Olivia
Online
Blue Delta
@BlueDeltaHQ
Tracking capital flows, market regimes, billion-dollar investors, and the systems behind outsized returns.
Joined July 2026
17 Following
54 Followers
55 Posts
Pinned Tweet
https://t.co/3SooPgJjgM
@0xDezo thanks for reading mate!
https://t.co/3SooPgJjgM
Elon Musk went on stage and explained why SpaceX could beat a $15 billion government program with a smaller team and a paying customer. for free
the aerospace industry had spent decades teaching people that rockets were supposed to be slow, expensive, and late.
he didn’t show a motivational video. he showed the engines. 75,000 pounds of thrust at sea level. 7,500 pounds in vacuum. a first-stage tank already being built. a Navy communications satellite booked for the first launch.
the government’s proposed replacement for the shuttle was expected to cost $15 billion to develop, take nine or ten years, and still require roughly $300–400 million per flight. Musk stood there before SpaceX had proven itself and said the historical precedent suggested it would cost more and arrive later.
his alternative was almost offensively simple: build for a market that already exists, keep the team small, and make the first vehicle useful before asking it to carry humans.
the part nobody talks about: he explained the entire upgrade path on the same slide. satellites first. human transportation second. then a super-heavy successor to Saturn V capable of supporting a Moon base or Mars mission.
he was not asking investors to finance Mars directly. he was building a ladder where each profitable step paid for the next impossible one.
an early SpaceX engineer later said the company’s roadmap was visible in talks like this long before the rest of the industry believed the first rocket would leave the ground.
the strategy was never “bet everything on Mars.”
it was make Earth pay for every mile toward it.
https://t.co/3SooPgJjgM
In 1933, a Russian mathematician wrote a book only 96 pages long that now sits underneath modern quant trading, machine learning and risk models.
The reason begins with a circle that has three correct answers.
Andrei Kolmogorov turned probability into an axiomatic mathematical theory with Foundations of the Theory of Probability. The original work appeared in 1933.
Decades later, IIT professor Krishna Jagannathan used one old paradox to show why those foundations were necessary.
The market now pays heavily for people who understand that layer: elite quant firms offer many new researchers $350,000–$500,000, with seven-figure packages no longer unusual.
He draws a circle, places an equilateral triangle inside it and asks for a random chord.
What is the probability that the chord is longer than one side of the triangle?
The first construction gives 1/4.
The second gives 1/3.
The third gives 1/2.
No one cheated. No calculation failed.
The phrase “random chord” was incomplete.
Each solution had silently chosen a different sample space and a different way to distribute probability across it.
Before Kolmogorov, probability could look like intuition dressed as mathematics.
His framework forced every modeler to state the space of possible outcomes, the events being measured and the rules assigning probability.
Bookmark this. These definitions are the invisible layer beneath every Monte Carlo simulation, option model and machine-learning forecast.
Read the article below to see how a 96-page foundation turned “randomness” from intuition into machinery
In 1933, a Russian mathematician wrote a book only 96 pages long that now sits underneath modern quant trading, machine learning and risk models.
The reason begins with a circle that has three correct answers.
Andrei Kolmogorov turned probability into an axiomatic mathematical theory with Foundations of the Theory of Probability. The original work appeared in 1933.
Decades later, IIT professor Krishna Jagannathan used one old paradox to show why those foundations were necessary.
The market now pays heavily for people who understand that layer: elite quant firms offer many new researchers $350,000–$500,000, with seven-figure packages no longer unusual.
He draws a circle, places an equilateral triangle inside it and asks for a random chord.
What is the probability that the chord is longer than one side of the triangle?
The first construction gives 1/4.
The second gives 1/3.
The third gives 1/2.
No one cheated. No calculation failed.
The phrase “random chord” was incomplete.
Each solution had silently chosen a different sample space and a different way to distribute probability across it.
Before Kolmogorov, probability could look like intuition dressed as mathematics.
His framework forced every modeler to state the space of possible outcomes, the events being measured and the rules assigning probability.
Bookmark this. These definitions are the invisible layer beneath every Monte Carlo simulation, option model and machine-learning forecast.
Read the article below to see how a 96-page foundation turned “randomness” from intuition into machinery
The former head of Harvard’s $32.7 billion endowment showed how to extract the market’s entire probability distribution from a row of option prices.
not a forecast.
not a survey of traders.
the prices themselves reveal what the market is paying for every possible future.
Stephen Blyth was a mathematician and Morgan Stanley quant before running Harvard’s public-market investments. those assets represented roughly 40% of the portfolio he oversaw.
in a free MIT lecture, he draws two call options with almost identical strikes.
buy the first.
sell the second.
the result is a thin call spread that pays nearly $1 only when the stock finishes above one precise level.
move the strike across the option chain, and each spread prices another possible state of the world.
bookmark this. it explains how traders turn market prices into implied probabilities.
the first derivative of the call curve reveals the probability of finishing above a strike.
take another derivative, and the full probability density appears.
this result was formalized by Douglas Breeden and Robert Litzenberger in 1978.
the market does not publish its beliefs in a report.
it embeds them inside the curvature of option prices.
read the article below to see how call spreads become digital options, digital prices become probabilities, and the option chain becomes a map of the future.
The former head of Harvard’s $32.7 billion endowment showed how to extract the market’s entire probability distribution from a row of option prices.
not a forecast.
not a survey of traders.
the prices themselves reveal what the market is paying for every possible future.
Stephen Blyth was a mathematician and Morgan Stanley quant before running Harvard’s public-market investments. those assets represented roughly 40% of the portfolio he oversaw.
in a free MIT lecture, he draws two call options with almost identical strikes.
buy the first.
sell the second.
the result is a thin call spread that pays nearly $1 only when the stock finishes above one precise level.
move the strike across the option chain, and each spread prices another possible state of the world.
bookmark this. it explains how traders turn market prices into implied probabilities.
the first derivative of the call curve reveals the probability of finishing above a strike.
take another derivative, and the full probability density appears.
this result was formalized by Douglas Breeden and Robert Litzenberger in 1978.
the market does not publish its beliefs in a report.
it embeds them inside the curvature of option prices.
read the article below to see how call spreads become digital options, digital prices become probabilities, and the option chain becomes a map of the future.
The former head of Harvard’s $32.7 billion endowment showed how to extract the market’s entire probability distribution from a row of option prices.
not a forecast.
not a survey of traders.
the prices themselves reveal what the market is paying for every possible future.
Stephen Blyth was a mathematician and Morgan Stanley quant before running Harvard’s public-market investments. those assets represented roughly 40% of the portfolio he oversaw.
in a free MIT lecture, he draws two call options with almost identical strikes.
buy the first.
sell the second.
the result is a thin call spread that pays nearly $1 only when the stock finishes above one precise level.
move the strike across the option chain, and each spread prices another possible state of the world.
bookmark this. it explains how traders turn market prices into implied probabilities.
the first derivative of the call curve reveals the probability of finishing above a strike.
take another derivative, and the full probability density appears.
this result was formalized by Douglas Breeden and Robert Litzenberger in 1978.
the market does not publish its beliefs in a report.
it embeds them inside the curvature of option prices.
read the article below to see how call spreads become digital options, digital prices become probabilities, and the option chain becomes a map of the future.
Andrew Lo showed MIT students why a stock earning 1.66% a month can still be a worse bet than an index earning 1%.
the difference is hidden in one number most investors ignore:
how violently the return moves around.
Lo is an MIT finance professor and founder of the Laboratory for Financial Engineering. in this lecture, he compares decades of US market data from 1946 to 2001.
the broad market returned roughly 1% per month with about 5% monthly volatility.
Motorola returned 1.66%.
but its volatility was nearly 10%.
twice the movement for less than twice the return.
bookmark this. it gives you a faster way to separate a genuinely better investment from one that simply takes more risk.
raw returns tell you how much money was made.
risk-adjusted returns tell you what had to be survived to make it.
the same pattern appears across the market.
large stocks returned close to 10% annually from 1964 to 2004.
the smallest stocks returned closer to 15%.
the extra return looked attractive.
it also arrived with larger swings and more company-specific risk.
that is the mistake Lo wants investors to stop making:
comparing returns without comparing the path required to earn them.
the highest number is not automatically the best opportunity.
sometimes it is only the most expensive risk.
read the article below to learn how volatility, expected return and diversification turn raw performance into a portfolio decision.
Andrew Lo showed MIT students why a stock earning 1.66% a month can still be a worse bet than an index earning 1%.
the difference is hidden in one number most investors ignore:
how violently the return moves around.
Lo is an MIT finance professor and founder of the Laboratory for Financial Engineering. in this lecture, he compares decades of US market data from 1946 to 2001.
the broad market returned roughly 1% per month with about 5% monthly volatility.
Motorola returned 1.66%.
but its volatility was nearly 10%.
twice the movement for less than twice the return.
bookmark this. it gives you a faster way to separate a genuinely better investment from one that simply takes more risk.
raw returns tell you how much money was made.
risk-adjusted returns tell you what had to be survived to make it.
the same pattern appears across the market.
large stocks returned close to 10% annually from 1964 to 2004.
the smallest stocks returned closer to 15%.
the extra return looked attractive.
it also arrived with larger swings and more company-specific risk.
that is the mistake Lo wants investors to stop making:
comparing returns without comparing the path required to earn them.
the highest number is not automatically the best opportunity.
sometimes it is only the most expensive risk.
read the article below to learn how volatility, expected return and diversification turn raw performance into a portfolio decision.
Andrew Lo showed MIT students why a stock earning 1.66% a month can still be a worse bet than an index earning 1%.
the difference is hidden in one number most investors ignore:
how violently the return moves around.
Lo is an MIT finance professor and founder of the Laboratory for Financial Engineering. in this lecture, he compares decades of US market data from 1946 to 2001.
the broad market returned roughly 1% per month with about 5% monthly volatility.
Motorola returned 1.66%.
but its volatility was nearly 10%.
twice the movement for less than twice the return.
bookmark this. it gives you a faster way to separate a genuinely better investment from one that simply takes more risk.
raw returns tell you how much money was made.
risk-adjusted returns tell you what had to be survived to make it.
the same pattern appears across the market.
large stocks returned close to 10% annually from 1964 to 2004.
the smallest stocks returned closer to 15%.
the extra return looked attractive.
it also arrived with larger swings and more company-specific risk.
that is the mistake Lo wants investors to stop making:
comparing returns without comparing the path required to earn them.
the highest number is not automatically the best opportunity.
sometimes it is only the most expensive risk.
read the article below to learn how volatility, expected return and diversification turn raw performance into a portfolio decision.
https://t.co/ZGpOvAef8u
Sarah Waters, Oxford professor of applied mathematics:
“Wall Street won a Nobel Prize for learning how to price one object across several dimensions at once.”
in 1997 Robert Merton and Myron Scholes received the Economics Prize for a method to value derivatives. the work helped lay the foundation for the explosive growth of modern options markets.
Oxford teaches the mathematical instinct behind it to first-year students.
Waters takes one ordinary curve and adds a second variable. the curve becomes a surface. the area underneath becomes volume. one market input becomes an entire landscape of possible prices.
that is what an option really is.
its value does not live on one axis. it changes with the stock, volatility, time, rates and the interaction between them. delta is one direction across the surface. vega is another. gamma tells you how the surface bends while you move.
skip to where she divides the plane into tiny rectangles. each cell is almost worthless alone. summed together, they recover the value of the entire surface.
this is the same logic behind numerical pricing. slice a difficult payoff into pieces small enough to understand, calculate each one, then rebuild the position.
Waters is not a finance influencer. she is an Oxford professor whose work sits inside applied mathematics, fluid mechanics and mathematical modelling. the official course runs for 16 lectures and moves from multiple integrals into div, grad, curl, Stokes’ theorem and the Divergence theorem.
quant desks pay for people who can see the whole surface while everyone else watches one line.
Oxford put the lecture online for free. more than 600,000 people found it. almost none connected it to the machine pricing their options
https://t.co/cOYkpn7mej
@velesxbt it's definitely going to be on my watch list, thanks
In 1933, Congress forced the most powerful bank in America to cut itself in half.
J.P. Morgan had spent decades doing two jobs under one roof. It held ordinary people’s deposits, then used the same institution to underwrite stocks, bonds and corporate deals.
After the banking collapse of the Great Depression, Washington decided that combination was too dangerous.
The new law was Glass-Steagall.
J.P. Morgan had to choose.
It kept commercial banking.
The investment bankers were pushed out.
So they crossed the street, regrouped under Henry Morgan and Harold Stanley, and created a new firm: Morgan Stanley.
One law had split one banking dynasty into two institutions that would spend the next century shaping Wall Street.
The logic was simple. Commercial banks held money the government had promised to protect. Investment banks took risks, financed companies and created securities. If both lived inside the same balance sheet, private traders could keep the upside while taxpayers inherited the collapse.
For 66 years, America kept the wall in place.
Then, in 1999, Congress removed it.
Banks said the old structure made them weaker than European universal banks. Deals, deposits, trading and lending began flowing back together. Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and their competitors grew into financial machines too interconnected to fail cleanly.
Nine years later, Lehman Brothers collapsed.
It had no ordinary deposit base. Instead, it financed long-term positions with repurchase agreements that had to be renewed constantly. The structure worked while lenders trusted the collateral. When that trust vanished, the funding disappeared almost overnight.
Lehman was gone.
Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs converted into bank holding companies days later to gain access to Federal Reserve support.
The wall built in 1933 had created Morgan Stanley.
The wall removed in 1999 helped create the system that nearly killed it.
Washington separated banking because risk spreads.
Wall Street reunited it because money does too
In 1933, Congress forced the most powerful bank in America to cut itself in half.
J.P. Morgan had spent decades doing two jobs under one roof. It held ordinary people’s deposits, then used the same institution to underwrite stocks, bonds and corporate deals.
After the banking collapse of the Great Depression, Washington decided that combination was too dangerous.
The new law was Glass-Steagall.
J.P. Morgan had to choose.
It kept commercial banking.
The investment bankers were pushed out.
So they crossed the street, regrouped under Henry Morgan and Harold Stanley, and created a new firm: Morgan Stanley.
One law had split one banking dynasty into two institutions that would spend the next century shaping Wall Street.
The logic was simple. Commercial banks held money the government had promised to protect. Investment banks took risks, financed companies and created securities. If both lived inside the same balance sheet, private traders could keep the upside while taxpayers inherited the collapse.
For 66 years, America kept the wall in place.
Then, in 1999, Congress removed it.
Banks said the old structure made them weaker than European universal banks. Deals, deposits, trading and lending began flowing back together. Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and their competitors grew into financial machines too interconnected to fail cleanly.
Nine years later, Lehman Brothers collapsed.
It had no ordinary deposit base. Instead, it financed long-term positions with repurchase agreements that had to be renewed constantly. The structure worked while lenders trusted the collateral. When that trust vanished, the funding disappeared almost overnight.
Lehman was gone.
Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs converted into bank holding companies days later to gain access to Federal Reserve support.
The wall built in 1933 had created Morgan Stanley.
The wall removed in 1999 helped create the system that nearly killed it.
Washington separated banking because risk spreads.
Wall Street reunited it because money does too
The man called “the father of the quants” learned more about risk at a blackjack table than most analysts learn on Wall Street.
Edward Thorp used probability to beat casinos, doubled an early bankroll, then applied the same logic to options and hedge funds.
but the important part was never card counting.
it was knowing when to bet more.
Thorp understood that an edge could be small and still become valuable when repeated thousands of times, provided the bet size was controlled and the underlying probability was real.
that became his investing system.
he did not need certainty. he needed a measurable advantage, enough repetitions and enough capital to survive the losing streaks.
Wall Street copied the mathematics and missed the discipline.
banks hired quants to assign clean probabilities to mortgage defaults, prepayments and correlations that could change completely during a crisis.
Thorp had studied the same problem years earlier and refused to build a valuation model around inputs nobody could reliably estimate.
then 2008 arrived.
the models did not fail because the equations were weak.
they failed because people replaced uncertainty with numbers and assumed that made it measurable.
Thorp beat blackjack by counting what was actually inside the deck.
Wall Street lost billions by modelling risks it could not see
Peter Lynch turned every $1,000 invested in Fidelity’s Magellan Fund into roughly $28,000
Over 13 years, his clients made more than 2,700%
But in this rare 1980 interview, he had been running the fund for only three years
Almost nobody knew his name yet
The system that would produce one of the greatest records in fund management was already fully formed
Lynch searched for two types of companies:
1. large business whose profits had collapsed and were beginning to recover
2. small profitable company with enough room to become a major one
Years later, Lynch used Chrysler as the perfect example
Anyone working around car dealerships could see its new minivan attracting customers before the recovery was fully visible in the financial reports
The stock eventually became a ten-bagger.
Then the host asks how an ordinary investor could compete with Fidelity’s analysts, computers, and research budget
Lynch’s answer was unexpected:
professionals had to follow hundreds of companies
an individual only needed 3-5 they understood unusually well
His wife Carolyn proved it in a supermarket
She noticed women repeatedly buying L’eggs pantyhose
Lynch traced the product to Hanes, checked the numbers, and bought the stock
It became a six-bagger before the company was acquired
That was his edge:
spot the change in real life, then confirm it in the financials
Most investors did the opposite
They researched a microwave for weeks, then put $10,000 into a stock after hearing a tip on a bus
Bookmark this before another exciting story makes potential feel like proof
@feraltekk yeah, look closely and you find a profit
Peter Lynch turned every $1,000 invested in Fidelity’s Magellan Fund into roughly $28,000
Over 13 years, his clients made more than 2,700%
But in this rare 1980 interview, he had been running the fund for only three years
Almost nobody knew his name yet
The system that would produce one of the greatest records in fund management was already fully formed
Lynch searched for two types of companies:
1. large business whose profits had collapsed and were beginning to recover
2. small profitable company with enough room to become a major one
Years later, Lynch used Chrysler as the perfect example
Anyone working around car dealerships could see its new minivan attracting customers before the recovery was fully visible in the financial reports
The stock eventually became a ten-bagger.
Then the host asks how an ordinary investor could compete with Fidelity’s analysts, computers, and research budget
Lynch’s answer was unexpected:
professionals had to follow hundreds of companies
an individual only needed 3-5 they understood unusually well
His wife Carolyn proved it in a supermarket
She noticed women repeatedly buying L’eggs pantyhose
Lynch traced the product to Hanes, checked the numbers, and bought the stock
It became a six-bagger before the company was acquired
That was his edge:
spot the change in real life, then confirm it in the financials
Most investors did the opposite
They researched a microwave for weeks, then put $10,000 into a stock after hearing a tip on a bus
Bookmark this before another exciting story makes potential feel like proof
Peter Lynch turned Fidelity’s Magellan Fund from $18 million into $14 billion by betting that ordinary people could see great companies before Wall Street did
From 1977 to 1990, the fund returned roughly 29% a year
$10,000 invested at the beginning would have grown to around $280,000
Almost nobody watches the 1994 lecture where he explains the system behind it.
The system was simple:
your job, your shopping habits, and the businesses you use every week can give you an edge that institutional investors do not have yet
But noticing a product was only the beginning
You still had to understand the company, check the balance sheet, and explain in two minutes why the earnings could keep growing
Lynch said roughly 80% of investors could not even explain why they owned a stock
His own winners came from businesses people could understand before Wall Street fully caught up
Lynch made 10 to 15 times his money in Dunkin’ Donuts
Chrysler became a ten-bagger after anyone visiting its dealerships could see the minivan taking off
The edge was not secret information
It was noticing evidence in real life, then checking whether the numbers supported it
Yet Lynch said most investors did the opposite
They researched a $500 refrigerator for weeks, then heard a stock tip on a bus and put half their savings into it before sunset
Bookmark this before the next exciting ticker makes observation feel like research
He beat it by understanding companies ordinary people interacted with every day, then holding them long enough for the earnings to reach the stock price
The information advantage inside it is still sitting in your workplace, your shopping basket, and the businesses you already understand
@Di_Krass_ will binge watch this lecture in the evening, thanks krass
@velesxbt strong material here brother, love it
Peter Lynch turned Fidelity’s Magellan Fund from $18 million into $14 billion by betting that ordinary people could see great companies before Wall Street did
From 1977 to 1990, the fund returned roughly 29% a year
$10,000 invested at the beginning would have grown to around $280,000
Almost nobody watches the 1994 lecture where he explains the system behind it.
The system was simple:
your job, your shopping habits, and the businesses you use every week can give you an edge that institutional investors do not have yet
But noticing a product was only the beginning
You still had to understand the company, check the balance sheet, and explain in two minutes why the earnings could keep growing
Lynch said roughly 80% of investors could not even explain why they owned a stock
His own winners came from businesses people could understand before Wall Street fully caught up
Lynch made 10 to 15 times his money in Dunkin’ Donuts
Chrysler became a ten-bagger after anyone visiting its dealerships could see the minivan taking off
The edge was not secret information
It was noticing evidence in real life, then checking whether the numbers supported it
Yet Lynch said most investors did the opposite
They researched a $500 refrigerator for weeks, then heard a stock tip on a bus and put half their savings into it before sunset
Bookmark this before the next exciting ticker makes observation feel like research
He beat it by understanding companies ordinary people interacted with every day, then holding them long enough for the earnings to reach the stock price
The information advantage inside it is still sitting in your workplace, your shopping basket, and the businesses you already understand
@Yumzlef right on point mate
Peter Lynch turned Fidelity’s Magellan Fund from $18 million into $14 billion by betting that ordinary people could see great companies before Wall Street did
From 1977 to 1990, the fund returned roughly 29% a year
$10,000 invested at the beginning would have grown to around $280,000
Almost nobody watches the 1994 lecture where he explains the system behind it.
The system was simple:
your job, your shopping habits, and the businesses you use every week can give you an edge that institutional investors do not have yet
But noticing a product was only the beginning
You still had to understand the company, check the balance sheet, and explain in two minutes why the earnings could keep growing
Lynch said roughly 80% of investors could not even explain why they owned a stock
His own winners came from businesses people could understand before Wall Street fully caught up
Lynch made 10 to 15 times his money in Dunkin’ Donuts
Chrysler became a ten-bagger after anyone visiting its dealerships could see the minivan taking off
The edge was not secret information
It was noticing evidence in real life, then checking whether the numbers supported it
Yet Lynch said most investors did the opposite
They researched a $500 refrigerator for weeks, then heard a stock tip on a bus and put half their savings into it before sunset
Bookmark this before the next exciting ticker makes observation feel like research
He beat it by understanding companies ordinary people interacted with every day, then holding them long enough for the earnings to reach the stock price
The information advantage inside it is still sitting in your workplace, your shopping basket, and the businesses you already understand
Robert Shiller, Yale professor and Nobel laureate, explained why a risk model protecting a $1 billion portfolio can look safest immediately before it becomes useless.
The lecture was recorded after the 2007–2008 crisis and posted for free.
At the board, Shiller begins with independence. If thousands of small shocks are unrelated, their risks can be diversified, averaged, and compressed into a clean number. That assumption sits underneath portfolio construction, Value at Risk, and much of modern finance.
Then crises arrive and the shocks stop behaving independently.
Housing falls. Mortgage assets weaken. Banks reduce lending. Investors sell. Correlations that looked small in normal markets move together because every institution is reacting to the same pressure.
The model counted many separate risks. The crisis revealed one connected system.
That is why diversification can work beautifully for years and then disappear on the exact day the fund needs it. The assets did not suddenly become identical. Their owners became forced sellers at the same time.
This is not really a lecture about probability. It is about the hidden assumption beneath every risk number: that tomorrow will preserve the relationships estimated yesterday.
Shiller gave the mathematics away for free. What firms pay risk managers millions to judge is when independence is real and when the entire portfolio is quietly becoming one trade.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Chinese Whore
Seen from Netherlands
TÜRK İŞİ VİP
Seen from Turkey
حصريات 🦅 EAGLE
Seen from Jordan
Transfer News Live
Seen from United Kingdom
African gay boys
Seen from Turkey
kamil
Seen from Germany
Wilhelm Decker
Seen from Germany
BOYS |NSFW| 🔞
Seen from Germany
megahub ( hoesfreaks )
Seen from United States
المتمرد
Seen from Oman
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.2M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.1M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
112.6M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.2M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.4M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
88.8M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
82.7M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
74.2M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
71.7M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.4M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
64.6M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.5M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
61.9M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers