Amit Tomar

PQCvpn - PQCrypto.ai announces World's 1st Quantum Safe VPN prlog.org/13123867-pqcry…

Advancements in Quantum computing are moving at Quantum Speed - pun intended. Still early. Still hybrid. But this is how “toy experiments” slowly become discovery infrastructure. Q-day isn’t the only thing getting closer. Practical quantum applications are too. #quantum #pqc chemistryworld.com/news/new-recor…

Saying this all along. Nation states are investing heavily in quantum computers for one single goal. 1. The CRQC will be available to them by 2028, It may not be publicly available to us, but that is not the point. 2. Dual core is achieved already (in news), Replicating it to 100 or 1000 cores should be relatively easy. Its not supposed to fit in laptop, Even if it fits in a 100 story building everyone will be ok with it. 3. We are already helping multiple visionary companies become quantum safe. You have to decide if your data is worth protecting. 4. Insurance companies are adding clauses for exemption if data breach is because of quantum computer and company has not taken any measures to protect themselves. globaltimes.cn/page/202605/13…

Every good thing carries a shadow: the same subatomic quirks that promise a "perfect day" of quantum breakthroughs also threaten the encryption that keeps our digital lives private. We celebrate the power of the qubit, but we must also prepare for its sting.

@auren The best VCs know when to lean in vs get out of the way. A good VC isn’t useless, they’re just not the operator.

VCs can’t save your product. VCs can't help with product strategy etc. even if the VC built products in the same space (because usually the VC built that product a decade ago which is not relevant anymore). The best thing VCs can do is get out of your way and unblock (with intros, or advice during messy situations)

@TheGeoMethod People don’t change because: - change has risk - change creates work - change exposes them if it fails So even when something is objectively better, “do nothing” feels safer. default decision is always: “let’s revisit this later”

Fastest way to close big deals: Put a knife to the prospect’s throat. No, not literally you fucking weirdo. You need to establish the current situation they’re in as unsafe. If they think: “Things aren’t perfect right now… but they’re manageable.” Thing is, manageable problems rarely get solved. Your job is to remove that comfort. Walk them through what actually happens if they don’t solve the problem. What breaks? What does that cost them? Who gets blamed? Don’t exaggerate. Just force them to follow the logic of their own situation. I’m not saying threaten them. Just make it impossible for them to pretend the knife isn’t already there.

@vitddnv People with good judgment don’t need hand-holding, and they resolve ambiguity without spinning up meetings. keep just enough structure so things don’t break as they scale

Most process exists to compensate for mediocre hiring. Hire better people and suddenly you need less rules, fewer meetings, and almost no approvals. Funny how that works.

pretending AI agents can replace everything today is just the new version of 2000’s “we’ll outsource it all”. like outsourcing your dramatic exits to a Roomba with a mission, Running a real-time vomit-to-cleaning-agent pipeline. Meanwhile, the robot is still stuck under the conference table chair trying to resolve an edge case. My Guess - the real issue might not be the hiring plan.

Startup founder is pitching me Wants to raise $30 million Asked what his plans are with the money He started talking about all the people he planned to hire I immediately threw up on the conference table Hiring people, instead of deploying AI agents to do the work? Clearly, this founder is stuck in 1997 I left the room and ordered my autonomous robot to clean the room

NVIDIA didn’t win by “just GPUs.” They built CUDA, developer ecosystems, and tight integrations - that’s very much up the stack. Amazon Retail is still a massive business and owns the end customer relationship. Windows, Office, and enterprise relationships is also big. The real pattern isn’t “up vs down the stack.” They picked a position and then expanded wherever the leverage was.

Silicon Valley dogma: "You have to go up the stack. Own the customer relationship." Meanwhile... NVIDIA: Just GPUs. Nothing up the stack. Doing fine Amazon: Started with books (apps), went down the stack to AWS. That's where most of their revenue is now Microsoft: 50%+ of revenue comes from Azure (infrastructure) So the belief that you must go upstack at any cost in order to grow is completely BS. The biggest companies did the opposite.

Yes, you can build a simple e-commerce site, dating app, marketplace, or SaaS without VC money today. Cloud, low-code, and AI make the product cheap. But the product was rarely the expensive part. The hard parts are still: - distribution (getting users) - liquidity (for marketplaces or dating apps) - trust & brand - customer acquisition costs That’s why companies like Airbnb, Uber, and Shopify raised capital even though the underlying software wasn’t impossibly complex.

You don't need need VC money to build: - A simple e-commerce website - A simple dating app - A simple marketplace - A simple SaaS If you leverage cloud + low-code + AI, you can realistically bootstrap your MVP to $20k-$100k MRR/mGMV. No investors needed. From there, you can raise to scale OR bootstrap some more. This is great for founders! So what will VCs fund? Non-vanilla stuff: complex software, deeptech, fintech, biotech... Maybe even hardware 😳

First, the layoffs at Twitter under Elon Musk weren’t a clean proof that “nothing bad happened.” A lot actually did happen: - major advertisers paused spending - moderation capacity dropped - multiple outages and bugs appeared - large parts of institutional knowledge disappeared The platform didn’t instantly collapse, but “it still loads” is a pretty low bar for success. Second, cutting staff in a mature system with years of built infrastructure is very different from building or maintaining complex software long term. Using one high-profile case to dismiss the broader shift is a bit like saying planes didn’t change transportation because boats still exist.

If you're worried that the layoffs in tech are driven by AI replacement of labor, just recall that Musk fired some 80% of Twitter and pretty much nothing bad happened, long before agentic AI era. Overhiring followed by rightsizing cycles are as natutal as moon phases.

@nickisanders That’s why so many tokenization projects look great in a whitepaper or prototype, but struggle once real investors and regulators get involved.

Everyone wants to tokenize assets. Almost nobody wants to do the boring parts: • transfer restrictions • investor onboarding • corporate actions • regulatory reporting But that is where the real infrastructure lives.

If two people start a company together and one leaves after two years, they didn’t just “walk away with 25%.” They spent two years taking the same career risk, opportunity cost, and uncertainty. It only looks unfair in hindsight. If the company pivots completely, there are reasonable paths: renegotiate equity with mutual agreement or buy back shares at a negotiated price

let's say a startup raises a $2M seed round w/ 2 co-founders. 2yrs later the company has spent $1M, but has no viable product or revenue. founder B leaves after year 2, having vested 25% of the company. founder A pivots to something totally different, and builds a $1B company. does founder B still deserve the $250M? that equity is fuel, and could have been used to build a $10B company by providing equity to 1000+ of new hires in later growth stages. so what should founder A have done? 1. Offer 1-3 months payment to purchase 90%+ of the vested equity. founder B maintains a small token amount and signs a release of any additional claim. worth taking, as their equity is worthless in 99% of cases. 2. If founder B declines the offer, shutdown the company, return the money to investors and if they want to continue to back founder A on a new idea, do it with a fresh start. most founders don't do this as it's actually harder to do in practice - sometimes investors might not want to continue to back the remaining founder, so things get messy. equity is the lifeblood of a young company. you have equity and cash on hand. with little cash, you need to be as resourceful with equity as possible.

@robprogressive Congratulations, you’ve discovered how modern banking works. if banks kept everyone’s cash sitting idle in a vault, there would be no loans, no mortgages, no business credit, and no economy.

@Kazanjy Early startups especially rarely get the luxury of “ideal prospects.” They win by helping customers move along that checklist, not by waiting for someone who already checks every box. If every deal was pre-qualified like that, sales wouldn’t exist - checkout buttons would.

Founders: Your best prospects have these traits: 1. Pain point is top 3 priority 2. Budget exists or allocated elsewhere 3. Can decide quickly 4. No major technical blockers 5. Clear ROI path Don't compromise.

@MikeKhristo “Why did my AI send 4,000 emails, refund 300 customers, and schedule a meeting with my ex at 3am?” Just maybe don’t give them the keys to the kingdom on day one.

There’s a phase with AI that’s more dangerous than being a beginner. It’s knowing just enough. That’s when people wire agents to Gmail, give them calendar access, and hand over API keys. The magic shows up fast. So do the edge cases. Hidden instructions in emails, credential leaks, and agents doing exactly what you told them to do… just not what you meant. This isn’t about creating fear. It’s about the same security cat-and-mouse we’ve always had, just on a different scale. If you’re experimenting with agents, don’t just optimize for capability. Build guardrails first. Power without boundaries is liability, not leverage.

@anzedetn AI doesn’t need to perfectly replicate “energy transfer” to be useful for brands. Most brand creative isn’t a museum painting The best campaigns will still involve human taste and judgment. But that doesn’t mean AI can’t generate compelling work

The idea that AI is going to “take over creative” for brands is a fantasy. There are too many nuances, variables, and human layers that live outside the data you can feed a machine. When someone puts real energy into a piece of creative, you can feel it. That same principle applies to a painting on a wall. If you are an art lover, you feel something standing in front of it. AI can generate a hundred versions of that same painting in seconds, but most of them will feel empty. Energy transfer is invisible, which is exactly why it’s being underestimated by AI developers. One person in a bad mood can pull an entire room down in thirty seconds. Another person with the right energy can do the total opposite. The same way energy is infectious in a room, it’s equally infectious in a fifteen-second video. AI has access to near-endless amounts of data, but it still can’t transmit emotional conviction the way a human creative can.

A 22-year-old doesn’t have to align six stakeholders, protect three legacy systems, or justify a budget to finance. But the pattern is real: a small builder with no approvals can out-ship a committee every time. The best companies figure out how to keep a few “garage teams” inside the company

Why 22y/o are outbuilding 40y/o ceo’s right now: > Read about AI every morning > Feel the urgency in your chest > Tell your team to "figure out our AI strategy" > They schedule a kickoff meeting > The kickoff meeting produces three more meetings > Someone suggests a pilot project > The pilot needs budget approval > Budget approval needs a business case > Two months pass, and nothing has been shipped > A 23-year-old just launched the thing you described in that first meeting > He built it in a weekend > He didn't have a team to convince > He didn't have the infrastructure to protect > He just built it The gap between you and that kid has nothing to do with intelligence. He leans toward the THRILL. You lean toward the FEAR. And the advantage he still has is simple. He is still in the garage. Go back to yours.

@KevinNaughtonJr Great engineers usually reveal themselves pretty quickly in conversation. The depth of their thinking shows up fast -especially in how clearly they can explain complex ideas.

there's such an irony in tech hiring in that the best engineers to hire are the ones who don't actually need to interview and yet most companies design intricate interview processes to "hire the best talent" when in reality most processes: 1. can be gamed 2. evaluate a proxy for abilty as opposed to true ability i'd argue that the best people to hire, from a technical perspective, are the people who you can cold extend an offer to immediately after a technical conversation. any engineer worth their value will be able to explain complicated topics simply and recount meaningful contributions in a way that plainly displays their expertise if you can't decide whether or not to hire someone after the conversion i believe one of the two following points must be true: 1. the person is not technical enough and should not be hired 2. you are not technical enough to be hiring your engineers