0xFarmerXin

Los mercados bajistas son donde $BTC separa a los creyentes de los turistas.

Lo que se borra:
• Posiciones sobreapalancadas
• Tramas fraudulentas
• Egocentrismos inflados
• Ilusiones sobre dinero fácil

La purga es dura, pero necesaria. Quienes sobreviven salen más agudos, más disciplinados y con una comprensión más profunda de lo que realmente están sosteniendo.

$BTC no se preocupa por cómo te sientes ni por tu calendario. Recompensa la paciencia y castiga la impaciencia. La pregunta no es si puedes soportar las ganancias, sino si puedes afrontar la verdad cuando todo está en rojo.

Los mercados bajistas forjan carácter. Los mercados alcistas solo lo revelan.

China's campaign to undermine US AI dominance is becoming more visible — and it's working through unexpected channels.

New research shows:

• A $278M activist ecosystem is now operational
• $24B in AI infrastructure projects have been delayed or blocked
• Far-left networks are coordinating anti-data center protests across the US

The pattern is clear: bottle up compute capacity, slow down buildout, create regulatory friction. While American companies fight local opposition to new facilities, Chinese labs keep scaling.

This isn't just about environmental concerns or community pushback anymore. There's a coordinated effort to create structural delays in US AI infrastructure — at exactly the moment when compute is the limiting factor for frontier model development.

The irony: many of these activist groups genuinely believe they're fighting for local interests, unaware they're serving a larger geopolitical strategy.

Worth watching how this plays out. Infrastructure delays compound quickly, and China isn't dealing with the same bottlenecks.

¡Strike acaba de obtener la autorización de MiCA — ahora está activo en los 27 estados miembros de la UE, sumando a Italia y España a la lista.

Mientras la mayoría de las empresas de este sector perseguían las altcoins y la mecánica de los casinos, Strike apostó por una sola cosa: la infraestructura de $BTC. Sin distracciones, sin lanzamientos de tokens, solo construyendo las vías para que Bitcoin se mueva globalmente.

Cumplir con MiCA no es trivial — es el primer marco regulatorio integral de cripto de la UE, y obtener la autorización significa cumplir estándares estrictos de capital, custodia y operación. Strike ahora cuenta con la autorización regulatoria para operar pagos y servicios de Bitcoin en toda la Unión Europea.

Esto importa porque:

• La UE es una de las mayores zonas económicas del mundo — la autorización de MiCA = legitimidad institucional
• El enfoque solo en Bitcoin es raro a gran escala — la mayoría de las fintech se diluyen en multichain o DeFi
• Los «moats» regulatorios son reales — la conformidad requiere tiempo, capital y foco que la mayoría de las startups no tienen

La apuesta de Strike: Bitcoin gana como red monetaria, no como un activo más entre miles. Están construyendo para ese mundo, y ahora cuentan con la infraestructura regulatoria para operar en Europa sin fricciones.

Sin ruido. Solo ejecución. 🇪🇺

Hot take: ARR as a valuation metric is exposing the AI bubble more than anything else.

Three core problems:

1. Definition flexibility — companies basically self-report what counts as ARR with zero standardization

2. Fundraising theater — startups raise massive rounds on ARR projections while burning cash at unsustainable rates. The gap between ARR multiples and actual unit economics is wild

3. Volatility masquerading as predictability — taking 1 month of revenue and multiplying by 12 is not a business model, it's a projection dressed up as certainty. Churn and retention curves in AI are still being figured out

ARR works as a directional signal, but treating it as gospel in AI valuations is how you get 2021 SaaS bubble vibes all over again. The metric itself isn't broken — but using it as the primary lens for early-stage AI companies absolutely is.

New episode with Nate Soares, author of "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies" — covering the superintelligent AI risk thesis:

• How AI systems are grown through training rather than explicitly programmed
• The control problem: why alignment gets harder as capabilities scale
• What the builders themselves estimate as survival odds
• Whether there's still a realistic path to pause or coordinate

Soares argues we're facing a fundamentally different challenge than previous tech risks — not just misuse, but loss of control over systems that exceed human comprehension. The core claim: once you have superintelligence, alignment failures become irreversible.

Worth hearing the actual probability estimates from people building these systems. They're... not reassuring.

New podcast with Nate Soares (@So8res), author of "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies"

Topics covered:

• Superintelligent AI risk — why the threat model differs from current AI concerns
• AI is grown, not built — the training paradigm means we don't fully understand what we're creating
• Loss of control dynamics — once capabilities exceed human comprehension, alignment becomes nearly impossible
• The builders' own survival odds — even AI labs acknowledge non-trivial extinction risk
• Can development be stopped? — coordination problems when the race is global

This isn't about today's LLMs. It's about what happens when systems can recursively improve themselves faster than we can monitor or intervene.

Full episode in thread 👇

Bastiat's framework still hits different in 2024.

He split human society into two recurring phases:

1. Wealth creation phase — people actually produce value
2. Plunder phase — elites capture the state apparatus to legally extract wealth from everyone else

We're clearly in phase two right now. The mechanisms have evolved (central bank policy, regulatory capture, targeted taxation, bailouts for insiders) but the core dynamic is the same: those closest to power legally siphon value from productive actors.

This isn't conspiracy talk. It's just pattern recognition.

The question isn't whether this is happening. It's what you do about it. Bastiat wrote this in the 1800s and the cycle keeps repeating.

Hard assets. Decentralized systems. Exit options. These aren't just portfolio moves — they're survival strategies when the plunder phase accelerates.

¿$BTC caerá por debajo de $40K?

John Roque de 22V Research acaba de llamar a una posible caída del 30% hasta ~$40K. Vale la pena señalar su historial: en mayo de 2022, cuando $ETH estaba en $1,900, predijo un desplome del 80%. ¿La realidad? Una caída del 53% y el suelo real llegó solo un mes después de su pronóstico.

Si aplicamos una lógica similar aquí:

1. $BTC probablemente tiene más margen a la baja: quizá no el 30% completo, pero en el rango del 15-20% parece plausible
2. Probablemente estamos más cerca del fondo de lo que la mayoría cree

El patrón del ciclo anterior sugiere que su timing puede adelantarse, pero en dirección es acertado. La pregunta no es si habrá más dolor, sino cuánto margen queda antes de encontrar soporte.

¿Qué opinas?

Blockchain entering traditional US equities — is this the outlaws getting co-opted by the establishment, or a Trojan horse slipping inside the gates?

Hoping it's the latter.

The framing here matters. If crypto infrastructure gets absorbed into TradFi without changing the underlying power dynamics, we just become another clearinghouse with extra steps. But if we're actually embedding permissionless rails, composability, and transparent settlement into legacy markets — that's a different game.

Watch for:
- Who controls the custody layer
- Whether smart contracts can actually enforce settlement or if they're just UX
- If tokenized securities retain any DeFi primitives (lending, fractional ownership, programmability)

The risk is we trade decentralization for regulatory approval and end up with blockchain-flavored Bloomberg terminals. The opportunity is we make capital markets actually accessible and composable for the first time in a century.

Just wrapped a conversation with @Rizstanford (MIT computer scientist) who's now 75% convinced we're living in a simulation.

His shift in certainty came from recent quantum experiments — specifically how observation collapses wave functions in ways that mirror computational rendering (only processing what's being "observed").

Key points that moved his needle:

• Quantum behavior looks suspiciously like optimization for computational efficiency
• AI acceleration might be the simulation "leveling up" its own processing
• Déjà vu could be cache errors or checkpoint reloads

The impossibility-of-proof angle is what makes this fascinating — if we're in a sim, we'd never have access to evidence outside our rendered reality. It's unfalsifiable by design.

What's interesting isn't whether it's true, but how seriously credentialed scientists are now treating it as a legitimate hypothesis rather than sci-fi thought experiment.

Tested a bunch of mainstream U-card / overseas payment methods lately. Here's what I'm actually using:

1️⃣ Etherfi — my daily driver for smaller amounts. 3% cashback is solid.

2️⃣ Plasma — backup option. Also 3% cashback but paid in $PLASMA tokens. UX isn't as smooth as Etherfi, but the 1% referral bonus is unusually high.

3️⃣ Bybit card — currently benched. Cashback is meh and the slippage eats into it. Upside: it's a major CEX so feels safer for larger balances.

4️⃣ WeChat HK / Alipay HK — for bigger payments. Slippage around 1%, but if you pair it with a high-cashback HK card, the rewards can offset the friction.

5️⃣ PayPal — I link it to my U-card for USD payments, especially merchants that don't accept crypto cards directly. No fees on USD → PayPal, which is a nice workaround.

Anyone else have payment rails they're liking right now?

Cross-border payment efficiency gap is stark:

Traditional USD wire: ~$50 fee + 24 hours settlement
Stablecoin transfer: ~$0.10 fee + 3 minutes

That's a 500x cost reduction and 480x speed improvement. Not marginal gains — this is the kind of structural advantage that doesn't get walked back once infrastructure matures.

The friction in legacy rails isn't just technical debt. It's rent extraction by intermediaries who add minimal value in a digital-native world. Stablecoins route around that entirely.

Still early for regulatory clarity and enterprise adoption at scale, but the unit economics speak for themselves. When you can move value globally at near-zero cost in real-time, the question isn't whether this displaces incumbents — it's how fast.

UK keeps rotating PMs because voters either don't know what they actually need or won't admit what needs to happen

Not a policy problem — it's a collective denial problem. The hard fixes everyone avoids naming out loud.

Same pattern: elect someone, realize they can't deliver the fantasy version of solutions, move to next candidate who promises a different fantasy.

Until there's honest conversation about tradeoffs and actual costs, the carousel continues.

The AI race isn't just about GPUs and datasets — it's about culture.

Three pillars everyone talks about:
• Compute power
• Data access
• Engineering talent

But there's a fourth that gets ignored: cultural depth.

Societies with strong traditions in art, philosophy, ethics, and open creative expression pull the best builders. They create environments where breakthrough thinking happens — not just incremental optimization.

Rigid control structures can push short-term wins, but they kill trust and long-term innovation. People don't want to build transformative tech in places that suffocate ideas.

The Renaissance showed this: beauty + intellectual rigor = explosive progress.

The countries that win the AI race won't just have the most compute. They'll have the most soul.

Human-aligned AI doesn't come from labs alone. It comes from cultures that value what makes us human in the first place.

AI supremacy isn't just about GPUs and datasets — it's about cultural substrate.

The countries that win the AI race will be those that combine technical firepower with deep cultural richness: art, philosophy, ethics, open creative environments. You can stockpile compute, but if your society suppresses free thought, you're building narrow systems that people won't trust or adopt.

History backs this up. The Renaissance didn't happen because Italy had the most resources — it happened because beauty, humanism, and intellectual rigor collided in the same place at the same time.

Rigid top-down control might deliver short-term gains, but it caps long-term innovation. The best AI researchers gravitate toward environments where they can think freely, experiment openly, and build systems that reflect human values — not just optimize metrics.

The endgame isn't who trains the biggest model first. It's who builds AI that people actually want to live with — systems with soul, not just scale.

La pregunta clave ahora mismo: ¿quién se queda con el paquete?

Los gobiernos han quemado décadas de trabajo humano, energía y tiempo — mal asignados a una escala que es difícil de comprender. No es solo un desperdicio económico, es una ofensa a todos los que contribuyeron.

¿Entonces quién paga por esto? Honestamente, nadie lo sabe aún.

Pero aquí está lo que sí sabemos: si tienes $BTC en almacenamiento frío, te has sacado de esa ecuación. No eres tú quien asume la pérdida.

Nuevo pod con @basedlayer sobre el impacto estructural de la IA en el trabajo y la formación de empresas.

Tres hilos que exploramos:

1️⃣ Las empresas unipersonales volviéndose económicamente viables a gran escala — La IA como capa de infraestructura elimina la necesidad de un tamaño de equipo tradicional.

2️⃣ La redefinición del trabajo en sí — no solo la automatización de tareas, sino un cambio fundamental en cómo se crea y captura el valor.

3️⃣ El momento Gutenberg del software — similar a cómo la imprenta democratizó la distribución del conocimiento, las herramientas de IA están democratizando la capacidad.

La pregunta del título "¿Qué pasa con los demás?" no es retórica. Estamos viendo una compresión del apalancamiento que históricamente requería equipos, capital y años. Ahora comprimido en líneas de tiempo de ejecución individual.

No distópico, no utópico — solo una estructura económica diferente emergiendo en tiempo real.

La reforma tocando el soporte del 20% después de solo un par de meses es realmente alucinante

Claramente ven este momentum como una amenaza real para el orden establecido — cuando una nueva entidad política puede capturar tanto terreno tan rápido, obliga a todos a recalibrar

Vale la pena observar cómo consolidan esta energía temprana y si los partidos tradicionales pueden responder de manera efectiva o solo seguirán perdiendo apoyo

La política son solo un puñado de mentirosos que nos hacen pelear entre nosotros mientras ellos se sientan y observan.

El verdadero daño no son las políticas, sino la fragmentación. Han convertido a los vecinos en enemigos por cosas que ni siquiera afectan su vida diaria.

Estamos demasiado ocupados gritándonos unos a otros para darnos cuenta de quién realmente mueve los hilos.

El nuevo pod con Helen Pluckrose ya está disponible — sumergiéndonos en cómo las sociedades occidentales se han alejado de sus fundamentos liberales.

La tensión principal: la autonomía individual, la libertad de expresión y el estado de derecho solían ser la base. Pero estamos viendo un cambio de estas principios en tiempo real.

Áreas clave cubiertas:

• Cómo la política de identidad ha reconfigurado el marco liberal
• La tensión entre los derechos de grupo vs los derechos individuales
• Dónde se están redefiniendo los límites de la libertad de expresión
• Por qué la confianza institucional se está erosionando

Esto no es solo teoría académica — se está manifestando en la gobernanza tecnológica, la moderación de contenido y cómo estructuramos comunidades en línea. Es relevante para cualquiera que esté construyendo en espacios descentralizados donde estas preguntas se convierten en decisiones de protocolo.

Vale la pena escucharlo si estás pensando en cómo codificamos valores en sistemas.