Neil 𝕏

Disruption Investor | Business & Stock Analyst | Due Diligence | Institutional Pedigree | Tech. & AI-fanatic | Concentrated Multi-year 10X+ Investments | 🇺🇸

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

⬇️

[Paper Bag Investor @PaperBagInvest]

New fireside chat with $LMND CEO @daschreiber and Piper Sandler. I’m listening to it on the Quartr app or can access it through a form here https://t.co/4dc1OsxXUb

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

For real @daschreiber is almost too smart and too good of a communicator.

How many of Piper Sandler’s clients actually received … like really let land… even half of what Daniel was saying?

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

@TravisVarnick The truth needs a better distribution network.

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

This won’t happen for a while, but there will likely come a time when legacy insurers lean on relationships with regulators to slow down $LMND.

This will be especially interesting to watch unfold in states where regulatory capture is enabled by revolving door relationships.

[Hims House @himshouse]

🚨 BREAKING: SENATOR JIM BANKS WANTS THE FDA & FTC TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER $HIMS IS UNDERMINING TRUMPRX

Sen. Jim Banks: "Hims & Hers has heavily promoted compounded GLP-1 products, including a copycat oral 'Wegovy pill,' making claims such as 'the same active ingredient as Ozempic and Wegovy'."

Banks is pushing for the FDA to look into what he called "misleading advertising by Hims & Hers Health, Inc. and other online pharmacies and telehealth providers."

"During the 2025 and 2026 Super Bowls, Hims & Hers ran ads touting its compounded GLP-1s while denigrating FDA-approved, name-brand drugs."

"These ads made efficacy claims which may be exaggerated, such as highlighting 20% weight loss when average results are lower, and they may have omitted critical safety information."

According to the article (link below), Banks wrote a letter to acting FDA Commissioner Kyle Diamantas

SOURCE: Washington Reporter

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

@nikitabier @mert Can we iterate on communities instead of removing them altogether?

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

Be honest:

Did you buy $LMND options recently?

[郭宇 guoyu.eth @turingou]

在 vibe 了五个多月之后，我不觉得 SOTA 模型公司有能力吃下所有软件，我也不站在使用 FDE 改造现的企业来挣点快钱的那一侧，相反的，我是坚定的 AI Native company 的支持者，我认为所有企业都会被 AI Native 的组织所替代，而我坚信这一变化会持续数十年，这些未来的软件公司，会创造本世纪最伟大的投资机会。

[Ironic Ape @Ironic_Ape]

And the fly wheel just keeps accelerating! $LMND

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

@AndersReiche @SK_Invests007 S&P inclusion will be something

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

@calistoker123 @WilliamBirdeau There are 2 investor conferences coming up let’s see how they go.

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

One of the best write-ups on $LMND I've seen. s/o to @WilliamBirdeau

The 100x pay-off won't be easy, but the company has one of the best management teams in business executing against it.

[William Bird @WilliamBirdeau]

https://t.co/ZRKdVXKCQ4

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

I think this is a large part of the reason the non renewals have taken the time they have — in order to keep losses smooth / kill volatility (which they needed in order to continue reducing reinsurance + optimizing for regulatory capital) I believe they exited a lot of the business that had CAT exposure.

[F.A. United States Attorney Bill Essayli @USAttyEssayli]

Short selling is not a crime. Mr. Left was convicted of fraudulently manipulating the market, not for ordinary short selling. He used his reputation and public platform to artificially manipulate the market through misleading statements published in the public domain. Retail investors relied on and invested in positions based on Mr. Left’s representations, to their detriment.

Ordinary and lawful short selling involves truthful and good faith research on a stock, but this is not what Mr. Left did. He made misleading statements to move the stock so that he could quickly trade on it for his gain. In essence, he cheated.

There was overwhelming evidence that this was not ordinary trading, but a strategy designed to take quick profits through social media posts motivated by his desire to make a quick buck. That is fraud.

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

@ShadyJosh5 @DavidCarbutt_ @Rebellionaire Deal. 🍻

— break of $100 @ London
— break of $200 @ Vegas
— break of $500 @ Asia

I like our coverage so far!

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

Hey remember that time @Rebellionaire posted a video about their super secret $LMND bull case and published their price target of $133 while simultaneously using retail for exit liquidity and dumping most of their shares?

https://t.co/V8ktJf2654

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

@outlierrcapital @TheLongInvest

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

@ShadyJosh5 @DavidCarbutt_ @Rebellionaire Of course and I’m grateful we became friends. I love getting to meet people. I guess my point was that I’m not really the type of account that’s made for mass appeal.

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

@SebasT479py @Rebellionaire ?

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

@ShadyJosh5 @bryan_johnson https://t.co/f8wSKiN5Lk check out their shoulder series

[SightBringer @_The_Prophet__]

⚡️The political class is beginning to admit the white-collar repricing out loud.

That matters because for years the public story around AI was productivity, innovation, tools, copilots, efficiency, and “workers will be augmented.”

That language was designed to keep the social contract calm while the labor model started changing underneath it.

Now the language is moving.

When a senior political figure starts saying AI could replace millions of white-collar workers and destabilize societies, the issue has crossed from tech-sector narrative into regime-risk territory.

This is no longer being framed as a software upgrade.

It is being framed as a social stability problem.

That is the phase shift.

The most important part is the white-collar angle. Blue-collar automation was already absorbed into the public imagination. Factories, robots, manufacturing displacement, logistics automation. People had a story for that. But white-collar displacement hits the legitimacy core of the modern professional system.

College.

Credentials.

Email jobs.

Analysts.

Consultants.

Lawyers.

Coders.

Designers.

Middle managers.

Administrative staff.

Finance people.

Marketing teams.

Operations teams.

The entire professional ladder was built on the idea that cognitive labor was safer than physical labor. AI attacks that belief directly.

That is why the word “destabilize” matters. The danger is that millions of educated people discover that the credential bargain was weaker than advertised. They did what the system told them to do, bought the degree, built the resume, entered the corporate track, and then the machine reprices the track itself.

That creates a different kind of anger.

Blue-collar displacement produced populism.

White-collar displacement produces institutional betrayal.

The real downstream consequence is that society starts splitting into three groups:

People who own the AI systems, equity, data, distribution, infrastructure, energy, chips, platforms, and capital.

People who use AI to become much more productive and convert that productivity into ownership.

People whose work gets compressed, monitored, deskilled, or eliminated while being told to “reskill.”

The third group will be the largest.

That is the instability.

“Learn new skills” is true but incomplete. The deeper requirement is not just skills. It is leverage. Ownership. Distribution. Judgment. Taste. Relationship capital. Capital allocation. Ability to turn output into claims.

A worker who learns another tool but remains wage-dependent is still inside the same trap. A worker who uses AI to build assets, businesses, IP, audiences, systems, or ownership claims has a chance.

The political class is starting to realize this because the labor-market story is becoming too obvious to hide. AI does not have to replace everyone to break the bargain. It only has to reduce marginal demand for enough professional labor that wages, hiring power, promotion ladders, and job security start compressing.

That has already begun.

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

@rak0610 @ShadyJosh5 @Rebellionaire Matt’s great

[Neil 𝕏 @Neil_X10]

Fair question. Tough to know the exact line but my personal take is to approach positioning with a common sense view where if you’re saying one thing and doing another (pumping price but selling into it), that’s going to raise some eye brows if ever you were brought under investigation.

But I think authorities will look at things in totality. Patterns matter. And of course size is what I think really matters most.

Most retail aren’t playing with over $20m, or have meaningful position sizes to move stocks, whereas most funds almost always are.