Ender

A simple man trying to learn & understand while building a life worth living for my family

[Ender @enderventures]

A brand new account, but I'm not new to this platform.

Hello everyone!

I'm trying to learn and understand as I build a life worth living.

The world is a chaotic but beautiful place.
It's changing faster than ever. Or at least, it seems that way.

A calm mind is essential in these times.

It's easy to overthink and stress about things with all the access to information we have today.

However, I believe there is a way to scan the world for signals that occasionally flare up between all the noise without going crazy.

I'm trying to look for these signals. And if I find some, I'd like to share the signals with you and you're very welcome to come and join my journey!

Looking forward to enjoy each others thoughts and company! 🤝

[Ender @enderventures]

@thomvlieshout It’s addictive

[Ender @enderventures]

I don’t recommend „running dev server“ in worktrees. I only do automated test suite runs (my agent will take care of that).

If I personally want to test what has been implemented, I „move“ it to the „main repo“ where everything is set up as I needed.

Works for me because I can only test one feature at a time anyway but I can let my agent do other things „in parallel“ in the meantime.

It would be doable but that gets complicated quickly. I also avoid trying to run multiple dev servers at the same time. You quickly run into port issues and setting up multiple databases without clashes etc.

Keep it simple. Worktrees *can* help you speed up things but only so much because the bottleneck is testing, QA anyways.

[Ender @enderventures]

@BTC_broo The average person is waiting for the FIFA World Cup to start. They don't have Bitcoin on their radar (and probably also no $60k USD lying around).

[Ender @enderventures]

@CryptoKaleo 😂 How big is your short position?

[Ender @enderventures]

@Domschi 450 Mio. Nutzer, aber 68% davon sind auf Android.

Die EU ist nicht ganz so wichtig, für was sie sich halten.

Und so verspielen wir immer mehr und koppeln uns selber ab.

[Ender @enderventures]

@poiuztrewq01 @ratoshi21 @blury765 Dafür hat Deutschland (noch) die Haltefrist.

Wär mir ehrlich gesagt lieber, denn BTC für 1+ Jahr zu halten ist leicht. Und dann keine Steuern zu zahlen ist besser als 27,5%

[Ender @enderventures]

@tariqkhanfmd Statt Steuernummer sollte es auch Kundennummer heißen.

Vllt. wird dann klarer, das auch für eine Leistung bezahlt werden soll und verlangt werden darf, dass eine Leistung erbracht wird.

[Ender @enderventures]

@Croesus_BTC How bears made it feel like vs. how it actually felt

[Ender @enderventures]

@QTRResearch Isn't cheap BTC what maxis are looking for to buy more BTC for the same amount of USD?

I'm not sure if they want to "protect the narrative that Bitcoin isn’t breaking down."

And even if it goes down, the narrative of cycles and BTC going up eventually is still not dead 🤔

[Ender @enderventures]

Plot twist: it’s the same person but in different life phases.

Phase 1: provide value, stack as much bitcoin as possible, enrich yourself and your family. Become able to provide for them

Phase 2: become rich because you stacked enough bitcoin. Your family is secured and now you can work for the good of the world

[Ender @enderventures]

@HermesLux @Strategy > I don't know why this is so hard for so many people to understand.

It’s opportunity for us to front run them :)

[Ender @enderventures]

@saylor What they made it feel like vs what it actually was

[Ender @enderventures]

@Vikingobitcoin9 The power law is log-log. Hence, also timeframes expand.

[Ender @enderventures]

I know an that’s the point.

If the cited post‘s claim is true, and trading with strangers is the one thing separating our species from others, then my claim is: we already achieved artificial intelligence that is good enough with current models (they are smarter than many people out there already). The thing missing is „trading with strangers“, the missing thing separating this new „species“ from others, which we vaguely could call AGI then.

Imagine agents doing this 24/7 and watch them evolve at an unprecedented speed.

I know it won’t improve their core-model intelligence. It will improve their abilities to act in our world.

[Ender @enderventures]

> „What changed was that humans started trading with strangers“

The path to AGI probably already exists.

For AGI, we don‘t need higher intelligence in one single model (although, it will help).

We need „AI strangers“ trading with each other:
More tools and skills and AI Agents sharing and improving those tools and skills.

[Millie Marconi @MillieMarconnni]

A British biologist looked at 200,000 years of human history and found that the entire reason humans broke out of poverty was not intelligence, not language, not even agriculture, but one mechanism so simple a 6-year-old could explain it.

His name is Matt Ridley.

He is a zoologist by training, an evolutionary biologist by career, and in 2010 he wrote a book called The Rational Optimist that quietly argued the most important fact about human progress had been hiding in plain sight for the entire history of economics.

Naval Ravikant has been telling people to read everything Ridley has ever written for the last 15 years. The reason is the argument inside this one book.

For 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans walked around with the same brain you have right now. Same skull size. Same neural architecture. Same raw capacity for language, planning, and abstract thought.

For roughly 190,000 of those years, almost nothing happened. Generation after generation lived and died inside the same Stone Age toolkit their great-great-grandparents had used. Then somewhere around 50,000 years ago, the line on the chart of human progress started to tick upward. Then it bent. Then it exploded.

The question Ridley spent years on was the only question that mattered. What changed.

It was not the brain. The brain had been the same for 190,000 years. It was not language, which had existed long before the takeoff. It was not even agriculture, which arrived only 10,000 years ago and was actually preceded by the upward bend, not the cause of it.

What changed was that humans started trading with strangers.

This sounds too small to be the answer. Ridley argues that it is the answer to almost everything. The moment one human exchanged a useful object with another human from a different group, something happened that no other species on earth had ever done.

Two ideas that had developed in isolation came into contact. The flint knapper learned what the spear maker had figured out. The fisherman from the coast learned what the hunter from the forest had figured out. The two pieces of knowledge fused into something neither side could have produced alone.

Ridley calls this ideas having sex. The phrase sounds frivolous and it is meant to. The point is that ideas, like genes, get better when they combine with other ideas from different lineages.

An idea sitting inside one head, no matter how brilliant the head, eventually hits a ceiling. The same idea exposed to ten thousand other ideas does something genes do under sexual reproduction. It mixes. It recombines. It produces offspring nobody planned.

The cleanest proof of this argument is the most uncomfortable case study in the book. Tasmania.

Around 10,000 years ago, rising sea levels cut Tasmania off from mainland Australia. A population of roughly 4,000 humans was now isolated on an island, with no possibility of contact with the rest of humanity. They had the same brains. The same language. The same starting toolkit as their cousins 150 kilometers north. The natural experiment was now running.

What happened next is something no economist or geneticist had ever predicted.

The mainland Australians kept inventing. Boomerangs. Spear-throwers. Fishing nets. Bone needles for sewing fitted clothes. Watercraft with paddles. Their technology compounded slowly across the centuries.

The Tasmanians went the other way. They did not just fail to invent the new tools their cousins were developing. They started losing the tools they already had. Fishing was abandoned within a few thousand years. Bone tools disappeared. Fitted clothing disappeared. They forgot how to make fire from scratch and started carrying lit firebrands from camp to camp instead, relighting their fires from a neighbor's whenever their own went out.

By the time European explorers arrived in the 17th century, the Tasmanians had the simplest toolkit of any human society ever recorded. Their material culture had gone backward for 8,000 years.

The archaeologist Rhys Jones called it a slow strangulation of the mind.

Joseph Henrich at Harvard later proved with formal mathematical models that there was nothing wrong with Tasmanian brains. There was something wrong with their network. A toolkit requires a critical mass of people exchanging skills to maintain itself.

The act of teaching a skill is imperfect. Every generation loses a small percentage of what the last generation knew. If your population is large enough and trading widely enough, those losses get caught and corrected by someone else who still remembers.

If your population shrinks below a certain threshold and stops mixing with outsiders, the small losses compound until entire technologies disappear.

This is the part that should haunt anyone reading this in 2026.

Intelligence is not a property of the individual brain. Intelligence is a property of the network the brain is connected to. A genius in isolation will produce less than a mediocre thinker inside a dense exchange of other mediocre thinkers.

The thing your ancestors needed in order to break out of 190,000 years of stagnation was not better brains. It was better connections between brains they already had.

The implication for any individual is direct and uncomfortable. If you are smart and isolated, you will be outproduced by people half as smart who are connected.

The most successful people in any field are almost never the smartest people in it. They are the ones positioned at the intersection of the most idea flows. They are reading more authors than their competitors. They are talking to more people from more disciplines. They are in the rooms where ideas from different lineages bump into each other.

Ridley ends the book on the line that sounds optimistic but is actually a warning its this "The future will be invented by people who connect ideas, not by people who guard them."

[Ender @enderventures]

Let‘s be fair. One can probably only say this, if saved for 4+ years in BTC and are generally in profit (although not that much anymore) and, are maybe even 8+ years in BTC _or_ still have a steady income?

Otherwise, purchasing power going down is really harmful and hurts, especially if inflation is on the rise.

If your BTC stack is _not_ in profit and you have to sell BTC now to cover your bills, you would have been better off staying 100% in fiat.

[Ender @enderventures]

A BTC Treasury Company can only work if BTC works „as intended“, i.e. rises faster on average than obligations.

If well designed, the treasury company can sustain some period of time where BTC is under water.
Hence, $MSTR won‘t get liquidated even if BTC falls to $10k.

However, if BTC falls to $10k and stays there for 10+ years, then $MSTR (and any other treasury company) will fail.

That‘s how they are designed.

(But perhaps, we would consider BTC as „failed“ then as well.)

[Ender @enderventures]

Yes, totally and I agree with that. That‘s why most of my net worth is in BTC and a very small percentage in $MSTR and more and more AI stocks.

Maybe I have misunderstood your message 🤔

I may have missed the actual meaning.

How I read it: you will not be storing 100% of your BTC in cold storage but will leave some on exchanges (?). Did I get that right?

The missing part is probably what you mean by „you need a system“. It could be trading or anything else?

I did consider myself a BTC maxi for a long time, and was, until I started „gambling“ in the stock market again. That‘s the point where I stopped calling myself that because it‘s contradictory.

And I think there is nothing bad about it, too.

While I still hold most of my assets in BTC, cold stored, I also believe there are some focused opportunities that may outperform BTC (even starting your own company might outperform BTC because you may increase your income dramatically allowing you to stack more etc.).

[Ender @enderventures]

@beffjezos 🤝

[Ender @enderventures]

> „What changed was that humans started trading with strangers“

The path to AGI probably already exists.

For AGI, we don‘t need higher intelligence in one single model (although, it will help).

We need „AI strangers“ trading with each other:
More tools and skills and AI Agents sharing and improving those tools and skills.