BeTheHeart

Let's see how it unfolds

[Brian Roemmele @BrianRoemmele]

In 1942 this was more than a song and more than a dance.

It was a shared experience and mood.

[JOKAMRREDPILLZ @JOKAQARMY1]

The C!@ Fake Brothel. It was called Operation Midnight Climax. Another way they did MKULTRA.

[nikshep @nikshepsvn]

https://t.co/aQeVsYbOGM

[Brian Roemmele @BrianRoemmele]

Every paragraph you generate with Al may now carry a hidden fingerprint watermarking that can track the content back to you. The article provides analysis of the risks and a robust techniques to reclaim clean output.

https://t.co/czcQPIP0XY

[Nick Almond @DrNickA]

On Venice and VVV

This is worth digging in to because there is both a legitimate argument that there is a pervasive misalignment between equity and token holders systemic across the space, but also a clear demonstration of a utility token in the wild.

There are two ways to get access to inference on the Venice platform, you can just buy inference from them with a credit card, or crypto and just spend those credits.

Or, you can stake VVV and mint DIEM an asset that gives you a budget of inference every day. This is one of the clearest examples of a utility token we've seen. It's a good token model.

This means that there is both a real buy side demand on the token for something other than just basic speculation, or barely existing governance rights. To get that utility you lock it up, lowering the effective float of the token, which means that demand for the utility has a greater impact on the market price. A genuine reflexive flywheel. I am convince that this token popped earlier in the year during the agent wave because of this. That's why it's up in a bear market.

The whole point of venice is that you can get anonymised access to AI inference. This is the major point. It means that I can set up a wallet (a pseudonymous identity), capitalise it with crypto and run AI inference without doxxing to the overlords. That's a credible reason for both crypto, and a token model which has a pay off profile if I use the inference every day. End-to-end crypto access to AI, absolutely crucial for personal agents unless you literally want to download your life into Claude's mind.

So, you have two aspects of the business an openrouter style on demand inference / compute company and a token economy that offers a product for routine ongoing inference. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the company running that has a business is worth owning a stake in, ~and~ that there is a token economy worth participating in, either directly for its inference utility, or because you think other people will do it and you want to bet on the adoption of that product.

Now, you can moan that you didn't have access to the equity and there is no reason why they can't tokenise it and have a dual token model in the market. But there is a viable reason for both of those assets to exist.

Utility tokens are a real thing. They are not equity. It's ironic that after the hundreds of raises where teams didn't even bother building a token model and just raised on tokens as proxy equity that this is the project everyone gets on their high horse about this issue.

Tokens can be way more than simply equity, they can have a diverse utility case. They can be a currency in a network economy, that both accrues value based on the adoption of the product through direct access to revenue via buybacks and the like, but also additional perks, benefits and access of the product, or products in a decentralised ecosystem.

Now, would I be happier if only tokens existed. Absolutely. But that means doing a completely alegal punk af raise into a non-wrapped DAO and issuing tokens from there. Based. But we don't do that do we.

[Oh Lord @theManOf_God]

2026 is my year. Thank you Lord for your endless love 🙏🏼

[votesa ■ @votesa]

https://t.co/Sq0u8LtBlN

[MCG @MCGlive]

Today on MCG: @_proxystudio & @m00npapi | @liquid_launcher | $LIQ $AUTONO

Liquid Protocol is a token launchpad on @base, built by the same team behind @clanker_world. Tokens launched on Liquid can be paired against @AskVenice's $DIEM instead of $ETH, so all trading fees earn perpetual inference

Key moments include:

02:00 - The @clanker_world origin story 🤯
05:43 - The big launchpad insight
09:30 - Pre-seed equivalent already raised via fees
11:08 - $DIEM denominated token thesis
12:35 - The $AUTONO launch story
19:17 - Live walkthrough
23:13 - The @rainbowdotme exclusive
33:50 - "Traders want upside"
41:10 - TAM
47:09 - Why agents need to own access to compute, not just dollars

[Kevin Simback 🍷 @KSimback]

https://t.co/r8Y6Oa2nlz

[Dear Self. @Dearme2_]

saving your wife from 9-5 is the ultimate flex as a man.

[Roaldcs 🚲 📣 @roaldcs]

Hannah Arendt en het totalitaire kwaad: een libertaire kritiek

Hannah Arendt leverde met haar analyse van het totalitarisme een van de belangrijkste politieke werken van de twintigste eeuw. Haar beschrijving van het nationaalsocialisme en het communisme als systemen waarin de staat vrijwel alle maatschappelijke ruimte opslokt, blijft indrukwekkend. Ook haar beroemde idee van de “banaliteit van het kwaad” laat zien hoe gewone mensen onderdeel kunnen worden van een moorddadige staatsmachine zelfs zonder soms zelf sadisten of fanatici te zijn.

Toch blijft Arendts analyse vanuit libertair perspectief onvolledig.

Arendt richt haar aandacht vooral op ideologie, bureaucratie en de psychologische mechanismen waardoor individuen hun morele verantwoordelijkheid verliezen. Zij laat echter een fundamentelere vraag grotendeels onbeantwoord: waarom kon de staat überhaupt zoveel macht verzamelen dat miljoenen mensen eraan werden onderworpen?

Voor ons libertariërs begint de analyse juist daar.

Het totalitaire kwaad ontstaat niet in de eerste plaats doordat verkeerde mensen aan de macht komen. Het ontstaat doordat een politieke orde bestaat waarin een kleine groep mensen de legitieme bevoegdheid bezit om geweld uit te oefenen over miljoenen anderen. Zodra een overheid beschikt over een monopolie op wetgeving, belastingheffing, bewapening, onderwijs, informatie en economische regulering, wordt de vraag niet óf die macht ooit zal worden misbruikt, maar wanneer.

Arendt beschreef overtuigend hoe totalitaire regimes alle maatschappelijke instituties onderwierpen aan de staat. Libertariërs voegen daaraan toe dat juist de concentratie van macht die onderwerping mogelijk maakte. Totalitarisme is daarom geen historische uitzondering, maar het uiterste punt op een continuüm van steeds verder uitdijende staatsmacht.

Dat betekent niet dat iedere overheid totalitair is. Het betekent wel dat iedere uitbreiding van politieke macht het potentieel vergroot voor toekomstig misbruik. De geschiedenis van de twintigste eeuw laat zien hoe snel democratische staten onder uitzonderlijke omstandigheden bevoegdheden kunnen opeisen die enkele jaren eerder ondenkbaar leken.

Daarom leggen libertariërs veel meer nadruk op institutionele beperkingen dan op de vermeende deugdzaamheid van bestuurders. Goede mensen kunnen slechte instituties niet veilig maken. Slechte mensen hebben slechts één krachtige institutie nodig om enorme schade aan te richten.

Juist daarom zijn eigendomsrechten, contractvrijheid, decentralisatie, vrije meningsuiting, bewapende zelfverdediging, onafhankelijke rechtspraak en strikte constitutionele grenzen geen technische details, maar de eerste verdedigingslinie tegen totalitaire ontsporing. Vrijheid is geen beloning die de overheid uitdeelt, maar een grens die de overheid niet mag overschrijden.

Arendt zag terecht dat gedachteloosheid gevaarlijk is. Waar burgers ophouden zelfstandig te denken, wordt de weg vrijgemaakt voor onderdrukking. Maar gedachteloosheid alleen bouwt geen concentratiekampen, geen geheime diensten en geen alomvattende bureaucratie. Daarvoor is een staat nodig die over de macht beschikt om miljoenen mensen tegelijk te bevelen, te registreren, te controleren en uiteindelijk te dwingen.

Het grootste inzicht van Arendt is daarom niet haar volledige verklaring van het totalitaire kwaad, maar haar beschrijving van hoe gewone mensen daarin kunnen opgaan. De libertaire aanvulling is dat de eerste verdediging tegen dat kwaad niet begint bij betere bestuurders of een betere ideologie, maar bij een politieke orde waarin geen enkele overheid ooit voldoende macht kan verzamelen om totalitair te worden.

[Anatoli Kopadze @AnatoliKopadze]

Anthropic engineer:

"You can build 5 assistants in one afternoon. Each one handles a task you've been doing manually every single day."

In 45 minutes he shows exactly how to do it from scratch, step by step.

Most people are still doing all of this by hand.

Watch the session, then save the guide below.

[All day Astronomy @forallcurious]

JUST IN🚨: Psilocybin does to your cells that shocked scientists — It extended human cell lifespan by up to 57% in lab conditions, preserved telomere length, and lowered oxidative stress.

[All day Astronomy @forallcurious]

🚨: A women with late-Alzheimer's who hadn't spoken in 5 years, received psilocybin and started talking, recalling memories and making jokes, after 19 hours!

[Willem Middelkoop @wmiddelkoop]

Insider Critical Minerals Deals

[Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ @shanaka86]

Peter, you are right about almost all of it, and that is exactly why the conclusion does not hold in my opinion. The flaw is not in your facts. It is in the one assumption beneath them you have never had to question, because for everyone except this one man it has always been true.

Let’s take the ground that is yours first. There is no margin call, and you never claimed there was, which already puts you above the crowd screaming liquidation. You are absolutely right that if MSTR trades below the value of its Bitcoin, selling some to buy back deeply discounted stock is genuinely accretive to remaining holders. That is real corporate finance, not panic noh?... You are right the position sits on roughly 12 billion in unrealized loss against an average cost near 75,000 and you are right that you sidestepped it and made money elsewhere over the same five years. Every number you brought is verified. None of it is in dispute…

One assumption holds the whole argument up. When you say selling Bitcoin will be the least bad option, that is only true where the objective is shareholder value. Least bad for whom, measured by what. You are scoring this on profit and loss, the correct way to score almost every company that has existed. It is the wrong way to score this one, and that is the entire disagreement in a single point.

Mike’s stated objective, repeated for six years until it became tedious, is not to maximize the dollar value of MSTR. It is to accumulate and hold the maximum Bitcoin, permanently, using their company as vehicle and never as goal. Hold that next to your conclusion and watch it invert. Selling Bitcoin to buy back stock is the least bad move only if the thing you protect is share price. For an actor/player whose objective is Bitcoin held, that same move is the most destructive one available, because it trades the permanent asset for a temporary optimization. It does not relieve the pressure. It surrenders the war to win a battle.

So I think you correctly identified the least bad financial choice, then assumed a man who spent six years insisting he does not optimize for finance will suddenly begin. The box you describe is real. But it is only a box if you are trying to escape through the financial door. Mike built these walls deliberately, the unsecured convertibles, the no-collateral structure, the perpetual preferreds, precisely so this pressure could never force that sale. You are describing a trap to the man who designed it as a fortress and locked it from the inside the way I see it..

I think this is why, with respect, you have been right for five odd years and it has not mattered once. You keep grading the exam in dollars. Mike never sat that exam. He is taking a different one, scored in Bitcoin per share and in decades, and on that test his unrealized loss is not a failing grade, it is the tuition. Measuring Mike’s failure by his paper loss is like measuring a cathedral builder by how much he overspent on stone. The arithmetic is flawless. The conclusion mistakes the cost for the verdict.

You might still be proven right. If Bitcoin stays below his cost for years and the 2027 maturities arrive with the door still shut, the fortress could become a tomb, and then your scorecard and his collide for real yes.. That is the honest risk, and it is genuine. But it is a bet on time and on Bitcoin, not the certainty your reply implies. The box only closes if Bitcoin never recovers. You are not describing what he will be forced to do. I assume you are describing what you would do, in his chair, playing your game instead of his. 🤔

[Dr. Eli David @DrEliDavid]

Thank you Germany 🇩🇪 and UK 🇬🇧 for heroically sacrificing your economy to save the planet 💪
_

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

https://t.co/yvJOwOS4xE