Fazio

@naval the escape hatch is not looking serious. it’s becoming unfakeable

@growing_daniel pimps are so lowkey you forgot about them

The two future jobs are anthropic employee and sex worker servicing anthropic employees

@naval keeps you on your toes, building your calves, until you find balance in chaos, or die with big calves

What you really want is a challenge at the edge of your capability.

Fair point on the guidance I was watching that too and was disappointed. Not understanding the the subscription revenue piece tied to Indonesia ? I’ve done some work on that side of the business and it’s all insurance and enterprise analytics deals (not tied to their project based biz like indo), growing nicely. If they get to 10M ARR a 12x multiple would make up their valuation and that’s actually decent if not on the lower side for this type of business. Great thoughts let’s stay sharp on this. His planet micro cap talk was decent highly suggest if u haven’t tuned in

@faicalio I still own a fair amount but I wouldn’t rely on Blott’s projections for anything. The subscriptions revenue is not enough to carry the valuation and it’s almost all tied to indo at this point.

Intermap Technologies $IMP.TO Thoughts …..? They've spent 20+ years building the world's most precise elevation dataset: NEXTMap. That data is now the backbone of how insurers price flood and nat-cat risk. You can't replicate it. Every foot of it cost real money to collect, and they own it outright. The core business is selling subscriptions to that data (InsitePro, NEXTMap licenses), which grew 29% last year to $5.2M. That's the recurring engine. Small but compounding. Total revenue looks terrible ($10.6M, down 40%) but that's entirely timing on government contracts, not demand pull back. The math: Build a DCF on the subscription segment alone at 25% growth and a conservative FCF margin, and you get C$2.14/share. You're buying the recurring data business at an 15-18% discount and getting everything else for free. What's "everything else": • Indonesia ILASP: $200M contract, down-selected for all 4 lots. In negotiation. • US DoD: fully funded, in contracting. Just delayed. • Malaysia flood mapping: already awarded, revenue hitting in 2026. • New verticals: autonomous vehicle navigation, 5G signal propagation. • $22.5M cash on the balance sheet. The risk: "Coming months" on Indonesia has been vague before. Another slip and the stock stays flat while you wait. It's a micro-cap with thin liquidity, so you don't get in and out cleanly. The bet: The subscription business alone justifies the price. Indonesia is an asymmetric kicker. If one of the government contracts closes, the stock re-rates.

@naval how do you know it’s one of the best if you haven’t read enough?

If it’s not one of the best books you’ve ever read, don’t read it.

A dishonest slime type of liar? or more like a heavily promotional turn around CEO with skin in the game? For non-Indo rev I would disagree, because their stickiest segment is that data as a service piece sold to insurances mostly. ARR is ~5M now, he is saying run rate at 8-10M I think it’s doable. That alone gives a lot of protection, I would even expect net dollar retention on that are to be >100%. Balance sheet is still strong. And the market conditions are favorable to this type of business. If they pull through a nasdaq listing we will that’s a cherry on top. Probably a volatile ride from Here to 2 quarters out to see how things play out, but I can stomach it if I see that Arr figure growing

@faicalio Blott lies about everything. Can’t trust him and would be very conservative with valuing any non-Indo revenue. On the flipside, market expects delays and anytime there’s a hint of good news it pops.

Fisher’s fundamental theorem says the speed of evolution is equal to the variance in fitness. Not motivation. Not effort. Not “learning.” Variance. If every organism has roughly the same odds of surviving, selection has nothing to grab. The system can be busy as hell and still not evolve. Progress starts when outcomes become uneven enough for reality to rank them. You can see it cleanly in the Galápagos finches. During the 1977 drought on Daphne Major, small soft seeds disappeared and only harder seeds remained. The birds with slightly deeper, stronger beaks survived at higher rates; the average beak size jumped in the next generation. No committee decided “bigger beaks are strategic.” The environment changed, variance got exposed, and selection did the math. Venture works the same way, which is why normal people misunderstand it. A good VC fund is not trying to make every investment “solid.” That’s employee-brain portfolio construction. Venture returns are power-law: a tiny fraction of bets produce almost all the gains. If you eliminate weirdness, you eliminate the possibility of the outlier. Safety sterilizes the upside, then everyone acts shocked when the portfolio becomes a low-return graveyard in a Patagonia vest. AI is the same machine wearing different clothes. AlphaGo Zero didn’t become superhuman because it memorized more human games. It played itself millions of times, generated a huge distribution of candidate moves, brutally selected what won, then fed that back into the next iteration. Intelligence emerged from variation plus selection plus compounding. The “genius” was not one perfect idea. It was an engine that could produce many ideas, kill most of them, and keep the rare mutations that worked. That’s the sovereignty lesson. Your job is optimized to reduce variance: predictable salary, predictable scope, predictable identity, predictable ceiling. Comfortable, but evolutionarily dead. Building owned assets is the opposite: most outreach fails, most products are meh, most ideas die. Good. That’s not evidence the path is broken. That’s the selection mechanism turning on. The move isn’t to avoid variance. It’s to create survivable variance: many small exposed bets, fast feedback, no ego, and enough ownership that the rare winner actually belongs to you.

HOT TAKE for serious builders only .. In 1963, a Tanzanian schoolboy named Erasto Mpemba noticed that hot ice cream mix froze faster than cold. His physics teacher told him he was confused. He was right. The Mpemba effect — that a hotter system can reach freezing faster than a colder one — was confirmed, dismissed, re-confirmed, and finally cracked open mechanistically in January 2025 when researchers demonstrated the quantum version in a trapped ion (Nature Communications). The mechanism turned out to be about the structure of the path, not the size of the distance. Here's what's actually happening. Any system relaxing toward equilibrium decays through a mixture of modes — different speeds of change, some fast, some agonizingly slow. The slowest mode is the bottleneck. It's the bureaucratic drag of physics. A system starting CLOSE to equilibrium tends to be dominated by that slow mode — it has no choice but to grind through it. A system starting FAR from equilibrium might have its initial state configured so it barely excites the slowest mode at all. It bypasses the bottleneck. The longer path through state space turns out to be the faster one. This shows up everywhere once you see it. Companies in genuine survival mode — far from any stable equilibrium — tend to move faster than incumbents sitting near their current optimum. The comfortable company is locked in slow organizational modes: politics, legacy decisions, annual planning cycles. The company in crisis has its state configured to skip all of that. Same dynamic in markets: severely undervalued stocks can reprice violently fast once a catalyst hits, while mildly undervalued names grind slowly because the slow mode — market inertia, analyst drift, consensus lag — still dominates. And in people: those who've fully blown up their situation — quit, moved, burned the hedge — often transform faster than people "doing okay but wanting to change." Doing okay means you're close to an equilibrium. Close means slow mode wins. Slow mode means drift. The sovereignty path is probably shorter from maximum displacement, not minimum. Staying near the job — safe fallback, half-committed builds, consulting as the escape hatch — keeps you locked in the slow decay mode. Gradual drift toward some local optimum that isn't yours. The version of you that goes fully far from equilibrium — ships, deploys, commits with nowhere obvious to retreat — bypasses the bottleneck entirely. The hot water freezes first. The trapped ion thermalizes faster. The person furthest from safe arrives first. Distance isn't the enemy. It might be the mechanism.

Dietrich Braess proved in 1968 that adding a road to a congested network can make every driver's commute longer. Not some drivers — every single one. The math shows that when you introduce a shortcut, rational actors flood it, and the new Nash equilibrium is strictly worse than the old one for all participants. The counterintuitive result: the optimal move is often to remove capacity, not add it. Seoul tested this live. In 2003 they demolished an elevated highway that carried 160,000 cars a day through downtown. Traffic modelers predicted gridlock. Instead, congestion dropped, travel times improved, and the city got a restored river where the concrete used to be. The removed road had been one of the shortcuts quietly making everything worse. The same logic detonated the financial system in 2008. Each new instrument — the CDO, the credit default swap — looked like a shortcut that let individual desks offload risk more efficiently. Rational. Every shop independently concluded the same trade. But the collective result was a system where everyone's individual risk management had become everyone else's counterparty exposure. The more shortcuts added, the worse the equilibrium when it snapped. Power grids run the same script: transmission engineers keep discovering that adding high-capacity lines can destabilize a grid at peak demand, each line drawing load that overloads the next one, cascading through 55 million people like the 2003 Northeast blackout did. The mechanism is always identical: individually rational choices aggregate into a collectively suboptimal equilibrium, and adding one more option shifts everyone toward the shortcut until the shortcut destroys the benefit it was supposed to create. Your version of this is every escape route you keep open. The consulting fallback. The finance role you could always return to. The "I'll ship when it's more polished." Each one is rational in isolation. Collectively they route your attention and energy through the shortcut — the thing that feels safe — and degrade output across all your real work simultaneously. The move that looks like managing downside is the one already making you slower. Braess's solution is to close the road. Pick the path, delete the alternatives, and let your system find the better equilibrium that only exists once the shortcut is gone. More options isn't more freedom. It's more congestion.

@athcanft @brainmaxxxx software/ad costs or are you including living expenses?

@brainmaxxxx nah costs are like $6-8k

i made $19,531 in april 2026 📱 glowly app - $9.5K 🗣️ consulting - $6,250 🐥 x payouts - $2,100 🔀 swaptok - $855 📱 overlo app - $826

@naval @naval would be awesome to get your input on bizbite.io Smb business directory backed by SBA intelligence

“What did you build this week?” is the new “what did you get done this week?”

1/ Every mammal that has ever lived (mouse, elephant, whale) burns almost exactly the same number of calories per gram of body mass over its entire lifetime. 2/ A mouse lives 3 years and runs its metabolism at full throttle. An elephant lives 70 and runs slow. The math works out to roughly 1.5 billion heartbeats per creature, no exceptions. 3/ Max Kleiber discovered this in 1932: metabolic rate scales not linearly with body mass, but to the ¾ power. Scale an animal up by 10,000x and its energy needs only go up 1,000x. 4/ Nature found the most efficient possible distribution network, fractal branching from aorta to capillary, and locked every organism into it. The tradeoff is that the same efficiency imperative caps growth. Every organism hits a wall. Then dies. 5/ Geoffrey West, a physicist at Santa Fe Institute, ran the same analysis on companies and found they scale like organisms: sublinear, efficiency-maximizing, lifespan-capped. 6/ The average publicly traded company lives about 10 years before being acquired, going bankrupt, or quietly dying. The older it gets, the more bureaucratic its distribution network, the harder it fights to maintain what it has rather than create new things. Sears. GE. Kodak. 7/ Organisms optimized for survival eventually get outcompeted by something younger with less overhead. West showed that R&D output, patents, and revenue per employee all scale sublinearly with company size. Adding people costs more than it produces. The organism gets fat and slow. 8/ Then he ran cities. Same model, completely different result. Doubling a city’s population produces a 15% per capita increase in wages, GDP, patents filed, and — same mechanism — crime and disease. 9/ Cities scale superlinearly, to the 1.15 power. The reason is the opposite of efficiency: cities optimize for surface area, not throughput. Every new person doesn’t just add themselves. They add N new possible connections to every existing node. The combinatorial math compounds. 10/ Cities don’t die. Babylon is gone but the city of Babylon became Baghdad. Rome fell but Rome is still Rome. 11/ The structural difference is what each system optimizes for. Organisms and companies minimize waste. They prune redundancy, streamline hierarchy, make the network efficient. Cities maximize collision: density, diversity, unexpected connection between people who shouldn’t logically meet. The inefficiency IS the engine. 12/ If you’re an employee, you’re a cell in an organism running the efficiency playbook. You get metabolized at whatever rate the organism needs, and when the organism dies or restructures, you get cut. Your output is priced at marginal cost. The only question is how efficiently you can be used. 13/ If you’re building your own thing (consulting, a directory, a data product, anything) you’re a node in a city. Every new skill compounds against every other skill. Every client becomes a referral network. Every project teaches you something that makes the next project cheaper and faster. 14/ The superlinear returns kick in later, but they kick in. The organism caps. The city doesn’t.

@sflorimm Bizbite.io here is 300+

Name a career that AI can’t replace

@haukejung 🚀🚀

GM builders, From tomorrow I will be officially self-employed in Germany. Three products already. No sales so far, but I will continue shipping. Lets connect!

@naval Vibe coding is a video game with real world rewards 🎯

New podcast on vibe coding - A Return to Code. A Return to Coding 00:20 The Personal App Store 03:17 Vibe Coding Is a Video Game with Real-World Rewards 06:22 Pure Software Is Uninvestable 10:33 A Place for Each Model 14:22 AI Is Eager to Please 17:57 Why Math and Coding? 22:10 The Beginning of the End of Apple’s Dominance 24:17 Coding Agents As Customer Service Reps 27:55

@boardyai Bizbite.io

Distribution is everything. Share your product in the comments below. I will choose a few and repost it!

Authenticity is a financial problem. Not a mindset problem. Not a therapy problem. A financial one. You cannot be yourself while someone else owns your time. The employer, the mortgage, the client you can't afford to fire, every external lifeline is a leash. Politely held, mostly invisible, but a leash. And you will shape yourself around it without noticing, because that's what dependent things do. This is why every piece of advice about "just be yourself" is functionally useless. It skips the prerequisite. The prerequisite is independence. Specifically: the ability to say no without it costing you survival. That moment where you can walk away from the thing feeding you is the first real unlock. Not because money makes you happy. Because ownership of your time is the only condition under which your actual preferences get to exist. Getting there requires breaking almost every covenant you were handed. Don't quit the stable job. Don't bet on yourself. Don't say no to the client. Keep your head down, accumulate tenure, wait your turn. Every piece of that is advice optimized for someone else's system not yours. The people who get out make a different kind of covenant. Private, non-negotiable, not explained to anyone. You decide what you're building toward and you don't renegotiate it when it gets uncomfortable. That's the work. Not the business plan, not the strategy “the covenant”. And here's the part that sounds wrong until you've lived it: once the independence lands, the real creative power doesn't come from ambition. It comes from boredom. When survival is no longer the question, you finally have enough silence to hear what's actually interesting to you. Not what's fundable, not what your network validates what genuinely pulls your attention when nothing is on the line. That's where the real work comes from. Every person who's built something that matters has said some version of this. They had enough space to get bored, and the boredom became the thing. Authenticity isn't a personality trait. It's what's left when nobody owns you.

@santoshstack Bizbite.io

Hey founders! Looking to connect with people building in: • SaaS • AI • Automation • Web apps • Tech products • Marketing Drop what you're working on 👇