Peter Bonney

We're giving away money at ZScoreX to prove a point. Credit event trading shouldn't be locked behind $10M minimums and ISDA agreements. So we're backing early believers with real capital. Introducing the ZScoreX Pioneer Program.

Introducing PerturbAI. Today we announced our emergence from stealth with the release of the world’s largest in vivo CRISPR data engine, interrogating the effects of thousands of genetic perturbations across 8 million cells throughout the whole brain. This dataset represents a new category of biological data: organism-level, circuit-resolved causal genomics leading to novel targets and therapeutics. By combining scalable in vivo CRISPR perturbation with AI, we model biological systems at unprecedented resolution and simulate therapeutic interventions before committing to expensive downstream development. We’re grateful to our collaborators at @NVIDIAHealth and @10xGenomics for helping make this landmark dataset possible. Read More: perturb.ai/news #CRISPR #AI #DrugDiscovery #FunctionalGenomics #Biotech

@T_Zahil It’s not an either/or but a yes/and. I ALWAYS have an IDE open while using Claude Code. My CC workflow is more or less the same as my Cursor workflow was, it’s just that my AI assistant is in a terminal (rather than a widget in my IDE).

I'll be honest: I don't understand the hype around Claude Code and all those AIs in CLI It's SO much easier to have an interface (Cursor, Conductor...) to understand what's going on, to review the changes, etc

$ORCL debt is the most visible and liquid proxy for AI infrastructure credit risk. If you aren't already paying attention to what markets are saying about Oracle credit, you should.

@Austen Yes. But you could say that ChatGPT was just GPT for non-technical people. The interface was the innovation, and it led to an explosion of both interest and use cases.

I’m a little confused at the hype around this. Isn’t this… exactly what Claude does already? And has done for a long time? Is this just marketing to let nontechnical people know they can use it too? I must be missing something.

@cblatts It's not a marketing campaign. A few weeks ago I noticed a major shift, started involuntarily gushing about it with friends, and found they all experienced the same thing around the same time. It's just... different. And when you experiene it you can't shut up about it.

Approximately 1/3 of my X feed is people gushing about Claude code. I’m already an intensive ChatGPT user so I am open minded. And I will try it. I can't help but wonder: 1. Why do most of these posts sound like they were written by their AI? 2. Is this a viral marketing campaign? 3. Is this just the Twitter algorithm running wild? 4. Why don't I understand from these posts what these people are actually doing with Claude? Why is it all in vague gobbledygook? They talk about tasks in weird jargon, and it's like they're speaking a different language. I really don't understand what 5. Can someone explain in plain English what I would as an academic would do concretely with Claude code? We are already testing it out to clean and analyze basic survey data where it does okay. I'm going to be trying to play around with some new theoretical models, adapting IO models to criminal firms where ChatGPT has been doing ok. Will Claude code do better? Anything else I should be thinking about kind of work they're doing.

Total potential: up to $400 or more in your first 90 days. But this won't last - slots are limited. When they're gone, they're gone. Early believers get rewarded. That's how it should work. Sign up at zscorex.com.

This is the one that matters most. Your trading losses are covered for 90 days. Up to $100. You're auto-enrolled. No application. We want you learning, not hesitating.

We're giving away money at ZScoreX to prove a point. Credit event trading shouldn't be locked behind $10M minimums and ISDA agreements. So we're backing early believers with real capital. Introducing the ZScoreX Pioneer Program.

When you make prediction markets for events that have ambiguous resolution criteria, guess what happens next. There are so many useful, well-defined targets for binary event contracts. But the market leaders are out here letting this nonsense happen. nytimes.com/2026/01/08/bus…

@salcekosma All of Saks’ dealings with suppliers over the last 12 months looks pretty cynical in hindsight. I’m guessing they knew for months that they wouldn’t make the December interest payment.

@PeterKBonney Exactly. For lenders it’s a spreadsheet outcome. For suppliers it’s survival, and unpaid bills rarely get factored into those decisions until it’s too late.

Bankruptcy or yet ANOTHER restructuring is next. The difference between those two outcomes is minimal to lenders at this point, but it’s everything to suppliers whose bills haven’t been paid.

$CRWV credit is at 750, $ORCL at 140. Not sure what that means? This explainer is for you!

The paradox of $CRWV: it is obviously a terrible credit risk, but it just as obviously a terrifying short. Buy credit protection AND buy the stock? 🤷

@arndxt_xo I agree about market resolution - no financial market with potentially ambiguous outcomes will become major. But I disagree about contract creation. The vast majority of liquidity in stocks, futures, etc. accrues to a small number of popular securities. Curation > creation IMHO.

prediction markets is the most successful category this cycle. the chart tracking notional volume basically shows a clean exponential curve: - 2024 peaked around the us presidential election (pure attention) - post-election mindshare cooled - then from 2025 q3 onward, volume resumed a steady grind up - last few weeks printing >$3.6b like it’s becoming a default venue but even the leaders like @Polymarket are still bottlenecked by two BIG flaws: issue #1: market creation isn’t permissionless - right now, the “average user” can’t just spin up a market. it’s only curated by the team. - if only insiders can list markets, you don’t get the long tail of edge, and you cap the category’s ceiling. issue #2: market resolution is the real problem resolution = deciding the truth after the event. because most events are offchain, you need an oracle + a dispute system. and in practice, this is where incentives get weird: - oracles can be ambiguous - disputes become political - token voting can be captured in polymarket’s case, disputed outcomes route to $UMA holder voting. and when there’s a lot of money on the line, big holders have an incentive to vote for the outcome that benefits them. so the trading can be fair, but the part that matters most is the final payout decision, where the system can be exploited. and these two problems are linked: - you can’t open creation to everyone until you have robust resolution frameworks. - otherwise you get spam markets, unverifiable outcomes, and endless disputes. i believe the category is winning on demand… but scaling it globally requires permissionless creation + credible resolution.

Don’t tell me we aren’t approaching the not-so-good part of the credit cycle. wsj.com/business/autos…