Francis 🏝 ᛗ

Crypto since 6 January 2022 - I leverage collective intelligence, trade narratives & invest in fundamentals

[Rufybaba @Rufyb]

I am afraid, this does not fly, in my opinion.

If you deliberately establish a “first-name” culture, it should apply broadly, including to senior leadership, unless the policy explicitly carves out the board (by the way, imagine setting a culture and it is not starting from the top).

Yes, non-executive directors occupy a different governance position from employees and executive management, but their unique position within the company does not inherently exempt them from the first-name policy.

If a company says “we operate a first-name culture. Irrespective of seniority, employees address one another by their first names”, then having an unwritten exception “but obviously you don’t call a director or person xyz by their first name” undermines the philosophy behind the policy.

After all, the purpose of a first-name culture is usually to reduce unnecessary status signaling, make senior people more approachable and create a less hierarchical working environment.

If management wants the convention to be “first names for everybody below the board, formal titles for directors”, then say so.

It is highly problematic when the written or communicated policy says one thing while an invisible hierarchy says something else.

What is all these talk about “wisdom”, “culture”, etc.? If those things indeed were a big deal, why the performative stunt of “first-names policy”?

Or why is no one directing the “wisdom” yarn to TOE that the young lady is still very young, maybe inexperienced, and does not understand yet how things ideally work, and so you do not come off as conflicting what the laid-down principle is publicly?

If the irritation comes from “I am way older and way above you in status”, was that not considered before setting a policy? You all didn’t know that?

You import the form of an institution without accepting the behavioural implications that give the institution meaning. The company gets to present itself as having a flat, progressive culture without senior people actually surrendering any of the status markers associated with the old culture.

This is how we bastardise concepts and principles.

If the organisation is not comfortable with the consequences of that philosophy, there is much cleaner solution… “Simply don’t adopt the policy”.

Be hierarchical. Be formal. Require whatever title or whatever conventions you consider appropriate.

I wouldn’t call TOE by his first name too, but that’s me. But saying “we are on a first-name basis here” and then humiliating someone doing that is an inconsistency that is worse.

At the heart of it, this really speaks to a broader problem of weak institutional culture and “big-manism ” in the corporate world, where formal policies supposedly apply to everyone until they clash with status and hierarchy.

“Can you call Aliko or Femi Otedola by their first name?” Let them not implement first-name policy if it would be an issue or if the “cultural context” is that very strong (and that would be perfectly fine).

Institutions should be stronger than personalities. Let’s quit all that performative nonsense.

[Rufybaba @Rufyb]

I understand the perspective of both parties, the young lady and TOE.

But if the lady addressed TOE by his first name because that was “company policy”, then TOE should not have publicly corrected her like that.

Whether she should have exercised discretion is a separate matter.

It may seem subtle, but these are some of the little things you observe and begin to question the corporate governance and culture of a company.

[Rinu Oduala 🔥🔫 @SavvyRinu]

I have been privileged to work across over 20 countries including the United States and UK as a Gen Z. In many rooms I have been in, I was the youngest person.

So I can tell you, the greatest skill you need in your corner is not your certificate, but the ability to work across cultures and systems. 

The fact that the 76-year old CEO in my workplace 3 streets away from the White House asked me to call him by his first name Damon doesn’t mean I should come back to Nigeria and call Dr. Oby Ezekwesili by her first name.

It’s lack of social intelligence. When you are in Rome, you behave like a Roman. Adapt quickly or be left behind.

[JJ. Omojuwa @Omojuwa]

I can’t believe some people are criticising this. We need more real controversies for people to genuinely cry about.

He gave her options, call me TOE, Chairman or Mr Elumelu. And he also made it clear that whilst it may apply elsewhere, he doesn’t subscribe to it. At the end of the day, he has a right to decide how he wants to be called.

I got introduced to a big CEO recently, he was referred to by his initials. I still called him Mr. Surname. That’s safety first. If he wants me to call him by his initials or first name, he can always say that. People should learn these nuances. Even abroad, it’s not a given.

Always go with Mr. Surname. There’s zero risk.

[CZ 🔶 BNB @cz_binance]

Bitcoin surpassed 20.07 million coins mined as of August 2026, leaving only 4.4% more supply.

I'd estimate 10-20% of existing bitcoins are lost/stuck/unrecoverable. It's a deflationary asset.

[Watcher.Guru @WatcherGuru]

JUST IN: X to end current creator monetization program and replace it with new "Original Content Rewards Program."

All existing creators will have to re-apply starting September 8th.

[Chris Burniske @cburniske]

slowly, slowly, then all at once.

[Imran @lmrankhan]

Almost everything in crypto that failed the first time will eventually work sometime in the future.

Bitcoin looked like it had failed many times in the past. The same will happen with NFTs, creator tokens, DAOs, gaming, TCRs, onchain reputation, rebase tokens, decentralized storage etc

As time passes each of these ideas will make even more sense. I just think we’re still too early for many of them, and we don’t quite understand the need yet. But eventually it’ll make sense.

[AI Edge @aiedge_]

https://t.co/SSEwqX94Qb

[Cowrywise @cowrywise]

Rework the family support first. This is the most urgent step.

I'm not saying "don't help." But if ₦100,000 every month means you're borrowing before month-end, the arrangement isn't sustainable.

Have an honest conversation with your family about reducing the support to ₦50,000–₦60,000. If you have siblings, check whether they can contribute. Ask your father if some requests can wait. If all else fails, consider just sending a fixed ₦50,000 every month.

This creates breathing room without abandoning your responsibility. Sometimes people don't know you're struggling because, from their perspective, you've never said so.

Speaking up could free up ₦40,000–₦50,000 that you can redirect (we'll cover that below).

The goal: make sure helping your family doesn't sink you.

[Watcher.Guru @WatcherGuru]

JUST IN: 53% of all Bitcoin $BTC in circulation is now held at an unrealized loss.

[Rekt Capital @rektcapital]

#BTC

At this stage, if June Monthly Closes just like this at $62k then that would confirm the breakdown from the 50-Month EMA

So it July turns into a green month, then that could see price turn the 50 EMA into new resistance

Then August would cancel out July and send Bitcoin into downside continuation

$BTC #Bitcoin

[Bitcoin PulseX @BitcoinPulseX]

LARRY FINK: “IF BITCOIN REACHES $700,000, IT SHOULDN’T SHOCK ANYONE.” 🚀

KEEP STACKING SATS AND STAY PATIENT. 🫡

[Miles Deutscher @milesdeutscher]

My honest thoughts on the SpaceX IPO (& its impact on the market):

• It's low float (only ~4%). We've seen this play out in crypto, and sometimes that actually leads to big expansions due to the combo of tiny supply and the additional compounder of index funds forced to buy from day 2. The setup for a squeeze is there, which makes this a risky short.

• For me, it's too risky to trade on day 1. There's no clearly defined downside here - and I only take trades where the downside and upside are clearly defined. Interested in momentum trades once a setup presents.

• Valuation-wise, it definitely feels inflated (once again, low float muddies the picture). $1.77T on $18.7B of revenue - roughly 95x sales, and they lost $4.2B last year. For reference, Morningstar's fair value is $63 a share. It is listed at ~$135.

• This was engineered for insiders to exit. 20% of their stock unlocks two days after the company's first earnings report, with additional 7% tranches unlocking at 70, 90, 105, 120, and 135 days. At some point in this period I'd be expecting weakness, even if it's met with a strong start. Interestingly, the Anthropic/OpenAI IPOs may be around this time too. I think the setup for some kind of local top over this period is there (as opposed to day 1), but obviously, there are many other variables at play. It's a watch.

• The narrative (that I've seen floating around) that this sucks liquidity out of crypto is nonsense. No serious crypto holder or trader is selling their $BTC for $SPCX stock. It's a completely different buyer imo. Will it suck liquidity out of other stocks? Probably. We've seen this pattern in crypto dozens of times - a hot new listing drains liquidity from the alts. Something to be aware of if you're exposed to individual majors on Nasdaq.

• Equities are no different, just slower and on a wider scale. Expect relative weakness in other majors as money rotates toward the shiny new thing.
And some of that rotation is forced as MSCI adds SPCX to its indices from day two (index funds don't have spare cash sitting around). To buy it, they mechanically trim everything else they hold. So effectively, every pension fund tracking those indices becomes a forced seller of the rest of the market and a forced buyer of SpaceX, at whatever price it's trading. (Worth noting: S&P 500 inclusion requires profitability, so that bid comes later, which may mute this effect slightly more than the narrative is suggesting).

• Longer term, I still think it's one of the most asymmetric plays in the world. Rockets, Starlink, and xAI under one roof. I am interested in being a holder over a multi-decade period. But I'm almost certain there's a more significant downturn in the near future that will give me a better entry point. I don't need to rush long-term positioning on a short-term whim. Any trade I make will be treated on its own R/R and individual merit, not as part of a long-term accumulation strategy.

[Lucas (opn/srv) @lucashafner]

Just came back from Kenya after a week of conversations on AI, finance, and institutional adoption.

By the end of the trip, we had met with the largest investment bank in the country, half of their top 10 banks, fintechs, former ministers, and senior leaders with experience across global institutions.

A few takeaways stood out.

1. AI adoption is now a boardroom mandate.

100% of the institutions we spoke with had a direct mandate to explore AI implementation.

The reason is simple: the productivity gains are too large to ignore, and no major institution wants to be the one that lets competitors move first.

2. Deployment is still early.

Despite the intent, only around 50% of organisations we spoke with had any live AI deployment. Of those, more than 80% were still using basic general-purpose model implementations.

That creates a major gap between interest and real adoption. Institutions understand the potential, but most are still in the early stages of figuring out how to move from experimentation to workflows that can operate across the organisation.

3. Auditability and transparency are non-negotiable.

Over 90% of institutions we met had serious concerns around data security, and roughly 70% had already rejected third-party AI tools because of those concerns.

For financial institutions, “AI-powered” is not enough. They need to know where data goes, how outputs are generated, how decisions can be audited, and whether the system can be trusted in high-stakes environments.

4. Reliability and cost are the main blockers to scale.

Many institutions have already experimented with AI. The issue is that early pilots often failed to meet the standard required for broader deployment.

Unrestricted access, context bloat, inefficient prompting, and unpredictable outputs made teams cautious on both cost and reliability. In banking, a tool cannot simply work in a demo or perform well under controlled conditions.

It has to work consistently, transparently, and at a price that makes sense across the organisation.

5. The biggest barrier is not always technical. It is institutional risk.

The larger the institution, the less incentive there is for any individual to take unnecessary risk. Maintaining the status quo is safe. Championing a new system is not.

If it works, the institution benefits. If it fails, the person who pushed for it may carry the blame.

That means serious AI adoption requires more than product. It requires trust, relationships, internal alignment, and a clear path from pilot to deployment.

This is especially true in emerging markets, where enterprise sales cycles are long, distribution is relationship-driven, and adoption often depends on being in the right rooms with the right stakeholders.

The opportunity is clear: major institutions are actively looking at AI, but most still lack systems that meet the requirements for real deployment.

Secure.
Reliable.
Auditable.
Economically viable.

That is the bar.

That is what we are focused on with SERV Reasoning.

We will continue strengthening relationships across the region and using East Africa as a launch point into broader conversations across the continent.

We are also continuing our work in the UAE through Neol, with government-side interest in expanding initiatives further.

Next up: LATAM, South Asia, and other high-growth markets underserved by the major players in AI infrastructure.

SERV worldwide.

[Framework Ventures @hiFramework]

1/ Today in @FortuneMagazine:

Framework Ventures has led a $60 million raise for @MeckaAI, a robotics infra company building the data & deployment layer for physical AI.

Story by @bdanweiss. Full 🧵👇

[Ted Xiao @xiao_ted]

Mecka was extremely early in seeing with immense clarity and conviction the future of physical AI data. They took a big nonobvious bet on scaling egocentric data with one of the sharpest technical and operational teams I’ve seen in the space.

Congrats @MeckaAI!

[BetaKit @BetaKit]

Toronto and NYC-based @MeckaAI announces $60 million USD to power physical #AI. #CDNtech https://t.co/9RrFPMBzzV

[Stacy Muur @stacy_muur]

Celestia, a protocol that raised $156 million in funding, now has less than 1,000 daily active users.

Incredible.

[Jason Choi @mrjasonchoi]

If you’re sidelined it’s a bubble; if you’re invested it’s a bull market”