Alexander Pack

@Bfaviero i value u Bruno

Hard to describe the exact moment a VC decides you’re of zero value mid-convo and finds the fastest possible exit

“So here’s the secret to lasting a really long time,” she says. “You never become the main character. I’m a side character. Everybody knows who I am, but nobody really knows why.” If there was ever a quote I identified with on a spiritual level... h/t @Melt_Dem vanityfair.com/news/story/cry…

If you're heading to @blockworksDAS then stop by our office on 3/24 for a crypto & compute event! Shoutout/big thanks to our great partners @tectonicxyz luma.com/sryq7brm

1Money is proud to be part of @Mastercard’s Crypto Partner Program. As digital assets continue to mature into real-world financial infrastructure, collaboration across payment networks, financial institutions, and crypto-native builders will be critical. We’re proud to contribute to what comes next.

against totalitarianism (manifesto coming soon)

@cyberxtremog My post was about the '23-24 period, when Hyperliquid launched and took market share from a bunch of well-funded (by me 😭) competitors. Agreed that things have changed since then!

1. Yep but HLP is minor part of liquidity in HL 2. Yep, HL is still very centralized which can led to fast arbitrary decisions like closing jelly jelly token at an arbitrary price 3. Disagree here, there are new products like Extended with already better UX and better execution costs and better suited in the regulatory side 4. Agree on great airdrop and narrative

I was an early investor in like 5+ multi-billion perp dexs that Hyperliquid eventually vanquished. Plus many of the biggest CEXs. Here is exactly how HL won: 1. HLP: every winning perp exchange used an internal market maker. Liquidity is THE product, you can't outsource it. FTX <> Alameda is the infamous failure case, but Jeff also bootstrapped HL with his trading firm. He then took it to the next level by democratizing access to that internal MMer with HLP. 2. Centralization: they launched with a permissioned chain, with the team as sole validators. Competitors were messing around with experimental chains like Starknet and Solana, some parts on-chain and some off-, it was a mess. HL's approach was clean and fast, but also took major reg risk that a US team could never have done. But it paid off, because... 3. The best product: sorry to my founders, but HL was the whole package. The UX, the speed, the auto-margining… wow. CeFi-level trading experience. 4. Airdrop and VC-less fair launch: great narrative to give all tokens to the users and only the users. That’s what crypto is about.

@solwoofer @variational_io We also seeded Variational, they are doing great. Not trying to compete head to head with hyperliquid.

@alpackaP What do you think of @variational_io ? any chance against hyperliquid

Three actually. The ticker is called $STABLE (+150% YTD)

@Eugene_Bulltime Hyperliquid

@alpackaP who's next by your opinion?

@solwoofer @fintechfrank

@alpackaP @fintechfrank What about hack vc? How are you guys doing? How’s raising the next fund?

Lots of people spinning this as bearish for crypto. But it’s actually the exact opposite. Paradigm is a huge firm pushing 10 years old. Very normal for firms to expand at this stage - KKR and Bain Capital moved from pure PE to credit and public equities, a16z has a fund for every slice of tech. This is Paradigm maturing and reintegrating into the broader tech sector, same as the entire industry.

@hosseeb @tsarnikolas2 Which is it Haseeb? Did you start from zero, or was the fund 67% raised? Honestly this is pretty sad man. Bo and I started the firm together. We even hired ~5 people before you. You were the 6th employee. Perhaps you should give your partners some credit.

@hosseeb Hey Haseeb, did you really block @jonathanmarcus just for posting this? x.com/jonathanmarcus…

Hey Haseeb, if you're going to try to rewrite history, I'll set the record straight - Bo and I co-founded Dragonfly 1+ year before we hired you to join us. The firm was not at 0, we led plenty of great deals. We both had solid prior track records as well. We led investments into many well-known crypto companies (and Bo dozens of Chinese unicorns) back when you were "playing" poker.

@jazgulati @hosseeb x.com/jonathanmarcus…

@alpackaP @hosseeb bruh

AI shall unseat those whose chief labor is to quote Citrini's article.

He just underestimated how long technological progression would last. You can see it in the passage where he derives the LTV and in the passage in kapital where he explains surplus value extraction for the first time. In it, he essentially says something like this: "Once the CEO buys the workers labor and the machinery, if you took away the CEO, the company would still work, implying their value is 0" The LTV derivation is a little easier: "Assuming capitalism is the most efficient economic system, which it is, it will naturally equilibrate, after which point the overall value of an economy is determined by the amount of labor" - this is actually correct, it's as true as saying the amount of value in an efficient market is limited by the amount of usable energy The key error he makes is assuming that there is no value of the labor reorganization process itself. Capital allocation is actually really hard, and very important, and the invention and diffusion of *technology* continually throws the economy *off* equilibria. To my knowledge this is something deng xiaoping figured out, and is why technology is explicitly mentioned as a goal of the CCP (cc @teortaxesTex) This means that all capitalist economies pre-AGI are not actually solely determined by the amount of labor, but also it's organizational capacity. Thus the rate of profit can remain non-zero, as capitalists are able to acquire profit through technological diffusion. This changes post-AGI though, as the marginal contributions of CEOs and so on go to zero as the AI becomes superhuman in capital allocation. In fact the most likely scenario is that capital allocation gets automated before all other forms of labor, simply because the compute shortage will force companies to focus on high ROI, primarily digital, industries.

everyone is freaking out over the Citrini piece about AI killing capitalism. incredibly, it makes the exact same mistake that Marx, the OG doommaxer, made when he said that machines would kill capitalism... in 1867.

Not saying a crisis won’t happen. But if it does, it won’t be because the economy got too productive.

@alpackaP Did the GFC kill capitalism? No (or maybe, jury still out) It was a financial crisis. All this article models is a scenario of another financial crisis. You took it to the extreme to have something to compare with and argue against. The articles reasoning is very valid.