The great rebalancing must accelerate Rate hikes only matter if you’re holding duration you ain’t getting paid for Short duration assets with strong current FCF + FCF growth keep compounding Value vs. growth = false dichotomy. Cash flows + scarce assets get us through

Be unparallelizable

It's an increasingly common take that AI hacking means cybersecurity is doomed. I disagree. I think cybersecurity is naturally defense-favoring once people get their shit together. And anyone who continues to hold cryptocurrency (including me, ~90% of my net worth) is implicitly making that bet. Here's why I am making that bet. First, the oversimplified punchy one-line statement: If AI can prove Navier-Stokes and FLT, then AI can prove the statement "this program is secure" as a mathematical theorem. Even if the program is very complicated. Now, the nuance: (See also: vitalik.eth.limo/general/202… ) The word "secure" is hiding all kinds of skeletons in the closet in terms of what it actually means. What does it mean for Signal (the encrypted messenger) to be "secure"? The most basic definition you might think of is: no one who doesn't hold the recipient's secret key can read the contents of the message. But: * Did you remember to include _other_ critical forms of security? Can the adversary forge messages? Can the attacker prevent messages from reaching the recipient? Can they cause your client to crash by sending malformed messages? * Have you made sure that your model of the adversary includes attackers that interfere with the protocol actively and not just passively? And attackers that interfere by replaying messages to you or the recipient that either of you sent over the wire at any point earlier? * What if the adversary hacked (or _is_) the Signal server? * How did you learn which public key belongs to the recipient in the first place? What if that process was tampered with? * What if your device gets hacked at some point in the past or future - is your message still safe then? * What if your key leaks because of a bug in your operating system? Or because you got a bugged version of the Signal client? Or what if the database is corrupted? * Or the libraries, interpreter or compiler of the programming language you wrote it in? * What if your key leaks because tiny perturbations in perceptible signals generated by the hardware leak mathematical relationships that can extract the key a few hundredths of a bit at a time? * Are you hiding the *size* of the payload? Does that matter? * You're definitely not hiding the identity of the sender and the recipient, and the exact time each message was sent (think: not just time-of-day, but also time deltas between one message and the next). Is that not enough to deduce a lot of important facts about what relationships you have, and what *kinds* of conversations you are having? So ... even definitions can be over a thousand lines of code, and need deep careful thought to figure them out. Working on making definitions more human-readable is of extreme importance - it's perhaps the only "high-level language" that matters right now. But even still, even despite all of the above, for security-critical components, the definition is a much smaller attack surface than the implementation. Verifying that the definition is adequate is a much more tractable task than scanning over the code directly - and can become even more tractable with better tooling. Definitions are also _additive_: if two groups have two different definitions A and B, then, well, you can just prove that the program satisfies both A and B. Code is not additive in this way: if a program is A + B, a bug in A _or_ B can sink the whole thing. Definitions are additive. And if you can't satisfy A and B at the same time, you've isolated the most important philosophical issue for your project to spend its next few weeks grappling with. Sometimes, definitions are not much smaller than the implementation - UI components might be one example. But for many of the most critical components - message-passing protocols, sandboxes, cryptography like SNARKs and FHE - the asymmetry is real. Historically, a large class of failures with this approach have come from people only verifying a small portion of their code, that they self-declared to be the security-critical portion, and ignoring the rest - and it turns out that something in the rest of the code is security-critical too. This was reasonable back when verification was difficult and scarce. The solution today: sorry, you have to verify over literally your entire program, including database, networking, any caching layers, everything. Modern AI can do it. So it's not about "the good guys find all the vulnerabilities before the bad guys do" - that could maybe work too, after all a finite program only has a finite number of vulns, but it's riskier - it's specifically an asymmetric strategy of making code that is much more resilient in the first place. This is the kind of direction that Ethereum is going in for the next few years. There is no future for blockchains - especially blockchains with scalability and privacy - without doing this. We need to make software actually secure. And we have already made a lot of progress.

“wow this openai math professor drama looks really bad" “have you read it?” “no. have you?” “no. do you know what navier stokes is?” "no. do you?" "no."

There is no longer an Internet that we know There is only the Internet that you know

New essay : Non consensus and right Why we believe the next era of crypto venture will be defined by slow, patient capital. Read here: decentralised.co/p/non-conse…

If you are on the verge of AGI or ASI, why isn’t your model smart enough to recognize espionage distillation in real time? You say “cure cancer in a few years.” Isn’t sniffing illicit distillation quite a bit easier than curing cancer? Why write letters to DC? Just use AGI.

opinions currently: - use the out of the box harnesses no mods (amp / codex xhigh + /goalmaxxing) - harness in the sandbox, not the opposite - minimal agents file - skills only for deep verticals/step-by-step workflows

Wrote about why we can’t automate the auteur, which turned into a piece about @ComfyUI docs.google.com/document/d/1…

The Strait of Hormuz is open M-F 9:30-4pm ET.

“The secret to doing great work is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours.” This Amos Tversky quote is 1000x more true today. As technology accelerates, reserving time and energy for indulging your curiosity is ever more important. Really feeling that these days.

Excellent analogy: Post-Mythos, LLMs have fully surpassed human hackers. Proving something is safe means spending more tokens than attackers will. That's the PoW security model to a tee. Cryptoeconomics now applies to all software. Recommended reading👇 dbreunig.com/2026/04/14/cybe…

research is now so commoditized that the game is less about esoteric information and more about execution, sizing, and trade expression crypto traders may have the best discretionary instincts in the world rn because of how many market cycle reps they've crammed in the past yrs

autociv --dangerously-skip-permissions

the value of this technology will mostly not be captured by its inventors, the labs, or even the chipmakers, but rather will be captured by the consumers as surplus. these are highly competitive markets without any natural monopolistic effects like many other technologies before it, machine intelligence democratizes abilities previously only available to the wealthy, in this case by commoditizing the services of the white collar elite who mostly live in rich countries it’s not that there are no programmers, it’s that really anybody can make software now now so the “rents” of the “human capital” of knowing how to write JavaScript for example should shrink dramatically this will reduce the inequality between countries: services that previously required lots of human capital now require chatbot subscriptions at worst, or may even be given away for free you can receive medical advice worthy of a $1000/hr American specialist doctor likely for free while living under a thatched roof in eg Papua New Guinea somewhere while I think Americans have plenty of reason to be excited by AI, I would be more excited as someone in a poor country

Just imagine a world where "the government" is a group of smart people working hard to make your life easier—like the Chinese. Instead of a group of people who, every year, introduce you to new, mind-blowing taxes and deliver increasingly braindead criminals to your doorstep.

Adopting AI into your work makes everyone a CEO, and there's something about it that very few people understand (mostly because few people are CEOs): When you have an front-line job, you spend maybe 1-5% of your brainpower of high-level, critical-thinking strategy. Most of your job is just running some SOP that's been given to you. Move up a couple levels, maybe you're managing a little team, and you might spend 10-25% of your time making critical strategic decisions. The rest of the time, you're executing departmental strategy that was handed to you, and your time is spent making sure your team carries that out. Once you're the CEO, you'll have (if you're good at your job) delegated all of the routine problems and issues that are straightforward to solve to capable executives. What's left for you? Only the hardest and most critical decisions. The better and more capable your staff, the harder the questions will be that bubble up to you, because they take care of everything else. Those become the only duties you have left: thinking REALLY hard about very dfificult, ambiguous, strategic decisions. And now it's your entire job. Instead of 10-25% intensity (or less), it's 80-90% intensity. Incidentally, this is why you hear about CEOs having these intensely regimented lives and health-oriented habits: it's all designed to biologically support the fact that their brains have to be operating at peak capacity nearly all the time. So now everyone is starting to manage armies of agents doing the routine parts of their job. If you're good, you can distill your job into a clear SOP that the agents run, and now "all you have to do" is oversee them... ... and now lots of people are learning that being the boss isn't quite as easy as they thought.