0xSympathy

$DIEM tokenizes perpetual inference and creates a new blockchain primitive that yields $1 of compute every day. There is so much nascent opportunity to build a whole “perpetual inference” DeFi world on top of this: Just scratching the surface of a few ideas: Inference markets - expiring inference credits can be bought/sold at a discount. Inference lending - renting out unused compute Inference as high LTV tokenized collateral may be one of the more predictable collateral assets in DeFi. Inference leverage - setups that allow you to borrow against your staked DIEM and auto buys more DIEM capacity when needed to scale. DIEM yield markets - various ways that offer those with DIEM opportunities to earn from their unused inference. “Inference sharing” - agreements between users to loan inference back and forth specific days or time periods. Inference options - buying/selling the rights to inference for specific time periods in the future. Aware of a number of teams starting to build in some, but not all, of these directions and there is tons of design space to explore here with the DIEM primitive outside of these few areas. I expect to see a large uptick of DIEM DeFI projects coming online over the next few weeks and months.

The goal of Personal AI: civilization where individual humans, augmented by AI, can do consequential work without being captured by extractive institutions. Freedom to write your prompt and own your data. This is the new battleground. 2034 won’t have to be like 1984.

Just spoke with someone from NVIDIA's official Korean distributor. They mentioned an imminent $500 price hike is coming for the DGX Spark. Prices have already jumped, but they're about to go much higher. Also, Apple agreed to pay double in their latest supply deal with Samsung. Expect prices to absolutely skyrocket starting with the M6.

most of you don't know how big a deal it is that a single rtx 3090 from 2020 runs qwen 27b dense q4 with 256k context at 40 tok/s, full agentic loops on hermes agent, zero tool call failures. the more i build on this card the more i think nobody really knows how untapped it actually is. the silicon was always capable, the models finally caught up.

TBH I don't agree with your take. I don't think Athropic's desire to control the harness is about keeping resource usage under control. They could accomplish that by just enforcing limits on the actual resource usage (which they already do) -- if some third-party harness is inefficient, users of than harness hit their limits faster. I think instead that they want to control the harness because if switching LLM providers is too easy, it makes business difficult for the providers. Say GPT 5.5 comes out and it's clearly smarter, faster, and cheaper than Opus 4.7. If everyone can switch providers with two clicks in their harness, many of them will. This would lead to wild revenue and usage swings, which makes capacity planning hard. And perfect competition drives down prices -- in this scenario Opus has to cut its prices to get some users back. Obviously no business wants to be in that situation! By controlling the harness, they add some stickiness. If switching LLM providers means switching harnesses, that's a barrier high enough that most people won't bother to do it on a whim. So now Opus 4.7 can weather the storm until 4.8 or whatever comes out and is back on top. So it makes perfect sense to me as a business decision. It may be user-unfriendly, but tech companies do stuff like this all the time. It's nothing new. Though I would say, it seems weird to me to do this *on top of* subscriptions. Subscriptions already create a lot of stickiness. If you're subscribed only to Claude, that's a pretty big barrier to trying out GPT quickly -- a bigger barrier than the harness barrier I think. So I question whether controlling the harness is really worth all the effort they are putting into it, but idk, they probably have insights that I don't on this. Another factor here might actually be safety concerns. As we know, Anthropic leadership is deeply (excessively, IMO) worried about AI safety, and they feel that Anthropic will do a better job of addressing safety than any other company. They may feel that control of the harness is an important tool for that. I could definitely imagine Dario being terrified of OpenClaw from a safety perspective (I sort of am too). These explanations make much more sense to me than the efficiency issue, which again seems like it could easily be managed in other ways. But of course, these explanations are much harder to just come out and say, without stirring a lot more outrage...

VVV emissions reduced from 6M to 5M tokens per year, effective today. This is the first of 3 monthly reductions: - May 1: 6M → 5M - June 1: 5M → 4M - July 1: 4M → 3M Our goal is a net deflationary VVV with native yield, where burns exceed emissions