CryptoTico

DeFi wizard & coach, turning crypto chaos into passive income rivers. Neo Tokyo Citizen. Helping you build financial freedom!

[CryptoTico @tico_jo]

@nicksortor Please tell me these people all went to jail.

[CryptoTico @tico_jo]

@benjamincowen Congrats Ben

[Benjamin Cowen @benjamincowen]

A stock market correction in H2 2026 will likely coincide with the market cycle bottom for Bitcoin

[CryptoTico @tico_jo]

@Euphoria_fi Let's go! What a fun app from an amazing team!

[Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ @shanaka86]

On April 6, OpenAI published a 13-page policy document proposing the government create a Public Wealth Fund “seeded in part by contributions from AI companies” to give every citizen a stake in AI growth. Robot taxes. A four-day workweek at full pay. Auto-triggering safety nets when displacement hits preset thresholds. The document reads like the most progressive economic manifesto since the New Deal.

Nobody asked the obvious question. Who writes the terms of the fund that OpenAI seeds? Who decides the tax rate on the robots that OpenAI builds? Who defines the “preset thresholds” that trigger the safety nets OpenAI’s products will breach?

OpenAI does. That is the point of the document.

On the exact same day, Goldman Sachs published data showing AI is already displacing a net 16,000 American jobs per month. OpenAI released the solution the same day the problem data went public. This is not coincidence. This is positioning. The company valued at $852 billion, preparing for an IPO, fresh off a $110 billion funding round, having just converted from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity, is now proposing to design the redistribution architecture for the wealth its own technology will concentrate.

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, proposed something similar: a 3% “token tax” on AI model revenue. Three percent. The companies that will capture trillions from eliminating human labor are offering to return single-digit percentages through mechanisms they design. This is not redistribution. This is a licensing fee for monopoly.

We have seen this before. In Russia in 1995, the oligarchs who controlled state assets wrote the rules of privatization. Twelve major enterprises were sold for $1.8 billion total through the “loans-for-shares” scheme. The men who owned the resources designed the process by which the resources would be “distributed.” Russia’s GDP per capita still trails Poland’s three decades later because the asset holders wrote the rules. Poland succeeded because an outside architect designed the privatization. The insiders did not set their own terms.

OpenAI’s April 6 document is loans-for-shares in reverse. Instead of the oligarch buying state assets at discount, the AI oligarch proposes to “seed” a public fund on terms it will negotiate, through a process it will shape, via contributions it will determine. The document even proposes OpenAI-funded fellowships and research grants for academics who build on its policy ideas, and a Washington DC workshop opening in May to host the discussions. The company is not just writing the fire code. It is training the firefighters.

Sam Altman told Axios the document is “a starting point, not a prescription.” That is precisely what makes it dangerous. Starting points frame negotiations. The first number anchored in any deal defines the range. When the entity that will capture the largest share of AI wealth sets the opening bid for redistribution, every subsequent proposal operates within the boundaries it established.

Mo Gawdat said capitalism’s base collapses when you fire everyone and nobody can buy what you make. He is right. But the deeper danger is not the collapse. It is who designs the replacement. Right now, the answer is the same companies that caused the collapse. Every historical precedent says the public loses when asset holders write the transition rules. The question is not whether redistribution happens. It is whether the architects of concentration get to design the architecture of redistribution. As of April 6, they already are.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

The @BoringCompany could build a Hyperloop tunnel from downtown SF to downtown LA for <5% of this cost and it would be a technological marvel exceeding any high speed rail on Earth

[Jaspreet Singh @MinorityM1ndset]

Middle East instability, Iran war, shipping disrupted. Your grocery bill just went up. Food gets transported. Transportation runs on oil. Oil prices spike on geopolitical risk. You're paying the war tax whether you know it or not.

[Benjamin Cowen @benjamincowen]

Fund the TSA and stop playing games with peoples’ livelihood

[Save America 🇺🇲 @SaveAmericaNew]

🚨BREAKING: Rep Anna Paulina Luna comes out and says it. She says the American People hate Congress for how corrupt they are

After both parties blocked disclosing slush funds using tax dollars to pay off their sexual assault charges, she loses it

“That's why the American people hate us”

“We know that members of Congress are using taxpayer dollars to pay off sexual harassment. We just had a member of Congress literally sexually harass a woman that then lit herself on fire and you guys all protected him.”

What's your response to this......??👀

MAKE THIS GO VIRAL ON 𝕏. LET’S GO 👏

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

I would like to offer to pay the salaries of TSA personnel during this funding impasse that is negatively affecting the lives of so many Americans at airports throughout the country

[Arno | Dune @arno39]

your bank takes 3 days to send money across borders. stablecoins do it in 3 seconds for $0.02 and yet people still think crypto has no use case.

[Mark Cuban @mcuban]

This is your heads up about the new scams that PBMs and their related companies are pulling.

It is built on the following premise

"Whoever controls care decisions controls revenue."

The new "Rebate GPO" from PBMs is charging PEPM or PMPM fees to employers for "clinical services" .

Can someone explain to me any scenario where a Pharmacy Benefit Manager would be the best source of clinical management services like the following :

(PMPM)

Specialty Drug Management
$10 – $100
Coordination of specialty medications, utilization review, patient monitoring

Digital Health / Remote Care Programs
$20 – $40
Virtual care platforms, chronic disease apps, coaching programs

Care Navigation Services
$5 – $15
Member guidance, provider steering, benefits assistance

Medication Adherence Programs
$3 – $10
Outreach programs designed to improve prescription compliance

Clinical Analytics & Employer Reporting
$2 – $8
Data dashboards, utilization analysis, predictive modeling

Prior Authorization Administration
$1 – $5
Processing and management of prior authorization requests

Biosimilar Conversion Programs
$5 – $20
Drug switching initiatives and manufacturer coordination

Outcomes / Value-Based Contract Administration
$2 – $6
Tracking clinical outcomes tied to manufacturer agreements

I'll say it again. The new PBM scam is to control care decisions

WHOEVER CONTROLS CARE DECISIONS CONTROLS YOUR BENEFITS BUDGET. AND IT WONT BE YOU. IT WILL BE YOUR PBM

You have been warned.

@RepBuddyCarter @HawleyMO @SenWarren @RubenGallego @jamestalarico @SenSchumer @RFKJr_Official @modrnhealthcr @RosenthalHealth @chrisklomp @DrOz

[Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ @shanaka86]

The Pentagon just banned Anthropic for refusing to remove red lines against mass surveillance and autonomous weapons.

Threatened to invoke the Defense Production Act. Called them a supply chain risk. Gave them a deadline of 5:01 p.m. Friday.

Anthropic held the line. Dario Amodei said the threats do not change their position.

Hours later, Sam Altman sent a memo to OpenAI staff offering to fill the gap.

Now Axios reports the Pentagon has agreed to OpenAI’s safety rules for classified deployment.

The same rules.

The same red lines.

No mass surveillance. No autonomous lethal weapons.

The Pentagon rejected these exact conditions from Anthropic, banned them from every federal agency, threatened them with the full weight of federal compulsion, and then accepted the identical terms from OpenAI on the same day.

This was never about the red lines.

Let that sink in for a moment. The most powerful military on earth did not reject Anthropic’s principles. It rejected Anthropic. Then accepted the same principles from a company that removed the word “safely” from its own mission statement, lost every senior safety researcher, dissolved three safety teams in twenty months, and is projecting fourteen billion dollars in losses while asking for a hundred and ten billion in funding.

The Pentagon does not want a company whose CEO tells the Defense Production Act to pound sand. It wants a company whose CEO sends a memo volunteering to help before the body is cold.

This is not an AI safety story. This is a procurement story. And procurement has always been about leverage, not principles.

No contract is signed. The details are not finalized. The red lines that exist on paper today can erode in classified negotiations that nobody will ever see. Enforcement mechanisms are unspecified. And the precedent is now set: if you hold the line, you get banned. If you volunteer, you get the deal.

The market will frame this as a win for OpenAI. Revenue diversification. Government contracts. A path to offset fourteen billion in annual losses.

The real story is simpler and worse.

The company built by the people who left OpenAI over safety just got punished for taking safety seriously. The company they left just got rewarded for showing up with an open hand.

And the red lines everyone is celebrating have not been tested once under actual classified operational pressure.

Watch what gets quietly renegotiated in six months when nobody is paying attention. That is when you will know what the red lines were actually worth.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

https://t.co/5qKnfjN5iI

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Precisely

[CryptoTico @tico_jo]

@barkmeta @WatcherGuru No

[Benjamin Cowen @benjamincowen]

Crypto exchanges could make the industry seem more legitimate by not constantly listing dogshit memecoins on their platform to take advantage of short-term retail interest.

If we don’t respect ourselves, how can we expect others to respect us?

[InvestAnswers @Investanswers]

California just lost $1 TRILLION in taxable wealth in weeks. @Chamath nailed it. The "Walking Treasure Chests" have fled to FL, TX, and NV.

The mere threat of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act has driven 50% of targeted wealth out of state before a single vote was cast. The golden goose didn’t just stop laying eggs; it flew away.

Who pays the bill now? The middle class. https://t.co/CX2rR478id

[Trending Bitcoin @TrendingBitcoin]

COINBASE CEO SAID, "WE CAN'T REALLY HAVE BANKS COME IN AND TRY TO KILL THEIR COMPETITION AT THE EXPENSE OF THE AMERICAN CONSUMER.''

[Teddy - PolyBackTest.com @Bitcoin_Teddy]

“Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme”

Meanwhile Banks:

[Tom Bilyeu @TomBilyeu]

I have extreme concerns about the US economy in 2026.

As a PSA for founders:

I would advise you all to be looking very closely at what a protective strategy is going to look like.

No one sees the future clearly, not me, not anybody.

However, there are macroeconomic forces that I think it would be unwise to ignore.

I think 2026 is going to be rocky.

I encourage you guys to plan accordingly, in terms of how much money you set aside for the unknown and the things that could go wrong.

I would also look at your treasury strategy.

What does that look like?
What things are you going to be responsive to?

I would pay extreme attention to inflation.

I think inflation is going to potentially get way out of control this year.

Ironically, I think the government is both going to be forced to lower interest rates, which is wild, as the Yield curve is going insane and going up.

I think that the government is actually going to lower rates.

So brace yourselves for some fiscal madness in 26.

Just be thoughtful.

I'm happy to talk more about it if anybody has questions along those lines.

I try not to tell people what to do with their money. (this is not financial advice)

There's just way too much uncertainty.

But I will sound the alarm and say:

I grow increasingly concerned about the macroeconomic forces that are at play right now.