Jason MacDonald

Clarity collapses time. Leverage multiplies it.

[Jason MacDonald @macdonaldjasond]

Building Mastery: The Algorithm You Can't See
You can't scale instinct.

The decision algorithm that turns unconscious choices into compounding advantage.

A Deep Dive for Serious Operators

12-minute read on why most operators optimize the wrong equation—and the invisible system that determines who actually wins

TL;DR:

You're running an unconscious decision algorithm that controls your ceiling

95% of operators never articulate it—they guess, hope, and wonder why outcomes vary

The constraint isn't execution quality. It's evaluation quality.

GOLDEN+SHARP filter: a systematic framework that compounds good decisions while killing bad ones in 5 minutes

Most operators won't build this because it reveals uncomfortable patterns about their past decisions

THE ALGORITHM YOU CAN'T SEE
Here's what's costing you millions: You're running an unconscious algorithm that determines every decision you make—what to build, who to partner with, which opportunity to chase.

Every operator has one. Most never articulate it.

They just "trust their gut" or "follow their instincts." Make good decisions sometimes. Bad decisions other times. No systematic way to know the difference until months later when the results come in.

Meanwhile, millions are left on the table.

Not because you're not working hard. Not because you don't have good instincts. But because you're optimizing variables, you can see—followers, revenue, launches—while ignoring the constraint actually controlling your ceiling: the algorithm governing how you evaluate opportunities.

Can't see it? Can't debug it.
Can't debug it? Can't scale it.
Can't scale it? You're forever trading time for outcomes.
This separates operators who plateau from operators who compound.

THE DATA THAT PROVES IT

MIT's 2025 "GenAI Divide" study: 95% of AI implementations fail to deliver measurable ROI.

The 5% that succeed? They didn't have better technology. They had better decision frameworks.
The successful implementations could articulate their evaluation criteria. Systematic ways to assess "Is this the right problem?" before building solutions. Algorithms for resource allocation that weren't based on whoever shouted loudest in the meeting.

The failures? Moved fast. Built things. Launched products. No systematic way to evaluate whether they were building the right things until too late.

Now look at the creator economy.

ConvertKit's 2024 State of Creator Economy: Only 4% of creators with 50K+ followers earn $100K+/year. The average creator makes $0.52 per follower annually.

Top 1%? Generating $500-$2,000 per customer. Not per follower. Per customer.

What separates them isn't audience size. It's decision architecture.

Systematic frameworks for:

Which products to build (not "what would be cool?" but "what creates asymmetric leverage?")

Which partnerships to pursue (not "who's available?" but "who's proven they can execute?")

Which opportunities to ignore (not "maybe later" but "this doesn't pass the filter")

They're running algorithms. Most creators are running on vibes.

Here's the uncomfortable part: Your gut has seen maybe 50-100 similar decisions in your entire career. An algorithm has seen every decision you've ever made, extracted the pattern, and can run it forward. Your instinct is a sample size of one. The algorithm is your entire history compressed into executable logic.

THE REFRAME NOBODY TAUGHT YOU

You think the problem is execution. Actually, it's an evaluation.

Most operators focus on:
How to build faster

How to market better

How to close more deals

How to scale operations

They're optimizing the speed at which they build the wrong things. That's not leverage. That's velocity toward failure.

All downstream problems. All symptoms.

The actual bottleneck? You don't have a systematic way to evaluate what's worth building in the first place.

Think about your last three decisions:

Why did you say yes to that partnership?

Why did you build that product?

Why did you pursue that client?

If your answer is "it felt right" or "the opportunity came up" or "I had the time"—you're running on instinct, not algorithm.

Instinct doesn't scale. Doesn't compound. Doesn't transfer to partners or team members. Dies when you take a vacation.

The reframe: You don't need to execute better. You need to evaluate better.

Most operators ask: "Can we build this?"
Algorithm-driven operators ask: "Does this pass our GOLDEN+SHARP filter?"

Most operators ask: "Is this a good opportunity?"
Algorithm-driven operators ask: "What's the asymmetric leverage? What's the 20% input that creates 80% of the result?"

Most operators ask: "Should we do this?"
Algorithm-driven operators ask: "What are we NOT doing if we say yes?"
Same decisions. Different algorithm. Completely different outcomes.

The difference between $50K/year with 100K followers and $500K/year with 30K followers? Decision architecture.

WHAT THIS ACTUALLY COSTS YOU

Let's do the math.

Scenario 1: The Partnership You Said Yes To

You partnered because "they had a big audience," or "they seemed credible," or "the timing felt right."

No systematic evaluation. No filter. Just vibes.

Three months in:
They can't execute

Their audience isn't engaged
You're doing 90% of the work

The economics don't work

But here's where it gets expensive.

You're now wearing the partnership like an anchor. Every meeting is a tax on your momentum. You can't quit because you've already told people about it. The economics of reputation damage keep you trapped in a partnership that should have been killed in week two.

Cost:

3 months of your time ($50K-$150K in opportunity cost)

Damaged reputation (you're associated with a mediocre launch)

Mental bandwidth drain (every meeting feels like pulling teeth)

The good partnership you DIDN'T pursue because you were busy with this one

Total: $100K-$300K in lost value. Because you didn't have an algorithm.

Scenario 2: The Product You Built

You built what felt exciting. What you were passionate about. What "filled a gap in the market."

No systematic evaluation of:

Does this create asymmetric leverage? (Or linear effort = linear return?)

Can this compound? (Or does it require constant feeding?)

Does this advance the next opportunity? (Or is it a dead end?)
Six months later:

Mediocre launch results

Requires constant maintenance

Opens no new doors

You're already thinking about "the next thing"

Cost:

6 months of focused effort

Development costs ($20K-$100K)

Opportunity cost (the leveraged product you didn't build)

Emotional drain (another "meh" outcome erodes confidence)

Total: $150K-$500K in lost value. Because you didn't have an algorithm.

The compounding effect: Each bad decision makes the next decision harder. You're now constrained by past commitments. You've trained yourself that "gut instinct" doesn't work, but you don't know what to replace it with.

Operators with algorithms? Compounding. Every good decision creates options for the next decision. Every partnership feeds the next partnership. Every product builds toward a portfolio.

Without that algorithm, you're just guessing. And guessing doesn't compound.

THE SYSTEM THAT FIXES IT

Before you build another product, pursue another partnership, or launch another offer, run it through this:

The GOLDEN+SHARP Filter

Every opportunity gets scored 1-5 on these dimensions. Doesn't score 4+ on at least 10/11 letters? It doesn't pass the filter.

GOLDEN (Strategy Validation):

G - Genuine: Does this solve a real pain you've personally experienced?
(Not "seems like a market gap" but "I've lived this problem")

O - Original: Is this a pattern-breaking approach?
(Not "10% better" but "wait, what?")

L - Leveraged: Small input → massive result?
(Not linear effort = linear return)

D - Directed: Crystal-clear next action?
(Not "interesting idea" but "here's exactly what happens next")

E - Exceptional: +2σ quality?
(Not "pretty good" but "makes alternatives irrelevant")

N - Needle-Moving: Does this create cascading benefits?
(Not vanity metrics but actual advancement)

SHARP (Execution Validation):

S - Small Input/Big Result: Asymmetric force multiplier?
(Deploy once, works indefinitely)

H - High Contrast Insight: Paradigm-shifting reframe?
(Changes how people see the problem)

A - Action-Ready: Solves a problem TODAY?
(Not theoretical, immediate utility)

R - Resonates Now: Addresses current-year pain?
(Post-AI survival, rapid monetization, time freedom)

P - Perfect Timing: Market window open but not saturated? (Early enough to win, late enough to have demand)

How to use this:

Write down the opportunity (partnership, product, initiative)

Score each letter 1-5 (be honest, not optimistic)

Total score: 11 letters × 5 points = 55 max
Pass threshold: 44+ (80% or higher)

If <44: Either improve the concept or kill it

The discipline: If it doesn't pass, you don't do it.
No exceptions. No "but this feels important." No, "the timing is perfect even though the scores aren't there."

The algorithm decides. Not your emotions.

The Second-Order Questions

After GOLDEN+SHARP, ask these:
1. What am I NOT doing if I say yes to this?

Every yes is a no to something else. What's the opportunity cost? Is this the highest-leverage use of my next 90 days?
2. Does this compound or consume?

Compound: Creates options for future decisions.
Consume: Requires constant feeding, no residual value.
If it consumes, it needs 5/5 scores to justify.
3. Can this run without me?

If it requires my daily involvement forever, it's a job, not leverage. Can it be systematized? Partnered? Automated? If no, the economics need to be EXCEPTIONAL.

4. What's the failure mode?

If this doesn't work, what did we learn? Is the downside acceptable? Do we have a fallback?

5. Who's the natural owner?

Am I the right person to build this? Or is there someone who has audience/expertise/distribution that makes them 10x better positioned? If someone else is better positioned, this might be a partnership, not a solo build.

THE IMPLEMENTATION

Week 1: Brain Dump → Algorithm Input

Get everything out of your head. Every "maybe we should..." taking up mental real estate.

Set a timer for 15 minutes. Voice dictate—don't structure, just stream. Every idea, partnership inquiry, product concept, and launch opportunity. No filtering yet. Just capture.

Asymmetric leverage play: Drop the transcript into Claude or ChatGPT:
"Here's my brain dump of potential opportunities. Put these in a table with columns for: Opportunity Name, Brief Description, and Why I'm Considering It. Then score each one against the GOLDEN+SHARP framework (G, O, L, D, E, N, S, H, A, R, P) on a 1-5 scale with brief reasoning for each score."

In 3 minutes, you'll have what would take 2 hours manually.

Review the scores. Kill everything <44 immediately. No "maybe later" list.

Week 2: Build Your Rubric

Now that you've seen the filter work, customize it.
Create your scoring template. Notion, Airtable, spreadsheet—whatever you'll actually use. Make it frictionless. 5 minutes to evaluate a new opportunity. Set calendar reminder: "Monthly algorithm audit."
Operator's edge: You can build this yourself, or hand Claude your GOLDEN+SHARP definitions and ask it to generate a scoring template with conditional formatting, automatic pass/fail calculations, and decision recommendations.

Either way works. The system is the point, not the tooling.

Week 3: Test With Real Decisions

Don't wait for perfect. Start using it.

New partnership inquiry? Run the algorithm.
Product idea? Score it.
Launch opportunity? Filter it.

Let the algorithm decide. See what happens.

Week 4: Refine Based on Results

Did the algorithm catch something your gut missed? Did you override the algorithm? Why? Was that right? Adjust thresholds if needed—maybe YOUR bar is 48+, not 44+.
The outcome: In 90 days, you'll have a systematic way to evaluate opportunities. You'll say no faster. You'll commit to the right things. You'll stop wondering "why did I say yes to that?" six months later.
THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH

Most operators won't build this filter.

Not because it's hard. Because it would force them to admit how many bad decisions they've been making.

The filter isn't the problem. Seeing what the filter reveals—that's the problem.

It's easier to blame "bad luck" or "wrong timing" than to admit you've been systematically saying yes to things your own algorithm would have killed in 5 minutes.

This pattern emerges consistently: operators resist systematic evaluation because evaluation reveals patterns. And patterns reveal that maybe it wasn't bad luck. Maybe it was bad judgment. Repeatedly.

The operators who compound? They built the filter years ago. They've been running it so long it's unconscious. They can evaluate an opportunity in 90 seconds because they've scored hundreds of opportunities against their criteria.
You're competing against people who debug their algorithms weekly.

While you're still pretending you don't have one.

THE BOTTOM LINE

You can't scale instinct. But you can scale algorithms.

The operators who compound aren't smarter than you. They aren't working harder. They just have better filters.
They know what to say yes to. What to say no to. Systematic ways to make those decisions that don't require burning 3 months to find out they were wrong.

You're one algorithm away from 10x better decisions.

The question is: Will you articulate it? Or will you keep running on vibes and hoping for different results?

This is Building Mastery - a newsletter about the invisible systems governing operator success.

Every week, we expose one algorithm you're running unconsciously and show you how to optimize it.

If you're done guessing and ready for systems, subscribe.

You can't optimize what you can't see. And you can't see what you haven't articulated.

[Jason MacDonald @macdonaldjasond]

@BlaizeSneed This is the framework. And here's the meta-layer most miss:

Choosing hard when you have a choice isn't just discipline—it's insurance for when you don't have a choice.

Voluntary discomfort = training.
Forced discomfort = test.

The Stoics practiced poverty and cold not for fun, but so poverty and cold couldn't break them later. Self-respect compounds through voluntary friction.

[Jason MacDonald @macdonaldjasond]

For Serious Creators Only: Your Information Is Worthless - But Your Interpretation Could Make You Irreplaceable

Information died. You can learn rocket science from YouTube and nobody's impressed.

The problem isn't access. It's interpretation.

Information tells you what is.
Interpretation tells you what it means and what to do next.
AI just sorted creators into three tiers:

Repeaters recycle what's been said
Translators make it clearer
Interpreters make it matter

AI repeats faster and translates cleaner than you ever will.
But it can't assign meaning.
Only humans can say: "Here's what this means right now, for you."

That's the real moat. Judgment, taste, timing.

Picture a founder reading rising CAC data.

Most repeat it.
Some chart it.
One interprets: "Stop buying ads. Build retention instead."

That judgment saves six months of wasted spend.

One sharp interpretation outperforms a hundred polished posts.

The interpreter writes once and changes how others see their entire business.
Most won't do it.
Interpretation is vulnerable.

When you repeat, you're safe. Nobody blames the messenger.

When you interpret, you own the call. You can be wrong. Publicly.

And that terrifies people who need to be liked.

The repeaters drown.
The translators get automated.
The interpreters build leverage.

Which tier are you in?

Not where you want to be. Where you are right now.

[Jason MacDonald @macdonaldjasond]

7/7
What could you build that makes YOU the blocker instead of the one being blocked?

[Jason MacDonald @macdonaldjasond]

1/7 🧵
Every operator wants to eliminate dependencies.
Wrong goal.

The play isn't to have fewer dependencies.
It's to BE the dependency everyone else can't eliminate.

[Jason MacDonald @macdonaldjasond]

6/7
Dependency math:
Needing others = coordination tax compounds against you
Others needing you = leverage compounds for you

[Jason MacDonald @macdonaldjasond]

9/ What’s the one problem you can’t stop thinking about - the one that keeps pulling you back no matter what else you try?

Drop it below.

Let’s see which truths the best builders orbit around.

[Jason MacDonald @macdonaldjasond]

Most people build around ideas.

The smart ones build around gravity.

Here’s why ideas scatter, problems pull, and how to create focus that compounds 🧵

[Jason MacDonald @macdonaldjasond]

8/ Velocity without gravity is chaos.
Gravity without motion is stagnation.

The art is balance - enough pull to stay true, enough thrust to evolve.

[Jason MacDonald @macdonaldjasond]

The whole thread:
Trajectory = (Identity × Direction) ÷ Drag

When direction is off, energy becomes resistance.

Three questions reveal your misalignment.

Act on #3 immediately.

Small shifts now prevent exponential correction later.
Bookmark this and forget it (most people). Share it and act on it (winners).

[Jason MacDonald @macdonaldjasond]

1/10
Hard work is a lie.
Two people grind equally hard. One ascends, one burns out.

The difference isn't effort.
It's flight path.

[Jason MacDonald @macdonaldjasond]

10/10
Stop adding thrust to a broken trajectory.
Calibrate identity first, then accelerate.

Most people will read this, nod, then keep flying the same trajectory.
Winners pause, recalibrate, and adjust one degree this week.

What's your #3? 👇