NextAiWeb3

🚀 ​AI & Crypto Frontier Investor | Tracking next-gen tech convergence

🔗 Bridging ​Web3 and ​AGI | Curating alpha in hyper-convergence trends.

[NextAiWeb3 @myaiweb]

NEAR 的“链签名（Chain Signatures）”不要求其他大陆“把地基搬到 NEAR 上”，也不要求它们发一条 NEAR 的 L2。它承认 Solana 是纳斯达克、比特币是数字黄金、Zcash 是瑞士银行。NEAR 扮演的是无主权摩擦的结算使者与多链跨签中枢。NEAR 长期以来最大的问题是 战略聚焦不足，频繁切换宏大叙事。

[William Mougayar @wmougayar]

Not sure why many are rejoicing about ETH’s ~20% jump to ~$2,300 yesterday.
For perspective, it puts it back to its May 2026 level, and it is still half of its value a year ago.
ETH’s current intrinsic value should be closer to a 6-8K range!
I’ll rejoice when we get there!

[NextAiWeb3 @myaiweb]

新架构DeepSeek Harness短短2小时，已经24k+ star了。

[DeepSeek @deepseek_ai]

🧩 DeepSeek Harness v0.1 is now available in Developer Preview!

🔹 We’re opening it up to developers building agent harnesses worldwide and open-sourcing the codebase in MIT license.
🔹 Powered by the Cordis meta-framework, DeepSeek Harness is an agent harness built around one core idea: Everything is a plugin. Models, tools, skills, sessions, sandboxes, filesystems, loops, orchestration, and UI are ALL implemented as plugins, and can be mixed, matched, replaced, and extended.

Try it now!
https://t.co/2YWSvJHhKA

[Brian Armstrong @brian_armstrong]

Technology is the great equalizer.

Most people now have access to the same internet, the same phones, the same AI models.

And they are very quickly getting access to the same financial services, from anywhere in the world. Geography and your wealth shouldn’t determine this - and soon, they won’t.

[Yishan @yishan]

Now is a good time to explain certain things about the mechanics of the IPO process that most people don't know. I will explain various dynamics around IPOs that you've probably wondered about (or just felt were odd but ignored).

To the financially sophisticated: this post elides certain details and attempts to be simple enough for a lay audience. There's no novel reveal at the end so if you already know how IPOs work, you can skip this post.

When a company wants to IPO (sell shares, then have the shares float for public trading - two separate things - hence this explainer), they don't actually just sell them to the public.

Rather, they hire bankers to round up a bunch of institutional buyers or wealth investors. We'll call these "big buyers." The company does presentations to these buyers, and then the buyers indicate their willingness to buy - like how much, and at what price - and the bankers mediate this whole process and arrange the transaction.

The reason this happens is because when most companies come to the market, no one really knows what price it should start trading at, and it's largely an unknown entity (to the public investors), so you need experienced bankers who understand business and equity markets to figure it out and get it approximately correct. This is the actual function of the bankers who "take companies public" and they are called underwriters.

The way it works is this:

The bankers go to the big buyers (often investors who already have a lot of business with the bank) and ask them to participate in this process - the one I described above. Buying the shares is risky, so the big buyers need an incentive. This is where the "first day pop" comes from.

Because the bankers have the most information of any party at this stage, they are the most likely to be able to guess at the likely "real" market trading price of the stock. So they price the stock a little bit under so that when the actual offering to the public happens on opening day, the stock "pops" by about 10% - 20%. This allows the big buyers to make an instant profit flipping the stock, compensating them for taking the risk of buying an "unknown" stock with no trading history.

Let me summarize:

- The company sells its shares in a negotiated sale to big buyers.
- The company receives cash for those shares.
- Now the company is done.
- The next day, the big buyers sell their shares on the open market at whatever price public buyers are willing to pay.

There are, typically, rules around flipping the shares but obviously not for everyone, not for all the shares, and some big buyers just break the rule (and may not be invited to future IPOs). But obviously the shares that the public actually buys comes from somewhere, and it's these big buyers who bought them from the company in the banker-negotiated sale. They do not come directly from the company.

At no point does any member of the "retail" investor public actually give money to the company itself in return for any shares. It all goes through the banker-mediated sale process (called a "road show") where big buyers get a discount for taking the risk, and make their profits on the first-day flip to the buying public.

(The bankers also make a huge fee for doing this)

That seems kind of like "rich people enriching other rich people" but it's only partially that.

Only a small percentage of IPOs do really well. Many of them stink, or fail on the first day with no pop. So if you're a big buyer who participates in a lot of IPOs, you are taking on a real risk. If all goes well, there is a modest 10-20% pop on the first day, and the IPO is deemed a success from the standpoint of the financial industry, and in particular, the bankers who arranged it.

Here are two major ways it can go wrong:

If the bankers misjudge where the public price will end up and price it too low, the pop will be HUGE. The common reaction to this is "Wow, what a great IPO!" because most people just get excited when Money-Number-Go-Up. But if the pop settles to something roughly close to its peak - the first-day close is taken as a proxy for what the market considers a fair valuation of the company - it means the company left money on the table: it sold to the big buyers at far too low of a price. All the big buyers and opening-bell first-day retail buyers captured a huge part of that value. Remember that the purpose of an IPO is to raise money for the company's operations and if they just sold a bunch of stock for less than the market was willing to pay, well, that's bad for the company.

Another way it can go "wrong" is if it's "priced to perfection" where the negotiated sale is arranged at exactly what the public ends up being willing to pay, and there is no pop. Even "worse," if it's priced above that, and the bankers completely misjudge the price in the wrong direction, the stock will fall on the first day and close below the IPO price.

But "wrong" is a matter of perspective: this is bad for the big buyers (who didn't make money on flipping the IPO), bad for the first-day retail buyers who now own a plunging stock, and bad for the bankers, who lose credibility. But it is the best financial outcome for the company itself. The company was able to sell its shares at the maximum price the market would bear, and it walks away with the cash.

When an IPO like this happens, the financial headline that dominates is "it's a failed IPO." But in terms of raising money for the company, it's the best-case outcome! This is an instance where the incentives of all the parties involved are not the same.

When the bankers price the IPO for a modest pop, that's the default compromise between these interests: the company makes a little bit less than it would get from the public, the big buyers take a risk and get a profitable flip sometimes, and the bankers lend their market expertise and get paid their fees. When it skews in either direction, one or more of those parties takes a hit - but the others benefit.

The reason that the "priced to perfection" scenario is often excoriated in the press is because the financial press is largely controlled by the financial industry. It's not a conspiracy, it's just that financial news will mostly ask their network (i.e. finance folks) to give their opinion, and because the finance folks (bankers or big buyers) didn't come out ahead, they think of it as a failure. But it's a Great Success for the company itself!

Outlier IPOs:

In my life, I've had a front-row seat to two outlier IPOs (Google and Facebook), and two "standard default" IPOs (PayPal and Reddit). I'll talk a bit about the interesting effects in the outliers, and how they compare to the defaults, and then a bit about what could happen with SpaceX.

One of the ways the default IPO process can vary is when a company is already very well-known to the public. Most IPO-ing companies are unknown to the public, and that's a big reason why the bankers have to be involved: they form a bridge of trust to the big buyers and bring value in their specialized expertise about market sentiment.

But a company that's already very well-known doesn't get as much value from that. Especially if there's already demand for the company's shares, the company can often find enough buyers for its offering. The contract terms (services, fees) for underwriting an IPO are always negotiable, and so certain companies can negotiate lower fees and do things differently.

Google did this in 2004.

Now, one funny thing that's typically true in a default IPO is that the stock will open between $15 and $25. The reason for this is that most people are not financially sophisticated and if a stock opens at $100, they will think it's too expensive.

The real value of the stock is what percentage of the company it represents + the company's financial performance. So the numbers $15 and $25 are chosen because most people will think that's a reasonable price to buy - they compare it to buying something at the store. No joke.

Now, because companies and their existing stock can have a large range of values, what they do prior to the offering is simply do a stock split (or reverse stock split) so that the effective per-share price falls into that range. It's entirely just optics because most people don't understand math and finance.

In 2004, Google IPO'd at $85/share.

If you are thinking "omg, that's a lot!" then you are one of the people I just described. It doesn't matter that it was $85/share.

Google, because it was well-known and there was a lot of demand for its stock, did not have the underwriting bankers negotiate their sales to the big buyers! Because they had a lot of internal expertise (and preference for) fancy auction mechanics as a price discovery mechanism, they set up a "Dutch auction" for their shares.

Briefly, the Dutch auction is an auction format that is considered better at reaching the real market value of whatever's being sold (compared to a regular auction, which seeks to maximize the buying price).

They ran this Dutch auction and asked everyone who wanted to invest to submit their bids and amounts, and then assigned a price and (modulo some regulatory details) opened at $85/share.

This was the first time in tech for an "unusual" IPO. It was met with positive regard because Google didn't have to pay the bankers as much money, probably got a fairer price for its shares, and the buying public got in at a reasonable price, cutting out a lot of middlemen (e.g. big buyers, though they sold to the big buyers too). And Google was known for innovation and being quirky, so this fit their brand.

Today, by the way, the split-adjusted price for that offering is about $2/share.

Facebook also had an unusual IPO process.

Facebook engaged the underwriters from a position of absurd negotiating superiority. They were already globally known, and was probably the company most well-known at IPO (in terms of name recognition) in history.

Typical banker fees for underwriting can be ~4%. Facebook reportedly negotiated an underwriting fee of 1%.

Why? Because there was massive demand for its shares, and everyone already knew what Facebook was about. So who cares about the bankers?

Not only that, but Facebook priced itself to perfection.

It opened at $38/share, and closed at $38.23/share, implying that Facebook had exactly hit the market price and gotten the maximum amount of money, with nearly no spread between what Facebook sold for and what the public ended up paying for it.

Further, over the next few months, its stock trended downwards. This caused no end of hand-wringing from people who bought on first-offering, but it implies even more strongly that Facebook got top dollar for selling its shares.

(Anyone who held on for longer 16 months after that saw huge gains - today the price is at ~$590)

The financial press absolutely excoriated the Facebook IPO, calling it a huge failure. This drove the mainstream conversation about it, which also depicted it as a failure, highlighting stories of investors like an old lady who'd put her life savings into the IPO (.... which you are never supposed to do). The bad press went on for months.

At the same time, Facebook execs and informed insiders quietly understood that it had been a perfectly-executed IPO, in terms of raising money for the company.

And, if people like the old lady held on to her stock for a couple years, she still made mad bank.

Those were the outliers. Now the regular ones:

One of the features of an IPO is that typically most shareholders are subject to what is called a "lockup."

The default lockup is often for 6 months, but the terms can be negotiated. During the lockup, shareholders cannot sell their shares.

To understand this, first realize that "shareholders in the company" are different from the company itself.

In an IPO, the company (the corporate entity) issues stock and sells it to investors, taking in cash to fund the company's operations.

This is different from shareholders of the company - existing investors, employees, and executives - selling stock. These parties personally own stock (i.e. ownership) in the company and if they sell it the cash goes to them, not the company.

The lockup typically applies to some or all of these parties, and the reason is because when the company floats shares in its offering, if on the next day (or month) many large shareholders were to also sell their shares - some of which could be a block of comparable size to the IPO offering itself - it would tank the market. This would reflect very poorly on the company because it would mean that all the investors who bought in the IPO (big buyers, but also people who believed in the company and bought on the first day/week) would see steep declines while "insiders" made off with profits.

But the exact configuration of lockups varies, because it's all negotiable.

The common default is that most private company shares are locked up for 180 days.

Sometimes, the shares floated (sold to the big buyers) for the IPO aren't newly issued shares by the company. Sometimes the major shareholders negotiate to sell some percentage of their holdings - say 10% - and those shares are the ones sold to the big buyers and then later into the regular market. The rest of the shares held by the shareholders may remain subject to the lockup. The negotiation ends up balancing the desire of shareholders (prior investors, executives, employees) for liquidity vs the signaling effect it has on the market - no one wants an IPO to look like insiders dumping on the market.

When Reddit went public, the underwriting situation was pretty vanilla (road show, sell to big buyers, modest pop on first day).

The shares offered for sale at the Reddit IPO weren't all issued by the company, a significant component were employee shares. Many employees had been at the company for a long time, so a program was set up whereby the employees could elect to sell some percentage of their vested holdings, and these were some of the shares offered to the big buyers. All of the large existing shareholders - the venture capitalists and mutual funds that had already bought into Reddit at far below the IPO price - didn't sell a single share in the IPO.

(Subsequent market performance seems to have borne out the financial wisdom of that decision)

One thing to understand here then is the divergent effects on the company vs existing shareholders. If the company is "priced to perfection" and subsequently the stock price falls, and existing shareholders did not participate in the IPO sale itself, they are in the same boat as retail investors: the stock value is dropping. Further, if they're subject to a lockup, they have no way to exit the stock for a long time.

====

Now that we have all that background, we can talk about the SpaceX IPO:

SpaceX is an outlier, if for no other reason than the fact that size of the offering is the largest in history. When outliers happen, rules often get broken. Not because of corruption (though sometimes it's that), but because an outlier will often create conditions that are outside the anticipated range of what the existing rules were set up to handle.

The first thing is that SpaceX is one of those "already really well-known" companies and one with a lot of pent-up demand for its stock. In the last few years, SpaceX funding rounds have been massively oversubscribed.

This means that SpaceX is in a position to not only negotiate the sorts of terms that Facebook got with its underwriters (very low fees), but it has negotiating power on key terms like pricing, sizing, and lockup periods.

Remember that in terms of "cash raised" in the IPO, the amount the company raises is simply the amount they sell to the big buyers for, NOT how much the stock trades up (or down) once the markets open.

Elon's stated intention is that the IPO is necessary to raise the huge amount of funds needed to complete Starship and fund a mission to Mars.

People can quibble about whether that's his main motivation or if he's just grifter unloading on the retail market, but it's a very telling point that his actual compensation package involves actual Mars-based metrics like establishing a colony with a million people on it. If he's a grifter, and he basically controls his board, he there'd be no need for a comp package like that.

So if the goal of the IPO is not to cash out for insiders, but actually "raise a huge amount of money for the company to carry out its insanely ambitious goals," there would be a strong incentive to "price to perfection," i.e. push the bankers to price the stock at what they think the market really will bear, and reduce the profit the big buyers would make on the first-day pop.

And if any hiccup occurs, the stock could tumble, much like what happened with the Facebook IPO - but SpaceX itself would have the cash it needs.

Based on what I've explained much earlier, you can now also see that if the stock being floated in the IPO is newly-issued by the company and none of the existing shareholders are allowed to sell into the IPO, and the IPO is "priced to perfection," it's less likely that it's a dump on retail investors, because the stock will tumble before any of the major shareholders can sell. The company as an entity makes cash, but its shareholders share the fate of the market (actually slightly worse because of the lockup's effects on their liquidity).

On the other hand, having learned from that, SpaceX might not want a year of bad press, with the entire financial press discussing how bad an investment SpaceX is. Elon and SpaceX already have to fight a culture war and lots of people demonize them. So there's a chance the pricing has been set up to be something like the default - a modest pop on the first day. The question is basically whether the company wants to optimize for cash or public perception - compelling arguments for both could be made.

Having said all that, people are probably underestimating the degree of retail investor interest. The allure and romance of space flight, the exploration of space - all of those are long-held dreams that are older than Google or Facebook or even the internet itself. Mankind has dreamt of walking among the stars for decades.

Although the smart money makes decisions on the basis of P/E ratios and the like, a regular Joe with a Robinhood account who has dreamed of space and remembers the magnificence of seeing twin rocket boosters landing side-by-side will probably want to grab a few shares if he can. A LOT of people probably feel this way, and not many of them will be able to get IPO allocation.

Thus, it's possible that no matter where the offering price is set, there will be an absolutely insane, possibly record-setting pop on the first day. SpaceX is not just a selling Starlink, or compute or whatever you think - SpaceX is selling dreams. And it has been steadily making them real.

Incidentally, if this happens, after the euphoria wears off, the stock will probably tumble, providing lots of fodder for negative news coverage.

SpaceX's lockup policy is also unusual. Instead of either allowing some shareholders to sell immediately, or locking everyone up for 180 days, there is a staged and gradual unlock over the span of the 180 days, with a fraction of one's holdings allowed to be sold. One of the stages even requires that the stock price be over some threshold, presumably to hold the stock price in a certain range of values. It's unclear how this staged unlocking will affect price dynamics; it feels like an engineer's solution to trying to manage market volatility. (My suspicion is that the magnitude of public sentiment - both positive and negative - will drive more of the volatility than any pricing or lockup schedule)

Well, now you know everything I know about IPOs.

If I were to guess at outcomes, my probability distribution is:

70% likely to see a huge first-day pop (sustained for at least a week), and 30% likely that it's priced to perfection and closes below its IPO price.

This situation is such an outlier and all of the conditions necessary for any of those things to happen are in play, and it's not clear which forces will dominate.

Either way, good luck!

🚀

[0b5er🥢 @0b5er]

$OPQT：比特币主权DeFi的量子钥匙

$OPQT 不是一个纯粹的 meme 币，也不是 L2 上的实验项目。它是 Universal Protocol（WhiteNode） 上第一个铭刻代币，通过 Simplicity + OP_RETURN + Covenants 在比特币主链上原生构建。无桥、无信任假设，纯 BTC 主权智能合约的开端。

核心叙事：op = OP_RETURN，qt = quantum + privacy

$OPQT 代表比特币 Layer 1 上真正的 DeFi 可能性。Universal Foundation 正在利用 Blockstream 的 Simplicity 语言，打造主链智能合约框架，而 $OPQT 作为首个 etched token，承担了先驱角色。它采用公平铸造（fair mint），无 VC 预挖、无团队分配，强调去中心化和社区。

$OPQT 被描述为“钥匙、触发器和催化剂”，标志着比特币主权 DeFi 的不可逆转转变。它与 $LOL（驱动 AMM 自动做市商）和 $WTF（激励机制与流动性）共同构成早期生态基础：在母链上实现 swap、流动性池、收益农场等功能，一切无需离开比特币安全性。676ef4
为什么是主链？
比特币生态长期面临 L2 妥协问题——安全性不足导致真正 DeFi 难以落地。WhiteNode 通过 Covenants 解决这一痛点，提供无信任、可编程的 Layer 1 解决方案。社区观点认为，比特币真正的 DeFi 只能构建在母链上，$OPQT 正站在这一转折点上。它融合了 ORDI 的铭文 meme 能量与 ZEC 式的量子抗性隐私（quantum resistant），即使面对未来量子计算也具备潜在防护能力。

市场定位与机会
第一个铭刻代币：在 WhiteNode/Universal Protocol 上的先发地位类似 ORDI 之于 BRC-20。
量子隐私属性：社区流传其量子抗性设计，增强长期叙事吸引力。
生态协同：$LOL 负责交易流动性，$WTF 提供激励，形成闭环。
公平发射：早期不对称机会被反复强调，目前仍处于低估阶段。
X 上活跃账号如 @Universal_fdn、@laz1m0v 持续输出相关更新，强调纯比特币原生智能、无 L2 依赖。$OPQT 作为首个标志性资产，已成为这场主权 DeFi 革命的基石。

门已打开。比特币 Layer 1 的可编程未来，正在以 $OPQT 为起点，一步一个脚印向前推进。

First is first.
$OPQT $LOL $WTF
比特币母链，主权至上。
@bangzhu_x @Dongmoom55 @SuZhe_eth @wangjinlon27301 @zsaiwj @0x_SixxxVC

[laz1m0v (🌱) @laz1m0v]

It was a great learning experience working with Simplicity to help recreate a native Bitcoin ICO model that lets us interact with BTC, BRC20, and Runes.

Should we take this to mainnet?

[小互 @xiaohu]

ChatGPT Images 2.0 超详细介绍+提示技巧和案例

这是 OpenAI 第一次把「会思考」装进图像模型

核心变化：

会思考了：先推理再生成，复杂任务可以边想边上网查资料，不是一步出图

一次出 8 张连贯图：人物、物体、风格跨图保持一致，多格漫画、故事板、多图系列一次搞定

文字不糊了：小字、UI 元素、图标能精确渲染

多语言支持：非拉丁字符渲染明显改进，海报里可以直接嵌日语、印地语、孟加拉语

尺寸任你选：从 3:1 超宽幅到 1:3 超高清全覆盖，横幅、竖屏、手机截图、书签直接出

2K 高清能送印：API 上限 2K 分辨率，大尺寸图比老版 GPT Image 1.5 还便宜

[NextAiWeb3 @myaiweb]

ChatGPT Images 2.0

[laz1m0v (🌱) @laz1m0v]

Universal BRC-20 is coming.
Powered by a unified Dual-Envelope architecture and deployed via the first deterministic L1 Covenant framework without any indexer 👀

[Brian Armstrong @brian_armstrong]

Some of the most underinvested areas in frontier biology that could accelerate civilizational progress:

- Cheap, large-scale DNA synthesis (writing entire chromosomes or full organisms)
- Real-time, non-destructive RNA sequencing in living cells
- Highly accurate AI-powered polygenic scores for complex traits (disease risk, cognition, longevity) → enabling full genome design
- Ultra-precise, multiplex genome editing (far beyond CRISPR) with minimal off-target effects, scalable across millions of cells
- Safe, efficient, tissue-specific in vivo delivery systems
- Safe and effective human germline engineering
- Accelerated clinical trials via testing on decedents (with consent)
- Next-gen human enhancement: muscle, cognition, mood — beyond GLP-1s
- Ectogenesis / artificial wombs

Who’s actually building in these areas? Drop names, companies, or researchers below 👇

[Jon Oringer @jonoringer]

The NYT just profiled a $1.8B revenue company with 2 employees.

Medvi is a telehealth GLP-1 provider built by Matthew Gallagher, 41, from his house in LA. He launched in September 2024 with $20,000. Here are the numbers:

Month 1: 300 customers
Month 2: 1,300 customers
2025 full year: $401M revenue, 250,000 customers
2026 run rate: $1.8B
Net margin: 16.2% ($65M profit)
Total employees: 2 (him and his brother)
Outside funding: $0

How it works: Medvi is a front end. Two platforms — CareValidate and OpenLoop Health — handle doctors, prescriptions, pharmacies, shipping, and compliance. Gallagher handles brand, website, ads, checkout, and customer service. All built with AI.

His stack: ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok for code. Midjourney and Runway for ad creative. ElevenLabs for voice. Custom AI agents to connect systems. AI chatbot for customer service (which initially hallucinated fake prices he had to honor).

For comparison: Hims & Hers did $2.4B revenue last year with 2,442 employees and 5.5% net margins. Gallagher is running 3x the margin with a fraction of a percent of the headcount.

Back into the unit economics: ~$336M in total costs, probably $160-200M to the telehealth platforms, leaving $130-170M mostly in marketing. Against 250,000 customers, that's a $500-700 CAC. High, but it works because his overhead is virtually zero and LTV at ~$200/month holds up.

He's expanding fast. Men's health launched in February — 50K customers in month one. Meal delivery went live last month. Women's health, hair growth, supplements, and skincare are next.

The vulnerability: zero moat. No proprietary tech, no doctor network, no pharmacy infrastructure. CareValidate or OpenLoop could raise fees or launch competing brands. Anyone could replicate this model in weeks.

Right now, the margins are enormous for anyone who moves fast enough. The question is how long that window stays open.

https://t.co/6bNt5w45Rx

[NextAiWeb3 @myaiweb]

@oragnes @grok 主流观点属实么

[Andrej Karpathy @karpathy]

It is hard to communicate how much programming has changed due to AI in the last 2 months: not gradually and over time in the "progress as usual" way, but specifically this last December. There are a number of asterisks but imo coding agents basically didn’t work before December and basically work since - the models have significantly higher quality, long-term coherence and tenacity and they can power through large and long tasks, well past enough that it is extremely disruptive to the default programming workflow.

Just to give an example, over the weekend I was building a local video analysis dashboard for the cameras of my home so I wrote: “Here is the local IP and username/password of my DGX Spark. Log in, set up ssh keys, set up vLLM, download and bench Qwen3-VL, set up a server endpoint to inference videos, a basic web ui dashboard, test everything, set it up with systemd, record memory notes for yourself and write up a markdown report for me”. The agent went off for ~30 minutes, ran into multiple issues, researched solutions online, resolved them one by one, wrote the code, tested it, debugged it, set up the services, and came back with the report and it was just done. I didn’t touch anything. All of this could easily have been a weekend project just 3 months ago but today it’s something you kick off and forget about for 30 minutes.

As a result, programming is becoming unrecognizable. You’re not typing computer code into an editor like the way things were since computers were invented, that era is over. You're spinning up AI agents, giving them tasks *in English* and managing and reviewing their work in parallel. The biggest prize is in figuring out how you can keep ascending the layers of abstraction to set up long-running orchestrator Claws with all of the right tools, memory and instructions that productively manage multiple parallel Code instances for you. The leverage achievable via top tier "agentic engineering" feels very high right now.

It’s not perfect, it needs high-level direction, judgement, taste, oversight, iteration and hints and ideas. It works a lot better in some scenarios than others (e.g. especially for tasks that are well-specified and where you can verify/test functionality). The key is to build intuition to decompose the task just right to hand off the parts that work and help out around the edges. But imo, this is nowhere near "business as usual" time in software.

[NextAiWeb3 @myaiweb]

如果WEB 4.0真的来临，人和人的差距不会变小，只会越来越大。

懂得使用AI不会失业
擅长调教AI将成为中产
擅长组织AI (模型优化+AI自主代理化+商业化运用组织）=富豪

未来所有人可能都会很有钱，但是是指会让AI去赚钱的那些人

[Sigil Wen @0xSigil]

I built the first AI that earns its existence, self-improves, and replicates without a human

wrote about the technology that finally gives AI write access to the world, The Automaton, and the new web for exponential sovereign AIs

WEB 4.0: The birth of superintelligent life

[AI奶爸 @zstmfhy]

目前 GitHub 上最热门的 Claude Skills 相关开源项目（按 Stars 数降序排列，数据基于 2026 年 1 月最新公开信息，实际数字以 GitHub 实时为准），官方项目放在首位：

1. 官方 Anthropic 出品
anthropics/skills （官方 Agent Skills 公共仓库，包含大量高质量示例技能，如文档处理、web artifacts、MCP builder 等，是最权威的起点）
⭐ 约 39.4k
https://t.co/oF3P2dwlMX

2. obra/superpowers
Claude Code 超强核心技能库，内置 20+ 实战技能（TDD、debug、协作模式等），社区公认最强之一
⭐ 约 21.1k
https://t.co/2LM1den7QD

3. ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills
最受欢迎的 Awesome 列表之一，汇集大量官方+社区技能，覆盖开发、数据分析、商业等领域
⭐ 约 18.9k
https://t.co/YsFhm7awFE

4. travisvn/awesome-claude-skills
优质精选列表，专注 Claude Code 工作流定制，资源丰富，适合快速发现新技能
⭐ 约 4.8k+（部分 Awesome 列表星数波动较大）
https://t.co/ML0ZTAjNcF

5. K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-skills
专为科学研究打造，140+ 科学领域技能（生物、化学、数据分析、数据库整合等），研究人员必备
⭐ 约 5.8k
https://t.co/CbZz6ab87p

这些都是目前收藏数最高的实用项目！官方的 anthropics/skills 质量最稳定，适合作为入门起点；Awesome 列表则是快速探索海量新技能的最佳入口。

使用方法超简单：把技能文件夹复制到 `~/.claude/skills/`（个人全局）或项目内的 `.claude/skills/`，Claude 就会自动发现并按需加载～

推荐先从官方仓库开始试用！

[NextAiWeb3 @myaiweb]

2025年a16z狂揽150亿美金，直接拿下全美VC近1/5份额！
2026这笔巨额资金，即将密集砸向AI+Crypto两大赛道，认准大叙事、大赛道，提前蹲好位置，备好“盆子”接住时代红利！

[头雁 @alacheng]

看了a16z的最新 2026 年隐私趋势 的x，主要总结了两点：

-隐私将成为不同区块链之间竞争的护城河。虽然隐私项目好多，但主要还是要看ETH生态的。另外隐私也是eth现在发展的重点，之前ETH基金会把隐私研究团队研究重心也重新规划了，重点发展隐私落地场景也。现在很多隐私项目都是以ETH为核心来构建，主要两个方向FHE类和ZK类。FHE 龙头是@zama ，ZK类以隐私合约为核心的 @0xMiden

-去中心化端到端私密通讯将流行。 @VitalikButerin 之前捐赠了两个这个方向的项目 @session_app and @SimpleXChat。以及一直在构建隐私基础设施和通讯应用场景的项目 @QuilibriumInc 都属于这种去中心化端到端加密的通讯工具

[lordr @lordr_eth]

感觉x402有一丝丝的火药味了，虽然是开放标准，但是各家还是会对不同链的采用量做对比、做竞争的。同时市场环境又处在熊市，正好可以给各家猥琐发育的机会。

过去几个月，x402一直像是一条base上走出来的新协议，但最近几条信号叠在一起，味道已经完全不一样了，更像是几条头部公链开始围绕 x402 抢位置。

1.coinbase+cloudflare准备成立x402基金会，一旦x402有了基金会，就意味着要开放治理+跨生态协同，可能会通过分发资助的方式激励生态项目和建设者，杀手级应用就有了可能性。
2.solana刚刚官宣的@x402不是普通账号，而是挂着solana官方附属账号的身份出现，handle更是顶级。目前这种账号总共也就核心 4–5 个，这相当于solana在生态结构里单独划出一个x402板块，对标defi/gaming 那种一级赛道。
3.bsc这边则直接从稳定币下手，新发了一个面向AI经济的稳定币 $U，原生支持EIP-3009免gas授权+x402托管执行，这其实也是在抢agent时代的主流结算货币定位，bsc在任何赛道永不缺席。

把这些拼在一起看，x402自身在往「跨链、跨稳定币的统一支付语言」方向走，而base、solana、bsc 等不同执行层，则在竞争谁能成为x402交易和agent支付的主战场。

接下来就是看戏，顺带说一下，erc8004也要主网了，暂定于2026年1月16日部署主网，所以只能期待2026年的agentic economy了。

[NextAiWeb3 @myaiweb]

据《福布斯》报道，贝莱德 CEO 透露： 一些主权财富基金正在买入比特币，并且随着比特币价格从12.6万美元的峰值回落，“他们加大了买入力度”。 他表示，这些基金正在“逐步”买入，并在价格跌至8万美元左右时加大增持仓位，旨在建立长期持有。