FoundersFi

Anyone paying $78,000 to buy Bitcoin is not getting in cheap. Based on the historic price range in which Bitcoin has traded since inception, $78,000 is a very high price to pay. Just because some people paid more, that does not mean paying less than they did is a bargain.

Allowing Saylor to buy each for under $100,000 in Billions in few weeks is Crazy... $BTC

$STRC 이거 젤리좌가 구조 위험하다고 얘기하긴 했는데 세일러는 그런 거 모르겠고 무지성 롱 모드네 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ

BTC will rally to $200,000 - $300,000 this year. Bookmark it!

Stretch Everything $STRC

🚨⚔️ELON MUSK DECLARE LA GUERRE À OPENAI AU TRIBUNAL Ce matin, Musk est venu témoigner et il balance sans filtre : « Si on n’arrête pas ça, l’humanité va droit dans le mur. L’IA pourrait dépasser l’intelligence humaine dès l’année prochaine… et entre de mauvaises mains, c’est la fin. » Il accuse OpenAI d’avoir trahi sa mission initiale : - Créé comme organisation NON PROFIT et OPEN SOURCE pour protéger l’humanité. - Sam Altman l’a transformé en machine à fric. Musk : « Si un type peu fiable contrôle l’IA la plus puissante, c’est un danger existentiel pour toute l’espèce humaine. » Il défend xAI, SpaceX et Starlink comme les vrais remparts pour l’avenir. Musk vs Altman, round 1 terminé… et ça continue demain.

새 연준 의장 케빈 워시: "나는 트럼프의 꼭두각시가 아니다" 하지만 그의 과거 발언들을 살펴보면 그가 어떤 계획과 야망을 가지고 있는지, 케빈 워시와 제롬 파월의 극명한 차이점을 보여준다. 케빈 워시는 AI의 효율성이 극대화되면서 기술 혁신으로 생산성이 높아져 물가 상승 압력이 낮아질 것이기에 금리를 인하할 수 있다" 라는 관점을 가졌다. "물가 안정"을 유지하면서도 금리를 낮출 수 있다는 것이다.

Had a Jane Street interview in 2013 that still bothers me. It was my 6th round. Final interview. The guy walks in carrying no laptop, no notebook, just a cold brew and what I later realized was a single IKEA tea candle. He writes on the whiteboard: food: $200 rent: $800 utilities: $150 candles: $3,600 family: dying Then he turns around and says, “Optimize.” I laughed because I thought it was a culture-fit bit. He did not laugh. So I said, “Well, obviously you spend less on candles.” He says, “Assume candles are non-discretionary.” Okay. I start building a model. Basic constraint satisfaction. Family survival as a soft penalty. Candles as a state variable. Maybe there’s an arbitrage where you buy wholesale paraffin and convert the $3,600 line item into inventory. He stops me. “You’re thinking like a consultant.” That’s when I knew I was in trouble. He says, “Give me a bid-ask on family dying.” I say, “What?” He says, “You’re long candles, short family. Where do you make markets?” I try to recover. I say the real issue is liquidity: rent and utilities are fixed, food is elastic, candles are emotionally inelastic. Therefore the optimal strategy is to securitize future candle enjoyment and borrow against it. He nods for the first time. Then he asks, “What time do you sell the candles?” I say, “Whenever the market is liquid?” He says, “Be more specific.” I say, “Uh… 10 a.m. Eastern?” For the first time, he smiles. He goes, “Every day?” I say, “Every day.” He says, “In size?” I say, “In size.” He says, “And what do we call that?” I say, “Market manipulation?” The room gets very quiet. He looks disappointed and writes something down. “No. We call it providing liquidity to candle ETFs during the U.S. cash open.” I try to save it. “Right. Of course. The family isn’t dying because we underfunded them. They’re just experiencing temporary price discovery.” He nods again. Then he points back at the board. I had missed it. The utility bill was $150, but candles provide light. You can zero out utilities. I update the budget: food: $200 rent: $800 utilities: $0 candles: $3,750 family: still dying, but now in a more capital-efficient way He says, “How confident are you?” I say, “0.95.” He smiles and circles candles. “0.95 huh?” Then he asks me to estimate how many leveraged longs get liquidated if we dump $3,750 of candles at 10:00:01 every morning for 90 consecutive trading days. Needless to say I did not get the offer.

Scam Altman