GPKraze.eth

Behold, the Winklevoss School of Business. The world's first bitcoin-backed business school. This school teaches the Austrian school of economics, the same principles that influenced Satoshi. Check it out!

If there were one thing to read today re the game-changing nature of Bitcoin ETF options, read (and bookmark) this one for 2025 - it's going to be wild.

1/ We are Bullet, the real-time L2 on Solana.

The real Ethereum bull run isn't price - it's brainpower. 1500% growth in researchers since 2019. Hard to bet against the collective brainpower of this ecosystem.

The issue with ETH is that the world has simply never seen anything like it before. When something doesn’t fit someone’s narrative or frameworks, their brains tend to short circuit. This is why we see such desperation in trying to label ETH as “digital oil” or “tech equity” or “programmable money.” Ppl need frameworks they’ve been conditioned into accepting. “If it’s really money why does the price go up and down!?” Is a common gotcha. Any junior analyst can track the 30day fees generated by ethereum and slap together an extrapolated thesis based on a p/e benchmarks that they find palatable. And indeed, we’ve seen many of these folks pop up over the past year. That’s why they feel so secure with their Btc narratives, it fits so well within the models they’ve adjusted to. “Digital Gold” is so easy to lazily reason about that ppl just accept it. They look at the all-time gold chart and want Bitcoin to follow the same path. Key thing there is to “follow” because Bitcoin doesn’t own its own narrative, it’s a narrative that is tethered to gold being valuable in the first place. Trying to assign value to Eth is much more difficult, you can’t just mindlessly point to the chart of silver and Oil in expectation of future value because those assets are not out performers on long time frames, and thus not attractive for modelling. Seeing the value in ETH requires a certain social awareness, a sense of understanding in the underlying mission of this industry, an appreciation for network effects, a heathy scepticism towards fiat money, a belief in internet native societies that can compete at the highest levels of innovation. Seeing the value in ETH requires the vision to see the endless possibilities that can be achieved without the frictions of being subject to intermediaries and regulatory monopolies. Seeing the value prop of ETH requires the ability to envision patterns and trends that have not yet formed. It requires an intuition for the abstract. Seeing the value prop of ETH is in seeing a world where a sovereign economy exists on the internet unbounded by the constraints and norms of (politically captured) legacy systems. Seeing the value in ETH, is simply seeing the value of humanity when you give ppl maximum expressive freedom. The value of ETH cannot be defined in a single line. In the short term, that may be troubling for analysts in search of an elevator pitch, but in the long term, the benefit is that ETH will define its own narrative, one that did not exist before it. Eth owns its own narrative. Do not look to historical references in search of a premonition of its price action. Look to the future, beyond what you think is possible. For the destiny of Ethereum is a road not yet travelled. Long live Ethereum ✌️

GLP1s have added $1T in market cap to Eli and Novo over the last 5 years. That's 3x+ the market cap created by all biopharma startups over the last 30 years combined. This is a bit of an indicment of the biotech startup ecosystem. There are many $1T and even $10T drugs to be invented, we just don't fund them. Through no one persons fault, the biotech industry is stuck in a local performance maxima. Faced with lower multiples than tech, biotech funds have to pitch something other than straight multiple to LPs and the only other level is faster liquidity. Biotech has been good at this, with the average age of biotech companies at IPO being 2 years younger than tech companies at IPO (~5.5 years vs 7.5 years). This means biotech funds need to back companies that can get to IPO within a few years. This requirement constrains the types of companies funded by bio funds to 'linear bet' plays (where you buy at some reasonable multiple based on current performance, etc). As any experienced venture fund manager will tell you, a portfolio of linear bets underperforms a portfolio of asymmetric bets. Double unfortunately, no one firm can break this model because no one firm is the sole backer of a company to profitability. You must rely on an ecosystem of capital partners. So if you are the one firm that strikes out and funds asymmetric companies, no one will show up to fund the company downstream and your whole portfolio will fail. For this reason, I think the biggest plays in bio over the coming decade will be mostly backed by generalist funds rather than bio funds. *Note this will perpetuate the trend of sector specific funds underperforming generalist funds (by industry and geo!).

The US Treasury yield curve has officially turned positive, but what does it mean for the job market? The yield curve just turned positive after 565 consecutive sessions of inversion, ending the longest streak in history. Over the last 45 years, each time the yield curve un-inverted, the number of jobs within the economy materially dropped within the next 12 months, except for in 1998. In 2000, the 3-month average job decline reached a whopping ~280,000 within a year of the yield curve turned positive. In 2007, job declines hit ~190,000 in 12 months after the yield curve turned positive. If history is any guide, we expect more labor market weakness.

Folks - I'm all for modularity when it technically makes sense, but we have turned it into a "narrative-hungry" obsession to say something is "modular." Allowing developers to choose their storage, compute, and security parameters rarely makes sense. It usually only applies to larger projects that have found product-market fit and are looking to reduce gas fees, capture parts of it, or offer better experiences. They can afford it. Outside of that, sticking with "choose your own infra" is nonsense. For v0 of their products, I don't see dApp developers asking for these choices. They don't care - they need things to run, be cheap, and compose. But they're confused - they spend countless hours learning before they can write a single line of code. We're doing them a disservice by offering too many choices. Finally, it will be impossible to capture a single new developer from outside of the existing group if the first thing they have to do is navigate thousands of chains, hundreds of layers, and dozens of components to choose from while still trying to understand the core value proposition of the space. We still have fewer than 10k full-time developers in the space. Unless we learn how to grow the pie with simple value propositions, we'll be stuck. Stop the narrative-seeking games. Build for the true value.