming the market, it has effectively invited the market to find out where the real line is. My expectation is that the current intervention will not be enough, long-term yields will continue higher, and the bond market will eventually force Washington to prove that it is serious.

I believe it will prove to be serious when tested. The signaling around larger Treasury purchases and the potential use of the TGA matters, but signaling will not be enough if the long end keeps selling off. At some point the market will force Treasury to move from telling investors what it could do to actually deploying capital with enough size to change the outcome.

The resistance zone on the long-term 10-year Treasury chart attached here is one I have been watching for several years. The 5.25% to 5.85% area has long stood out to me as the place where this secular move higher in rates would face its most important test, and this is not a zone I identified because of anything that happened over the last week.

It came out of a fundamental view about the U.S. debt trajectory, the natural direction of long-term yields as the fiscal problem worsened, and the level at which Treasury and/or the Fed would be forced to respond. The chart matters, but this has never been about drawing squiggles and assuming price will reverse at a line. The resistance zone mattered because I believed the underlying fiscal mechanics would eventually push yields into it while the political and financial consequences of allowing yields to move materially beyond it would become increasingly intolerable.

If the 10-year moves into the 5.25% to 5.85% range, the headlines will write themselves. Ten-year Treasury yields would be trading at levels not seen since around 2007, except this time the United States would be arriving there with a dramatically larger debt burden and a vastly more difficult fiscal position. Narrative follows price, and a large enough decline in Treasury prices will quickly become a story about the Treasury market failing, government financing becoming unstable and the world's most important bond market entering a crisis.

That narrative itself will increase the political pressure to act. Mortgage rates, government interest expense, equity valuations and broader financial conditions would all be under substantially greater pressure, while every move higher in yields would make the fiscal arithmetic worse. Treasury is already showing its sensitivity before the market has even reached the zone I have been watching.

If yields ultimately move into that area, I expect Treasury and/or the Fed to blink substantially. The response could include much larger Treasury buybacks, heavier reliance on bills, actual deployment of the TGA, renewed Fed balance-sheet expansion, some form of explicit or implicit yield management, or a combination of those tools. I would not be surprised if we ultimately see intervention in the Treasury market on a scale that looks nothing like what has been announced so far.

The path into that moment could create significant stress across financial markets. Higher long-term yields would put additional pressure on equity valuations at exactly the same time that AI is creating a growing question around the durability of many corporate moats, which could make the environment particularly difficult for traditional equities and other risk assets.

Bitcoin is more interesting because the endgame is becoming increasingly obvious. I think it is roughly a coin flip whether Bitcoin experiences meaningful weakness during the final move higher in yields or simply continues grinding higher while other risk assets struggle. If we are fortunate enough to get a meaningful Bitcoin selloff during that period, I would view it as a potentially once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to increase exposure before policymakers are ultimately forced to respond with size.

But I would not build a portfolio around the hope that opportunity appears. The macro backdrop is already bullish enough that, in my view, the time to be positioned is now if you are not already positioned. A dip would be an extraordinary gift, but the market may simply look through the short-term stress because the eventual policy response is becoming increasingly obvious.

From a traditional fixed-income mandate, the 5.25% to 5.85% zone has always looked interesting to me as an area where I would want to get very long duration. If Treasury and/or the Fed respond the way I expect, long-term Treasury bonds could perform extremely well as policymakers push yields back down. But at Strive we do not run a fixed-income mandate. We run a Bitcoin mandate, and this is the kind of setup that calls for responsibly maximizing Bitcoin amplification.

Treasuries would be a beneficiary of the intervention, but I want to be long risk, long scarcity and, above all, long the fastest horse. Bitcoin is the fastest horse, and the ability for Strive to amplify Bitcoin into this kind of macro environment is far more attractive to us than owning an asset whose yield policymakers are explicitly trying to suppress.

That brings this directly back to the dollar thesis I wrote about last week. Druckenmiller is right that governments defending prices against fundamentals ultimately lose, but that does not mean they cannot suppress the specific price they are targeting for a meaningful period of time. If Washington refuses to meaningfully reduce spending, then suppressing long-term yields and allowing the dollar to weaken may actually be the least damaging of the politically available alternatives.

The correct solution is obviously fiscal conservatism. But because that solution is politically unavailable, allowing an uncontrolled rise in long-term yields against today's debt burden risks creating a much more immediate Treasury-market crisis. Financial repression and a weaker dollar are deeply imperfect outcomes, but they are preferable to simply allowing the financing structure of the U.S. government to break in real time.

That is why the dollar becomes the release valve. Treasury and the Fed can suppress long-term yields, but they cannot make the underlying fiscal imbalance disappear. The cost gets transferred somewhere else, and a weaker currency is the most politically tolerable place for a meaningful portion of that adjustment to occur.

This is also why I don't view a DXY move into the high-60s or low-70s as some extreme end-state for the dollar. It would take the dollar to the weakest levels we have experienced in the modern era, but not by an historically extraordinary margin. Bitcoin has repeatedly benefited from weakening-dollar environments throughout its history, but it has never existed through a secular move in the dollar to these kinds of lows. Bitcoin was created after the 2008 dollar low and has spent its entire history with the dollar either recovering from those lows or operating materially above them.

A secular move to new lows in the dollar would therefore represent something genuinely new for Bitcoin, and this Treasury dynamic adds another fundamental layer to the framework I have been writing about. Dollar debasement increases the pool of capital seeking scarcity. Bitcoin's continued monetization allows it to capture a growing share of that expanding pool. AI abundance simultaneously increases the uncertainty around the long-term value of traditional corporate moats, strengthening the relative appeal of an asset whose scarcity cannot be competed away.

The explosive scenario is when these forces begin aligning at the same time: a growing pool of global capital seeking scarcity, Bitcoin capturing a growing share of that pool as it continues to outperform other scarce monetary assets, and Strive amplifying Bitcoin on top of both. Those are not independent tailwinds. They compound.

That is the grand slam scenario I continue to see forming. The dollar declines, policymakers increasingly suppress the long end of the Treasury market, AI continues to debase traditional corporate scarcity, Bitcoin reasserts itself as the fastest horse among scarce monetary assets, and Strive is positioned to maximally amplify Bitcoin through that environment. If the bond market gives us a temporary Bitcoin selloff on the way there, I want to buy it aggressively. If Bitcoin sees through the endgame and never gives us the dip, I want to already be positioned.

Druckenmiller ends his piece by urging Washington to let the bond market speak. I agree with the warning and share his frustration with the generational consequences of refusing to address the underlying problem. The bond market is going to have to speak much louder before policymakers respond with the size ultimately required, and when it does, they are far more likely to suppress the message than undertake the fiscal restructuring necessary to eliminate it.

The path I have been watching for years is increasingly coming into view: the 10-year moves into that 5.25% to 5.85% resistance zone, the Treasury-market narrative turns into a crisis narrative, Washington is forced to respond with real size, and the secular dollar decline accelerates as pressure that would otherwise have been expressed through long-term yields is redirected elsewhere.

TLDR: YOU ARE NOT BULLISH ENOUGH^3

[Geiger Capital @Geiger_Capital]

Amy Coney Barrett says she fears for her life…

She should watch this. Or resign.

[Purely Bitcoin @PurelyBitcoin]

47 out of 50 states have underfunded pensions. The shortfall is $1.5 trillion.

The M2 money supply has grown 6.7% every single year for 50 years. If your portfolio isn't keeping up you are losing money in real terms.

Bitcoin fixes this. But 99.9% of people cannot handle a 60% drawdown emotionally or financially.

Strive's entire mission is to build a product that plugs the debasement gap for those people without exposing them to that volatility.

This is bigger than Bitcoin. This is about saving retirement.
@PunterJeff $ASST $BTC

[Thomas Braziel @Bkclaims]

The dirty little secret of crypto is that a lot of the early Bitcoin crowd weren't investors - they were fringe technologists, libertarians, futurists, hackers, and internet obsessives. The odds of Bitcoin succeeding looked incredibly low in the early days, so it naturally attracted people with unconventional worldviews.

That's fine. They were right about Bitcoin.

But being right about one technological revolution doesn't automatically make someone an expert in capital markets, credit, securities, or investing. Those are different disciplines. Too many people mistake being early for being broadly insightful.

[Conner Brown @BitcoinConner]

Today we are launching a new BPI campaign at https://t.co/68LWwAlkaT to stop the shadow ban on Bitcoin — and we need your help 🇺🇸

Right now, Bitcoin financial services are severely limited due to guidance from central banks called “Basel” that treat bitcoin as a toxic, high risk asset.

Basel serves as a backdoor way for global central banks to limit what Bitcoin products and services Americans have access to.

US regulators are actively considering revising this guidance. They are accepting public comments on this issue until June 18th — We need your help to make this issue a priority for the administration.

On our website below you can learn more about this issue and submit a comment. We’ve even provided a sample comment to help you get started. Check it out below.

[Yogi @Houseofyogi]

How to legally insider trade 101: Join Congress

You wake up at 5am. You put on a hard hat or a badge or scrubs. You drive to a job that doesn't care if you slept. You do it again tomorrow.

You've been putting $100 a month into your 401k since you were 26. You don't pick stocks. You buy an index fund because that's what they told you to do.

You get 8% a year if you're lucky. That's the deal. That's what regular people get.

Some months you check the balance and it's down and you feel it in your chest. That's your kid's college. That's your retirement. That's every time you told your wife "not this month."

You don't get to cheat. You don't know anyone. You just keep putting in the $100.

Congress doesn't play by those rules.

September 2008. Lehman Brothers just collapsed. The Treasury Secretary and the Fed chairman pull congressional leaders into an emergency room. So classified they take everyone's phones at the door. They tell the room the entire global financial system could collapse in days.

Congressman Spencer Bachus is in that room. He's the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee. Literally the guy in charge of overseeing Wall Street.

He walks out. Next morning he buys options that pay double when the market crashes.

Sells days later. Profit.

Same year, the Pelosis are sitting on shares of Visa they got at the IPO. She blocks a credit card reform bill. She's working for her bags. Visa pumps 2x. She makes bank. The market crashes 15%.

10 million families lost their homes. Housing dropped 27%. $4.2 trillion in household wealth just gone. Your parents' house is underwater. Your retirement is cut in half. People are losing everything.

Nobody in Congress lost anything.

Zero prosecutions. No consequences.

So what'd they do? They did it again.

January 2020. Classified Senate briefing on COVID. Most Americans haven't even heard the word yet.

Senator Richard Burr walks out and writes a public op-ed. America is "better prepared than ever." Everything's fine folks.

Then he dumps up to $1.7 million in stock. 33 trades. One day.

Your portfolio was at an all-time high that week. You didn't touch it. Why would you. You trusted the people running the country.

Two weeks later Burr is behind closed doors telling rich donors the truth. This virus is "much more aggressive than anything we've seen in recent history."

He told you it was fine. He told them to get out.

S&P 500 drops 34% in five weeks. Your savings of 20 years wiped in half. Just gone. Obliterated.

You're sanitizing groceries in the garage wondering if your parents are gonna make it.

Senator Kelly Loeffler is reallocating millions after her classified briefing. Senator Feinstein's husband dumps up to $6 million in late January.

1.1 million people died. And four senators were trading on classified pandemic briefings.

No hedge fund had that intel. No pension fund. No financial advisor. Nobody. Just them. Just the people in that room.

DOJ opened investigations. Quietly closed all of them. Burr finished his term. Retired with a full pension.

You buried your grandmother and watched your retirement account crater. They sold at the top.

Now look at this.

Your savings grow 8% a year.

Average hedge fund, where you need a million bucks just to get in the door. 6 to 11% a year.

Top 50 hedge funds on the planet. Smartest money alive. Billions in computing power. 12.4% a year.

Warren Buffett. Greatest investor who ever lived. 20% a year.

Nancy Pelosi walked into Congress in 1987 with a portfolio worth $700,000. She's worth $240 million now. Her net worth is 40 times her entire lifetime government salary. 350x return.

In 2024 alone her portfolio gained 71%. The S&P did 25%. She beat all of them. Every hedge fund. Every quant. Buffett. Everyone. On a government salary.

Before they get power their returns are normal. After? Their trades start predicting earnings announcements before they happen.

ITS A RIGGED SYSTEM.

You get 8%.

They get whatever they want. Because they write the rules.

ABOVE THE LAW.

PERFECT CHEAT CODE.

Now think about this.

What if you insider trade once, whether on purpose or by accident?

A guy in Houston overheard his wife on a Zoom call about a company acquisition. Bought stock. Made $1.76 million. FBI showed up. Two years federal prison. Career gone. Wife gone. His lawyer told the judge he will never work again.

Martha Stewart. Avoided a $45,000 loss. Five months in prison.

Max sentence for insider trading is 20 years. Median is 30 months.

The penalty for a member of Congress who violates the STOCK Act. $200.

$200 fricking dollars.

78 members violated it in the last Congress alone.

Nobody got prosecuted.

Number of members of Congress ever prosecuted for trading on legislative knowledge in the entire history of the United States. Zero.

86% of Americans want to ban congressional stock trading.

Can't even get a vote on it.

Because the people who'd have to vote for the ban are the ones making money off it.

This whole economy. $30 trillion. Built by the people waking up early and putting in the $100 a month and wearing the hard hat and the badge and the scrubs.

You built it. You played by the rules. You got 8%.

535 people who never built a thing in their lives are skimming the top with information they didn't earn and immunity they gave themselves.

That's the system. Its pure crime. Hypocrisy of the highest level.

Insider trading for me. Prison for thee.

So you want to insider trade and maybe pay a $200 fine? Join Congress and work for your bags.

[Matt Sullivan @sullybtc]

Went with a personal entry for the @XCreators Game Day Contest. In addition to throwing myself in the video, January 3rd would’ve been my parents’ 50th wedding anniversary.

Everything was created with @grok Imagine: all images, video clips, and audio (plus iMovie for edits). The speed and realism keep blowing me away—perfect for turning memories into something shareable.

[Baseball’s Greatest Moments @BBGreatMoments]

Greg Maddux intentionally hit Benito Santiago in 1987 and got sent to the minors after the game.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

True

[Jeff Walton @PunterJeff]

This is a first-of-its-kind innovation for a Bitcoin treasury company intended to be a win-win for Bitcoin and $ASST HODL’ers:

• An Internal Revenue Code Section 351 exchange allows investors to contribute Bitcoin in exchange for $ASST shares without current taxation

• $ASST shareholders accretively gain aligned, long-term HODL’ers

[CommonSenseCarl @CommonSenseCar1]

@NRNonline Controversial? 😂😂😂

[CommonSenseCarl @CommonSenseCar1]

@ArtieNBCSD @CoriSchumacher The fact that she is trying to hide behind an LGBTQ moniker and blame the Mayor for policies that the majority of Carlsbad residents DO NOT want is truly sad. No one deserves emails like that but let's not perpetrate a lie that everyone is out to get her.

[Super 70s Sports @Super70sSports]

I'd love to have been in the room when this movie was pitched:

"OK, so this is about a trucker whose best friend is an orangutan. And he fist fights."

"Well, what the fuck are we waiting for? Get Clint Eastwood on the phone."