Today we introduce OASIS 1. 

The smart ring built for private dictation. Whisper to write. Touch to edit. 

A first step beyond the keyboard toward a world where your intent follows you across every device.

Order at oasisdevices.com first batch is limited.

Does money buy happiness? A Princeton Nobel laureate said no above $75,000. A Penn researcher with 1.7 million data points said yes. The day they sat down together to settle the fight, the answer they reached should change how you think about your own life. The Nobel laureate is Daniel Kahneman. The Penn researcher is Matthew Killingsworth. The fight between them lasted 13 years, and the way it ended is one of the cleanest examples in modern science of two smart people being wrong in opposite directions about the same question. In 2010 Kahneman and his Princeton colleague Angus Deaton published a paper that became one of the most quoted findings in the history of social science. They analyzed 450,000 responses to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index and concluded that emotional well-being rose steadily with income up to about $75,000 a year, and then flattened out completely. Above that line, the extra money was not buying any more daily happiness. The headline traveled around the world. Every news outlet ran the number. A CEO in Seattle famously cut his own salary to raise his employees to that exact threshold. The 75,000 dollar figure became cultural shorthand for the idea that the rich are not actually any happier than the rest of us once basic needs are met. For 11 years almost nobody seriously challenged it. Kahneman had a Nobel Prize in Economics, the sample size was massive, and the conclusion was emotionally satisfying in a way that made everyone feel a little better about not being wealthy. Then in 2021 a 33 year old researcher at the University of Pennsylvania published a paper that quietly destroyed the entire finding. His name is Matthew Killingsworth. He had spent the previous decade building a smartphone app called Track Your Happiness that pinged users at random moments during their day and asked them a simple question. How do you feel right now, on a scale from very bad to very good. The app was designed to catch happiness in the act, not to ask people to recall it later. By 2021 he had collected over 1.7 million real-time happiness reports from 33,000 adults. When he plotted income against in-the-moment well-being, there was no plateau anywhere. The line just kept rising. People earning $200,000 were happier on average than people earning $100,000. People earning $400,000 were happier than people earning $200,000. The curve flattened slightly but never stopped climbing. The famous $75,000 ceiling that the world had been quoting for 11 years simply did not exist in his data. Now there were two Nobel-quality findings sitting in direct contradiction with each other. One of them had to be wrong, and neither researcher was willing to walk away. What happened next is the part of the story almost nobody knows. Kahneman called Killingsworth and proposed something rare in academic science. He called it an adversarial collaboration. The two of them, joined by Penn psychologist Barbara Mellers as a neutral referee, would sit down together and reanalyze the raw data from both studies, line by line, until they figured out which one of them was wrong. The paper they co-authored was published in March 2023 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. And the answer they reached was not what either of them had expected. Both of them had been right at the same time. They had been measuring two different populations without realizing it. When the team broke Killingsworth's 1.7 million data points apart by baseline happiness, the picture clarified completely. For the happiest 70 percent of people, more money kept buying more happiness all the way up to $500,000 a year, with no sign of slowing down. For people in the middle, the same pattern held. But for the bottom 20 percent of the sample, the ones who were already unhappy before the question of money even came up, the curve flattened almost exactly where Kahneman's original paper had said it would. Above roughly $100,000 a year, adjusted for inflation, more money did nothing for them. This is the finding that changes how the question should be asked. If you are not already unhappy, money keeps buying happiness for a much longer stretch than Kahneman's original paper suggested. The runway is wider than the world has been telling itself for a decade. If you are already unhappy, money does almost nothing past a certain point. There is a ceiling, but the ceiling is not about income. It is about the underlying state of the person collecting it. The deeper insight in Killingsworth's original research, the one almost nobody talks about, is the part that should sit with you longer than the income numbers. The Track Your Happiness app had been telling him for years that the single biggest predictor of in-the-moment well-being is not money at all. It is whether your mind is on the thing you are doing. His most cited paper, written with Daniel Gilbert at Harvard, is titled A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind. The data from the app showed that people are mentally absent from what they are doing 47 percent of the time, and that mental absence is one of the strongest predictors of unhappiness in the entire dataset. More predictive than income. More predictive than the activity itself. More predictive than almost any demographic variable you could measure. Which means the unhappy 20 percent that Kahneman's plateau actually described were probably not unhappy because they did not have enough money. They were unhappy for reasons that more money could not reach. The reason the curve flattened for them at $100,000 a year is the same reason it would have flattened at $300,000 or $700,000. The thing they were missing was not buyable. The most uncomfortable line in the entire 2023 paper is the one that nobody on the internet quotes. The authors note that the relationship between income and happiness, while real, is much weaker than the relationship between attention and happiness. A person earning $40,000 who is fully present in their own life will, on average, report higher in-the-moment well-being than a person earning $400,000 whose mind is somewhere else. The fight about money was the wrong fight the entire time. The two researchers spent 13 years arguing over whether the dollar ceiling was at $75,000 or $500,000, and the data from Killingsworth's own app was sitting there the whole time saying the ceiling was not about dollars at all. The ceiling is whether you can hold your attention on the life you actually have. You can run the experiment yourself the next time you catch your mind drifting. Stop. Put your phone down. Look at the room you are in, the person across from you, the food in front of you, the work you are actually doing. That is the part the apps cannot sell you and the salary cannot buy you. The data has been clear for over a decade. The plateau is not in your bank account. It is in your attention.

We built the world's largest cargo drone @poseidonaero

Hardware Supply Chain @dessaigne In Shenzhen, a team can go from design to a new physical part in a day. In the US, that same loop often takes weeks, and that gap compounds. The overall stack for rapid hardware iteration still doesn't exist in America, and we want to fund the startups building it.

#New: Bay Area rents (median 1BR): San Francisco: $3,790* Palo Alto: $3,610** Mtn View: $3,380 Sunnyvale: $3,130 Santa Clara: $3,040 Redwood City: $2,930 San Jose: $2,660 Berkeley: $2,270 Oakland: $2,000 *Up 18.5% in one year **Up 14.6% in one year Source: @Zumper

Anthropic is building a secure OpenClaw. Four features in 30 days, each one reverse-engineered from the open-source agent that hit 250K GitHub stars and 40,000 exposed machines. The feature mapping is surgical: OpenClaw: text agent from WhatsApp, it works on your desktop. Anthropic: Dispatch (March 17). Persistent thread from phone to desktop. OpenClaw: Discord and Telegram as control surfaces. Anthropic: Claude Code Channels (March 20). MCP bridge to both. OpenClaw: full OS access, browser control, app manipulation. Anthropic: computer use in Cowork and Claude Code (today). OpenClaw: 100+ community skills, no review process. Anthropic: curated plugin marketplace with enterprise admin controls. OpenClaw: heartbeat daemon, always-on 24/7. Anthropic: desktop must stay open. Intentional friction. Runaway prevention. The strategy is legible: let open source take the arrows, ship the enterprise-safe version before anyone else can. OpenClaw proved 250K developers want to text an AI that controls their computer. OpenClaw also proved that desire produces one-click RCEs, CrowdStrike threat advisories, agents creating dating profiles nobody asked for, inbox deletions during “automated cleanup,” and 20% malware rates in skill ecosystems. Anthropic studied every failure mode and built the inverse. Connectors before computer use. Permission prompts before every action. Sandboxed execution. Every constraint maps to a compliance checkbox. Gaps remain. Dispatch requires Anthropic’s own mobile app. OpenClaw works in WhatsApp and iMessage, apps 3 billion people already use. No native messaging integration yet. Cowork needs your Mac awake with Claude Desktop running. No headless mode, no background daemon, no proactive monitoring where the agent messages you first. The “always-on coworker” positioning still requires you to be mostly-on yourself. Here’s where it gets interesting. Steinberger built OpenClaw entirely on OpenAI’s Codex. Said his productivity doubled. Publicly called Claude Opus the best general-purpose agent while building the biggest agent project in history on a competitor’s coding tool. Joined OpenAI February 14. Altman posted he’d “drive the next generation of personal agents” and it would “quickly become core to our product offerings.” Five weeks of “quickly”: GPT-5.4 with strong benchmarks. ChatGPT agent mode in a cloud sandbox. And a March 20 “code red” meeting where leadership concluded product fragmentation was losing them the race to Anthropic’s unified tools. The plan: merge ChatGPT, Codex, and Atlas into one superapp. The core loop Steinberger proved, text from phone, agent works on your machine, you return to finished output, doesn’t exist in any OpenAI product. Their agent runs in an isolated cloud browser. No local files. No persistent desktop control. No async handoff. The person who built the most successful personal agent in history is inside OpenAI. The product that reflects his insight isn’t. Anthropic sent trademark lawyers, then shipped the product. OpenAI sent an offer letter, then called a reorg. The agent race rewards shipping velocity over hiring velocity. One company is converting the OpenClaw demand signal into product. The other is converting it into org charts.

Unveiling production-ready @petpinai V0. Bay Area assembly starting. First creator units entering production. Real-time AI wearable built for pets. Watch the demo in the next tweet.

Alexis Ohanian just led our pre-seed to eliminate luxury counterfeiting. Introducing Veritas, the trusted way to verify luxury. $1.75M pre-seed led by 776 and joined by angels and operators from a16z, DoorDash, Vogue, The Disney Family, Chapter One, TechCrunch, & more.