Ryan Guiterman

We have something coming.. it’s big 🔥🎥 more in good time, but we’re cookin’ a blaze 😉

This weird push for UGC platforms are truly missing some key insights. Let me explain... The Network Effect Trap Existing platforms have something no amount of venture capital can buy: people's friends, content history, and established behaviors. Twitter/X users complain constantly but stay because that's where the conversation is. Instagram persists despite every controversy because leaving means abandoning your social graph. The switching cost isn't technical; it's social. Adaptation vs. Disruption Theater When Instagram saw Snapchat's Stories gaining traction, they didn't tell users to download a new app... they just copied the feature. Same with Reels responding to TikTok. Smart platforms absorb innovations rather than ceding ground. The push for standalone "AI platforms" often feels less like genuine innovation and more like VCs needing to justify new unicorns rather than watching incumbents strengthen. The Echo Chamber Dynamic AI-only platforms risk becoming sterile demonstration spaces; venture-backed ghost towns where the main content is people marveling at AI capabilities rather than genuine human discourse. Without the organic chaos of human culture-making, they become echo chambers in a different sense: not ideological, but ontological. Everyone's there to interact with AI, which creates a self-selecting population that doesn't represent broader user behavior. What Actually Works Discord didn't replace forums by being "the AI communication platform"; it just worked better for gaming communities and grew from there. ChatGPT succeeded not by becoming a social platform but by being genuinely useful where people already were. The winning pattern is usually: build a tool people want, let them bring it to their existing spaces, or integrate so seamlessly that adoption feels like enhancement rather than migration. The institutional money wants clean disruption narratives. Users want their existing spaces to work better. Just my two cents...

For the hundredth time, we do not want Prince Reza Pahlavi to be treated as an “option” by the U.S. administration. He is not a puppet, nor a figure to be externally selected or imposed. From the beginning, our position has been consistent: any U.S. or Israeli actions should focus on weakening the regime by targeting its leadership and repressive apparatus. The objective is to create the conditions for the Iranian people themselves to rise up and bring about the regime’s downfall. Reza Pahlavi would then assume a transitional role only on the basis of legitimacy granted by the Iranian people, not through foreign endorsement. We do not seek his endorsement at this stage. However, we do expect that any transitional government he may announce, if it reflects the will of the people, should be recognized internationally.