AndroDevs

Iagon’s Ecosystem Insights – May 2026 🌐 No noise — just steady execution. The Iagon ecosystem continues to grow with stability and focus, building the foundation for long-term adoption. 🔹 122.0M $IAG staked — growing long-term commitment 🔹~30% of supply staked — more than every 4th token securing the network 🔹 800+ storage nodes powering a resilient infrastructure Across 58 countries, the ecosystem continues to expand with consistency and purpose. Thank you, Iagonauts 🤝 📊 Check the full infographic for more insights

genuinely fuck whoever came up w the dumbass idea to replace THE DICTIONARY BUILT INTO GOOGLE with the ai overview's definitions i hope everything in their life fucking sucks

My company’s claude account got exhausted. Now my legendary manager is asking if we can build our own LLM like Claude to reduce costs😭

I am voting "Abstain" on the proposal for "Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research." I believe this proposal is a mix of a waste of funds and a potentially excellent proposal for Leios and quantum resistance research, and I wanted it resubmitted and split. However, the IOR has promised never to resubmit and has promised to close down leios and quantum-resistant research labs if the proposal is rejected. As some members have suggested, this may be a political maneuver by the IOR, but it may not be. If not, I believe that news of a complete halt to the research will spread, and the ADA could fall by more than 50% due to the departure of holders who were involved in purchasing under the guise of peer review. Therefore, our choice is as follows: A. Tolerate some seemingly pointless research as a sacrifice to gain access to research on Leios and quantum resistance. B-1. Reject the proposal, betting on a resubmission, with an X% probability of the resubmission occurring. B-2. Reject the proposal, betting on a (1-X)% chance of a resubmission, but all labs closing and an ADA 50%+drop event occurring. The ideal scenario is B-1, but the worst-case scenario is B-2, and the probability of this is difficult to predict as it depends on the political decisions of the IOR team. At the very least, since the IOR has promised closures, this is a high-risk gamble. While I acknowledge that B-1 is ideal, I cannot accept the risk of the B-2 event, so I withdraw my NO. While I find this emotionally very frustrating, we need to consider it objectively, focusing on the practical gains and losses for the entire ecosystem. On the other hand, I understand the argument that it is absurd to actively approve a budget that includes what I believe to be a waste of money. Based on this feedback, I withdraw my YES. Therefore, my final vote is Abstain. I hope the IOR will improve its operations next year.

Today we reduced headcount by 22%. The business is the strongest it's ever been. So I think it's important to be direct about what I'm seeing and why. First, I made this decision and I own it. I did it because the way to operate at the highest level of productivity is changing, and to win the future, ClickUp needs to change with it. Second, this wasn't about cutting costs. Most savings from this change will flow directly back into the people who stay. We'll be introducing million-dollar salary bands. If you create outsized impact using AI, you'll be paid outside of traditional bands. Most importantly, I have the deepest gratitude for those affected. We're doing this from a position of strength specifically so we can take care of people properly. Everyone affected receives a package aimed at honoring their contributions and easing the transition. I only see two options: wait for this to play out gradually in the market or be honest about what I'm seeing and act proactively. THE 100X ORGANIZATION The primary change is that we're restructuring around what I call 100x org. The goal is 100x output. The roles required to build at the highest level are fundamentally different than they were a year ago. Incremental improvements to existing systems won't get us there. We need new ones. That means creating enough disruption to rebuild rather than iterate on what's already broken. The common narrative is that AI makes everyone more productive. It doesn't. Many of the workflows of today, if left unchanged, create bottlenecks in AI systems. These roles will evolve. But waiting for that to happen naturally means falling behind now. The 100x org is actually heavily dependent on people - infinitely more than today. This is only possible with 10x people that have embraced and adopted new ways of working. THE BUILDERS, AGENT MANAGERS, AND FRONT-LINERS — THE BUILDERS: 10X ENGINEERS I don't think most companies have internalized what's actually happening with AI in engineering. The common narrative is that AI makes all engineers more productive. That may be true in isolation, but at an organization level - that is the farthest thing from reality. Here's what we've validated recently at ClickUp: the great engineers, the ones who can orchestrate, architect, and review, are becoming 100x engineers. They're not writing code. They're directing agents that write code. The skill is judgment. AI makes the best engineers wildly more productive, and everyone else using AI slows these engineers down. Think about it - the bottlenecks are (1) orchestration - telling AI what to do, and (2) reviewing - what AI did. Everything is leapfrogged and no longer needed. So who do you want orchestrating and reviewing code? And how do you want your best engineers to spend their time? If your best engineers are spending time reviewing other people's code, then this is inherently an inefficient bottleneck. These engineers can review their agent's code much faster than reviewing human code. The new world is about enabling your 10x engineers to become 100x. The wrong strategy is to push every engineer to use infinite tokens. Companies doing this are celebrating 500% more pull requests. But customer outcomes don't match the volume of code being generated. I call this the great reckoning of AI coding, and every company will face this soon if not already. More code is just another bottleneck to the best engineers, and ultimately to your company's impact as well. — THE BUILDERS: 10X PRODUCT MANAGERS Product management and design roles are merging. Designers that have customer focus, become more like product managers. And product managers that have intuition for UX become more like designers. The bottleneck of user research is gone. It takes us just one mention of an agent to kickoff research and analyze results. The bottleneck of product <> design iteration is also gone. The product builder iterates on their own, along with agents and skills that ensure alignment with quality and strategy. Also controversial today - I believe that the wrong strategy is to have your PMs shipping code - that just introduces another bottleneck that the best engineers will waste their time on. To be clear, PMs should be coding but they should do this in a playground to iterate, validate, and scope. That code should not go to production. Everything outside of managing systems, orchestrating AI, and reviewing output becomes a bottleneck. That's why the other roles that are critical along with these are the systems managers (to reduce bottlenecks) along with a bottleneck you can't replace - customer meeting time. — THE SYSTEM MANAGERS Ironically, the people that automate their jobs with AI will always have a job. They become owners of the AI systems - agent managers. We have many examples of these people at ClickUp. The underlying systems in which we operate are absolutely critical to get right. I think most companies are delusional to think they can iterate on existing systems and compete in this new world. You must create enough disruption so that old systems are deprecated entirely. If there's any definition for 'AI native' that's what it is. — THE FRONT-LINERS In a world that will become saturated with AI communication, the human touch will matter more than anything to customers. This is a bottleneck that you shouldn't replace - even when agents are high enough quality to do video meetings. One-on-one meeting time with customers is something that shouldn't be automated. The systems around the meetings should be - so that front-liners spend nearly 100% of their time with customers. REWARDING 100X IMPACT In a world where companies are able to do so much more with less, where does that excess money go? In our case, much of the savings in this new operating model will flow directly back to those that enabled it. We must reward people that create productivity accordingly. This aligns incentives on both sides. Plus, in a world where your best people create 100x impact, you can't afford to lose them. You should aim to retain these employees for decades. The context they have and their ability to efficiently orchestrate and review will be nearly impossible to replace. Compensation bands of today should be thrown out the door. We're introducing $1 million cash/year salary bands with a path available to nearly everyone in the company if they produce 100x impact by creating or managing AI systems. THE FUTURE Nearly every company will make changes like these. The ones that do it proactively will define what comes next. The future is not fewer people. It's different work, new roles, and better rewards for those who embrace it. We're already seeing entirely new roles emerge, like Agent Managers, that didn't exist a year ago. ClickUp is positioning to lead this shift, not just internally, but for our customers too. I've never been more certain about where we're headed.

‼️🚨 UPDATE: The TanStack npm attack is now a full campaign. 'Mini' Shai-Hulud has hit: - OpenSearch - Mistral AI - Guardrails AI -UiPath - Squawk packages across npm and PyPI The malware specifically targets AI developer tooling. It hooks into Claude Code (.claude/settings.json) and VS Code (.vscode/tasks.json) to re-execute on every tool event, long after the infected package is gone. npm uninstall does not fix this.