Evgeny Kurdyukov

Let me recap the earnings call. $MSTR

In 1965, CEOs made 21x the average worker. Today, it's 285x. Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage hasn’t moved since 2009.

@saylor Can someone finally explain this guy kaspa:native

A written summary of my keynote: The Digital Transformation of Capital, Credit, and Money $STRC

This is the most OUTRAGEOUS deal I've seen in my 45 years on Wall Street. SpaceX just disclosed Musk's new compensation package: He gets up to 200 million super-voting shares if SpaceX hits a $7.5 trillion valuation, establishes a permanent human settlement of at least ONE MILLION people on Mars, and deploys roughly 100 terawatts of space-based computing power. Let me put the 100 terawatts in perspective: The entire electricity generation capacity of the United States is around 1.2 terawatts. The comp plan asks Musk to build more than 80x America's entire power grid... in orbit. This is a science fiction screenplay that somehow landed in front of the SEC. But here's why it actually matters for your portfolio... The S-1 reportedly claims a $28.5 trillion total addressable market, with over 90 percent attributed to AI. CapeFearAdvisors flagged this one cleanly: when Palantir went public, it disclosed a $119 billion TAM and the SEC reviewed and accepted it. SpaceX is claiming a market roughly 240x BIGGER. Now let's talk about what is actually being sold here: Reported 2025 revenue is approximately $15.5 billion. Starlink delivers around $11 billion of that with healthy margins, and the launch business is genuinely dominant. The problem is xAI - the AI piece doing all the heavy lifting in the trillion-dollar valuation pitch. xAI generated just $210 million of revenue in the first 3 quarters of 2025 while burning through $9.5 billion in cash. Ben Brey and Rupert Mitchell - a former Fidelity portfolio manager and a former head of equity capital markets at Goldman and Citi between them - ran a serious discounted cash flow on the actual operating businesses and arrived at roughly $400 billion. Lawrence Fossi covered their work recently and the math holds up. The IPO is being marketed at $1.75 TRILLION. The gap between what these businesses support and what Musk is asking the public to pay is roughly $1.35 trillion of pure narrative. Then layer on what we just learned last week... The New York Times investigation revealed Musk personally borrowed $500 million from SpaceX between 2018 and 2020 at rates as low as 1%, while bank prime rates sat around 5%. The same SpaceX has been used to bail out SolarCity, prop up Tesla during cash crunches, and absorb xAI when the AI losses became unmanageable. This is the same playbook he's run for two decades. Use a privately controlled entity as a personal piggy bank, and when the bills come due, find new investors to absorb the losses. The IPO is structured to keep that game going FOREVER. The Texas reincorporation strips away Delaware's fiduciary protections. Controlled-company status on the Nasdaq eliminates independent board requirements. And retail is being offered up to 30% of the offering (3x the normal allocation) because the institutions who actually do the math are quietly stepping away. Here is the part that finishes the case for me: Roughly $40 billion of the IPO proceeds are already spoken for before a single dollar reaches operations. About $23 billion retires SpaceX debt. Another $17 billion retires the high-interest debt sitting on xAI and X. This raise is not funding the future. It's just plugging existing holes that retail investors will now own. In my 45 years I've never seen a deal where the comp hurdle is colonizing another planet. I've never seen a disclosed TAM that exceeds verified comparables by two orders of magnitude. I've never seen a company asking the public to fund the retirement of debt incurred by separate private entities controlled by the same individual. Every red flag I've watched precede a major bust over four decades is sitting in this prospectus, in plain sight. The Tesla mispricing is being repeated on a far larger scale. And this time the bag is being handed directly to retail. Don't be the one holding it.

Buying $KAS today is like buying $ETH at $8 Just throw $1,000 at Kaspa bro, put it in cold storage and forget about it

@cronkite2000 If you dig dipper you’ll find out that It’s actually been hacked at the very beginning DYOR

Friendly Friday reminder that $BTC has never been hacked. Not once. Not ever. The protocol has been running for over 15 years. That's more uptime than most banks can claim and more transparency than any of them offer. The network doesn't take days off. #bitcoin

After Toccata, and then DAGKnight, Kaspa stops being legible as “just another fast PoW coin” and starts revealing itself as the base layer crypto has been trying, and mostly failing, to build for fifteen years. Toccata is the first rupture. Covenants, native assets, ZK verification, sequencing commitments, and the early framework for vProgs move Kaspa beyond simple monetary settlement without dragging the L1 into the swamp of global-state bloat. That distinction is everything. Ethereum scaled by exporting execution into rollup fiefdoms. Solana scaled by compressing time around a privileged leader. Kaspa is moving toward a third path entirely: execution at the verifiable edge, settlement on a leaderless proof-of-work public clock. Then comes DAGKnight. Not “faster finality” in the cheap marketing sense. DAGKnight is consensus becoming responsive to reality itself. Instead of freezing latency assumptions into the protocol like a brittle machine pretending the world is static, Kaspa moves toward adaptive ordering under real network conditions. That means PoW begins approaching the physical boundary of distributed agreement while preserving the one property crypto cannot afford to lose: Nakamoto-grade neutrality. This is why the market is still mispricing Kaspa. It is being valued like a payment coin while its roadmap points toward a neutral settlement engine for assets, ZK systems, conditional finance, high-frequency coordination, and sovereign programmable applications. Top 10 is not a fantasy if Toccata lands cleanly and developers actually show up. That is the market re-rating Kaspa from “fast PoW” into “programmable PoW settlement infrastructure.” Top 3 is the deeper thesis. If DAGKnight proves that proof-of-work can preserve neutrality while compressing settlement toward real time, the market will eventually be forced to ask the obvious question: Why should crypto’s future settle on slow chains, centralized clocks, or sequencer cartels when proof-of-work can finally move at the speed of the Internet?

We now display Bitcoin Per Share (in sats) on our site: 205,812. $MSTR

INSTEAD OF WATCHING NETFLIX TONIGHT. Spend 1 hour with this. A Bloomberg Terminal lecture that teaches you more about how markets actually work than a 2 month internship at Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan. The people who watch this tonight will understand something most traders spend years figuring out. Completely free. Bookmark this before you scroll past it.

Top 50 list movies for Matured Audiences🔞‼️ 1. Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) 2. Love & Other Drugs (2010) 3. Fifty Shades Freed (2018) 4. 365 Days (2020) 5. 365 Days: This Day (2022) 6. 365 Days: The Next 365 Days (2022) 7. Blue Is the Warmest Color (2013) 8. Malcolm & Marie (2021) 9. Unfaithful (2002) 10. Secretary (2002) 11. Basic Instinct (1992) 12. Nymphomaniac Vol. I (2013) 13. Nymphomaniac Vol. II (2013) 14. Eyes Wide Shut (1999) 15. Call Me by Your Name (2017) 16. Love (2015) 17. Original Sin (2001) 18. The Dreamers (2003) 19. Cruel Intentions (1999) 20. Closer (2004) 21. Blue Valentine (2010) 22. Revolutionary Road (2008) 23. Femme Fatale (2002) 24. The Lover (1992) 25. 9½ Weeks (1986) 26. In the Mood for Love (2000) 27. A Dangerous Method (2011) 28. Damage (1992) 29. Bitter Moon (1992) 30. Crash (1996) 31. The Handmaiden (2016) 32. Last Tango in Paris (1972) 33. Y Tu Mamá También (2001) 34. Shame (2011) 35. Lust, Caution (2007) 36. The Reader (2008) 37. Adore (2013) 38. Chloe (2009) 39. The Girl Next Door (2004) 40. Fatal Attraction (1987) 41. Indecent Proposal (1993) 42. The Voyeurs (2021) 43. Deep Water (2022) 44. The Royal Treatment (2022 45. Wild Things (1998) 46. The Piano Teacher (2001) 47. Room in Rome (2010) 48. Sleeping Beauty (2011) 49. Fifty Shades Darker (2017) 50. The Princess Switch 3 (2021)

“Don’t marry your Kaspa bag, its not the next Bitcoin” The $KAS bag:

Our BTC Breakeven ARR is ~2.05%. If Bitcoin grows faster than that over time, we can cover our dividends indefinitely without issuing new $MSTR shares. Track it in real time on our site. $STRC

@realvijayk @hashdag Kaspa army really showed up here. Followed @hashdag ✅

INSTEAD OF WATCHING NETFLIX TONIGHT, WATCH THIS 1 HOUR FULL CLAUDE COURSE. THANK ME LATER!!!

Pasé más de 100 horas explorando internet. Aquí hay 12 sitios web que parecen ilegales, pero son completamente legales:↓

That’s how mattress density works. Which one would you choose? 🛌

@DesheShai Hey @grok can you explain like I’m 5yo

Sure, let me explain. This gets a bit technical. MuHash works by hashing arbitrary strings (in our case, strings that represent txns) into group elements, and taking the product. Let H be the hash and G be the group. MuHash uses a cyclic group, so let g be a generator. For any UTXO entry u, there is therefore a power p(u) such that H(u) = g^p(u). We call p(u) the g-log of u. (it is actually the g-log of H(u), but nevermind that). Hence, if the UTXO set is u_1,...,u_n, then the commitment is given by g^P where P=p(u_1) + ... + p(u_n) mod N, where N is the order of the group. In our case N ~2^256. Given the commitment g^P, it is classically hard to find P. This is a crucial component of MuHash's security, as we'll soon see. But quantumly, we can find P using Shor's algorithm. (Note that we don't need to find a particular g for that, any generator g will do. I'm not sure what elliptic group is used in MuHash, but it is very possible it is a prime group, where all non-identity elements are generators). Now all that remains is to find another set of UTXO u'_1,...,u_'k such that p(u'_1) + ... + p(u'k_) = P. Before explaining how to do this, let's assume that we already know how to. Then this allows us to create a set of random UTXOs with the same commitment. But we can easily extend this to also include arbitrary UTXOs (the ones that we want to forge). To do so, instead of solving the problem above for P, we solve it for P-P' where P' is the g-log sum of the arbitrary UTXOs. The arbitrary UTXOs hash to g^P' and hashing the random UTXOs will multiply it by g^(P-P') to give g^P, which is the original commitment. So so far we established: if I have a magic box that is given a number P and produces a set of UTXOs u_1,...,u_k such that p(u_1),....,p(u_k), then I can easily use it to create a UTXO set that a. contains any UTXOs I want (but not only these UTXOs), and b. has any hash value I want. So it remains to implement this magic box. The first thing you want to notice is that we don't really care about the group structure or the generator g. They just provide us a rule to assign to each possible UTXO u the g-log p(u), and we are just looking for UTXOs whose g-logs sum to P. So say we generate k random UTXOs and compute their g-logs, we just need to find a subset of these g-logs that sums to P. This is the subset sum problem. Generally speaking, it is an NP hard problem, which is not enough for cryptography, but still makes an attack only hypothetical. However, we actually only need to solve a simple special case: - First, note that (as you explained in detail), UTXOs are not just mapped to g-logs, they are hashed to g-logs. This means that UTXOs map to independent uniformly random group elements, and therefore to independent uniformly random g-log values. Hence, we don't need to solve subset sum for an arbitrary set, but for a random set. This problem is called the Random Modular Subset Sum (RMSS) problem. - Second, note that the size of a UTXO set is typically much larger than 256. It can be in the tens of thousands. In other words, we get that N = 2^O(k). To understand the asymptotics, note that for any possible choice of k>256, there is some 0eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2005/00… there is an algorithm that solves this problem in time 2^O(256/log(k)). This is a subexponential algorithm so it will choke as N becomes larger. But in our scenario N is fixed and we can increase k. By choosing, say, k = 2^16, we get that the running time is roughly 2^16. Of course, there are constants that play a role when talking about fixed quantities, but even with large constants, these numbers seem well within the capability of generic CPUs. Only a POC implementation (that does not require any quantum computers and that anyone can try to pull off right now) will tell us exactly how demanding this attack is. I'm confident it wouldn't be anything a modern CPU can't handle, though these are really things that need to be checked, not speculated. (And even if this algorithm turns out completely and utterly unfeasible, we do not have any guarantees against future classical or quantum improvements. This was the job of the quantum-broken DLOG hardness assumption.) I stress again that all this processing is fully classical. You only needed to use your quantum computer to compute g-logs (and, depending on how MuHash is implemented, it is possible that you only need to do it once.) You can implement the rest of the attack today.

"you need a degree to build a house" Men without degrees 500 years ago:

If you were horrified by the Epstein Files, sorry to break it to you but...