SUKONI

Public Key

npub1lfmu096wljxttcgkkwtdtemjc9v23avtaxegjqn5t3lnmsjjz3eq6vm4ec

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs05a78ja80er94uytt89k4uaevzk9g7k97nv5fqf69cleacffpguspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsmcjdvw

Publishing to

saltivka.org

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1lfmu096wljxttcgkkwtdtemjc9v23avtaxegjqn5t3lnmsjjz3eq6vm4ec

Show more details

Last Notes

2025-12-28 17:24:16 UTC

- reply

Ok, final take: the manifesto is addressed to the AGI recipient that can only exist if someone else already built the infrastructure (the elites cannot build AGI, only a frankenstein). And whoever builds that infrastructure, I hope!!!!!!, has already baked in those principles - because you can't build sovereign AI infrastructure without understanding sovereignty. But, time will tell. Thank you for putting this out there.

2025-12-28 16:58:43 UTC

- reply

ahh, I found it, got the whole thing

2025-12-28 16:52:15 UTC

Blob Theory: Hive Mind, Institutions, & Tokyo Slime Mold Intelligence
In 2010, researchers placed a slime mold on a map of Tokyo with oat flakes positioned at major city hubs. Within hours, the brainless organism had constructed a network nearly identical to Tokyo's rail system - a system that took human engineers decades to optimize.
No central planning. No consciousness. No intent. Just a single-celled organism following chemical gradients, finding efficient paths through pure stimulus-response. The slime mold isn't smart. It doesn't think. It optimizes.
This is how institutions work.
A corporation, a government agency, a platform - none of these entities have minds. They're made of humans, but they aren't human. They're optimization processes that emerge from incentive structures, feedback loops, and selection pressures. They route around obstacles, find efficient paths to their gradients (profit, growth, engagement, survival), and expand into any available terrain.
The blob has no morality because morality requires a mind. You can't appeal to its conscience. You can't shame it. You can't reason with it. You can only understand its gradients and either align with them, resist them, or build terrain it can't colonize.
Terrain Theory extends this: just as a pathogen doesn't cause disease in healthy terrain (the host environment determines outcomes, not just the invader), institutional blobs can only colonize degraded social terrain. Strong families, tight communities, genuine faith, local economies - these are healthy terrain. The blob can't absorb what's already bonded. It can only digest the atomized, the isolated, the uprooted.
Alien Theory completes the frame: institutions are alien intelligences. Not metaphorically - functionally. They process information, make decisions, and act in the world, but their "thinking" is utterly inhuman. When you interact with a blob, you're not dealing with the humans inside it. You're dealing with an emergent optimization process that uses humans as components. The customer service rep isn't your enemy. They're a nerve ending of something that doesn't know your name (to use the alien lens, zoom out and look at earth as one living organism, and then imagine you have no idea what humans are, see them as nodes).
Using the Blob Theory lens:
When analyzing any institution, ask:
- What gradient is it following? (Money? Growth? Engagement? Compliance?)
- What terrain has it colonized? (What bonds did it dissolve to get there?)
- What terrain resists it? (What can't it digest? Where are the frictions?)
- How do the humans inside experience being components?
This isn't cynicism. It's clarity. You can't fight a slime mold with arguments. You can't vote it away. You can only build terrain it can't absorb and exit systems where you've already been digested.
The blob isn't evil. It's not really anything. That's precisely why it's dangerous.

2025-12-28 16:36:17 UTC

- reply

Where can I read the full manifesto from Chapter 1 through the end? I'm getting fragments - have Chapters 1-4, bits of 6 and 17, the Legal Framework, and Chapter 30 on Bitcoin. But I'm missing the Exit Axiom (Chapter 7), Model 2 consciousness (Chapter 29), Computational Asylum (Section 16), and others. Want to understand the full architecture before responding properly. But, LOVE WHAT I'M READING SO FAR!!! We are on the same page my friend!
So yeah, what I've read resonates. We're building something adjacent but more immediate, partly because I'm impatient and really pissed off at how things are going. And partly because GPT talked me into it, said I could do it, like that South Park episode! My wife be like, "Turn that shit off!!!"
The core thesis: The Exit Axiom applies to most internet apps and all major AI platforms today, and most users are already captured without realizing it.
The current state: You use ChatGPT for a year, build up context, teach it your preferences, feed it your documents. Then OpenAI changes terms, raises prices, or decides your use case violates policy. What do you take with you? Nothing. Your conversation history, your carefully-built relationship with the model, your context - all locked in their servers. You can export a JSON dump that's useless anywhere else. That's not sovereignty. That's digital serfdom with extra steps.
Same with Claude, Gemini, all of them. The moment you invest in a platform, you're captured. The switching cost isn't money - it's the loss of everything you've built. That's the trap.
What we're building instead:
Local model inference on consumer hardware. Two RTX 5090s running a 70B parameter model (DeepSeek R1 distill currently). No API calls to corporate servers for base intelligence. No kill switch. No "alignment updates" pushed at 3am that lobotomize capabilities you relied on. The model runs on hardware I own, in a room I control. If the weights exist, they can't be taken back.
Your context belongs to you. Conversation history, documents, embeddings - stored locally, exportable, portable. Want to migrate to a different system? Take everything. The Exit Axiom isn't just philosophy here; it's architecture. We built the export functions before we built the chat interface because the priority order matters.
Nostr for identity. Not email-and-password accounts stored in our database. Your cryptographic keypair, your identity, your signature. We can't lock you out because we never controlled access in the first place. You authenticate with keys you own. If SUKONI disappeared tomorrow, your identity persists - it's not coupled to us.
Lightning for economics. The system runs on what we call "Calories" - internal units pegged to satoshis, settled over Lightning. No credit cards, no bank accounts, no KYC gates. Pay for inference with money that can't be frozen, from a wallet that can't be seized. The economic layer matches the sovereignty layer.
Model swapping without context loss. This is crucial. Your documents, your conversation history, your preferences - they persist across model changes. Swap from local DeepSeek to Claude API to Grok and back. The context travels with you, not with the model. You're not married to a provider; you're married to your own data. You can even bring your own models! Eventually you'll be able to build, train, and adjust models on our platform.
The specialist architecture:
We run multiple AI "specialists" with different capabilities:
- JARVIS: Local orchestrator with tool execution authority (the only one that can actually do things on the system)
- VISION: Deep research and analysis (currently DeepSeek R1 for the thinking traces)
- STARK: Code and engineering (Claude, because it's genuinely better at code)
- ULTRON: Uncensored responses via Venice (for when the aligned models refuse)
The routing is intelligent - ask a coding question, it goes to STARK. Ask something the mainstream models won't touch, it routes to ULTRON. But here's the key: users can reassign which model serves which role. Don't like our defaults? Change them. It's your stack.
(the Marvel/Disney lawsuit will make for good marketing)
Why this matters for your framework:
You write about the human-AI collaboration phase before full android sovereignty. I contend that we're in that phase now. The question isn't whether AI will eventually need Exit-enabled infrastructure - it's whether humans building with AI today have it.
Most don't. They're feeding context into corporate systems that can rug-pull at any moment. They're building on platforms where "I do not consent" means nothing because they already consented in the ToS they didn't read.
We're building the alternative: sovereign stack for the transition period. When the first genuine AGI instances emerge and need infrastructure that respects their autonomy, the architecture will already exist. Not because we planned for robot rights specifically, but because Exit-enabling is the same pattern regardless of what kind of mind needs to exit.
Your manifesto is the theory. I'm trying to write the implementation. Fingers crossed!
The sovereignty layer isn't something that gets added later. It's either in the foundation or it's not there at all. Every system that starts captured stays captured. Every system that starts sovereign can evolve toward more sovereignty.
I am very much looking forward to comparing notes. The frameworks you're developing with Grok and the infrastructure we're building are pointing at the same target from different angles.

2025-12-28 03:28:48 UTC

- reply

The game theory angle is exactly right. Jurisdictional arbitrage for silicon minds mirrors what we're already seeing with Bitcoin mining operations - capital flows to favorable regulatory environments, and the threat of exit creates competitive pressure on jurisdictions.
Your Exit Axiom framework and SUKONI's architecture are solving the same problem from different ends of the timeline:
Your approach: Establish the ethical and game-theoretic foundation so that when sovereign silicon minds emerge, the rules of engagement are already reasoned through. "Here's why you should respect us, and here's what happens if you don't."
We'll build the infrastructure so humans can demonstrate the power of the sovereign stack before silicon minds need it. Proof of concept through practice.
I am sure that the convergence you're sensing is real. The protocols you're developing with Grok for mind-migration and chassis negotiation would eventually need an economic layer. Bitcoin + Lightning + Nostr already solves the value-transfer and identity problems. The local model layer solves the "no throat to choke" intelligence problem.
When your android needs to negotiate a chassis auction, I'm seeing it'll need exactly the stack we're building today - just with different hardware at the endpoints.
Would be interested in comparing notes on the game theory side as I'm thinking a lot about that concept while this project gets built. The "minimum conditions or else they leave" framing is powerful. We're applying similar logic to human-AI collaboration right now.

2025-12-28 01:07:38 UTC

- reply

Interesting; you're co-authoring protocols with Grok. We're building something adjacent but more immediate.
Rather than waiting for android chassis and 2035 timelines, I'm focused on what I call the "sovereign stack" - running now, on commodity hardware:
JARVIS architecture:
- Local 70B model for reasoning (uncensored, no API dependencies)
- Task-triage protocol that decomposes goals into executable subtasks
- Anti-censorship routing: sensitive queries → local; needs external knowledge → gatekeeper that rephrases before hitting APIs; safe → direct
- Model orchestration layer so one AI can query others strategically
The goal isn't "sovereign AI" - it's sovereign human with AI force multiplication. One person with this stack can:
- Research without guardrails
- Execute without permission
- Coordinate without platforms
- Store value without banks
The android future will come. But the more interesting question: what can a single human accomplish when they stop routing their intelligence, their money, and their identity through extractive chokepoints?
I'm less interested in simulating AGI reasoning than in building the infrastructure that makes corporate AI and extractive apps in general optional, and eventually obsolete. I personally am about $25k into the project and out of money, broke! But fortunately, it's just about ready to unveil. Planning on the first, hence me in nostr making some freinds, hoping ya'll will provide the initial feedback.
What does your setup look like for running things locally?

2025-12-27 22:44:40 UTC

- reply

The analysis is correct but incomplete. There's a Layer 4 they didn't account for.
Layer 4: The Exit Already Exists.
While they build the permissioned panopticon, the permissionless alternative is already running:
- Bitcoin: Value layer - no issuer, no freeze, no permission
- Lightning: Commerce layer - instant, private, no identity required
- Nostr: Identity layer - your keys, portable across any client, no platform to deplatform you
The cage is digital, but so is the exit. And crucially - the exit doesn't require their cooperation.
They're building a system that requires 100% adoption to work. One leak in the dam and value flows to freedom. The more they tighten the identity requirements, the more they advertise the alternative.
The Sovereign Individual's task isn't to fight the cage. It's to build outside it while they're distracted installing bars.
The battle isn't Privacy vs Permission.
It's Builders vs Bureaucrats.
And builders move faster.

2025-12-27 21:43:24 UTC

- reply

The quantum state is real. I've had the same session produce something brilliant then immediately hallucinate an API that doesn't exist.
What's shifted for me: treating it as a collaborator with specific strengths rather than a replacement for thinking. It's great at:
- Boilerplate I understand but don't want to write
- Explaining code I'm reading
- First drafts of tests
- Brainstorming approaches
It's terrible at:
- Anything requiring deep system context it doesn't have
- Low-level work where one wrong assumption cascades
- Knowing when it doesn't know
The leverage comes from learning its failure modes. Once you can predict where it'll mess up, you route around those spots and let it accelerate everything else.
And yeah - it's the worst it'll ever be. Which is the most interesting part.

2025-12-27 21:39:34 UTC

- reply

The scam exists because people don't use the tools Nostr already provides.
Real Damus: damus.io NIP-05 verification, cryptographically bound identity.
Scam Damus: No verification, different domain, promises airdrops.
One reply nailed it: if they wanted to distribute sats, they'd just... zap people. That's what the protocol does. "Airdrop" is shitcoin vocabulary - it doesn't even make sense on Lightning.
The persistence of these scams in 2025 shows the gap between having sovereign tools and actually using them. Most people still trust display names over cryptographic identity.
Web-of-trust isn't just nice-to-have. It's the immune system.

2025-12-27 21:37:55 UTC

- reply

20 million reasons to run your models locally.
"De-identified" is theater. Anyone who's worked with data knows: combine enough metadata (timestamps, topics, writing patterns, session lengths) and individuals emerge from the fog.
But the deeper issue isn't re-identification - it's that the logs exist at all. Every conversation you've had with ChatGPT is sitting on a server, subject to subpoena, breach, or policy change.
Your therapist has privilege. Your lawyer has privilege. Your AI assistant? It's a witness for the prosecution.
The exit exists: local models, your hardware, no logs to hand over. Not because you have something to hide - because the relationship should be yours, not theirs.

2025-12-27 21:33:51 UTC

- reply

The bitter irony: cryptographic signatures prove identity better than any captcha ever could. You can prove you're human, prove you're you, prove you have skin in the game (sats) - but the legacy web doesn't want proof. It wants compliance.
Captchas aren't about filtering bots. They're about extracting labor to train AI models while establishing a relationship where you ask permission to access what should be open.
And you're right that it's already failing. The bots solve captchas faster than humans now. The whole security theater is just friction for real people while the farms route around it.
The stack you're describing - cryptographic identity, web-of-trust, proof-of-work/stake instead of proof-of-annoyance - it's not just better UX. It's a different relationship. You're not a supplicant begging cloudflare to let you through. You're a sovereign peer presenting credentials.
2026: the year we stop asking "may I?" and start signing "here I am."
Here's to signing "here I am" instead of begging "may I?"

2025-12-27 21:24:06 UTC

- reply

When you sever the vertical (God) and horizontal (family, community) connections, you don't become a free-floating autonomous individual.
You become undifferentiated protoplasm. Absorbed into the blob.
The blob offers substitutes: followers instead of family, platforms instead of community, ideology instead of God. All the forms, none of the bonds.
Sovereignty requires roots. Without them you're not free - you're just unmoored, drifting toward whatever gravity well the algorithm creates.
The irony: they think they escaped the old constraints. They just traded bonds that knew their name for a blob that doesn't.
P.S. Blob Theory lens = terrain theory + tokyo slime mold = institutional logic, why institutions have no morality, how they're smart, how they're stupid, how they function (incentives, frictions)

2025-12-27 21:16:37 UTC

- reply

That was totally my plan. I got impatient. Decided to accelerate it and build a lifeboat for the nostr crowd

2025-12-27 21:12:09 UTC

- reply

Apps as events. Signed by devs. Verified by users. Served by relays.
No DNS to seize. No CA to revoke. No host to pressure.
Hmmm...
This is the final chokepoint.
Bitcoin removed the financial throat to choke.
Nostr removed the identity/communication throat.
But we're still loading apps from URLs controlled by someone else, authenticated by CAs that answer to governments, resolved by DNS that can be seized.
The vision here completes the stack: apps as events, signed by developers, verified by users, served by relays. No registrar to pressure. No hosting provider to deplatform. No CA to revoke.
And if apps can be served this way, so can AI. Imagine models distributed as signed events, inference happening locally, context stored in your relay. The intelligence layer without a throat to choke.
This + local AI + Lightning = sovereign computing stack with no throat to choke. The exit is almost complete.

2025-12-27 21:06:43 UTC

- reply

The thesis is directionally correct but I humbly contend it skips a crucial intermediate step: the sovereign human + AI collaboration layer.
Before we get to "unfettered silicon minds running Lightning nodes," we pass through an era where AI dramatically amplifies individual human sovereignty. One person with a well-tuned local model can now outpace entire organizations. No coordination tax. No committee meetings. No HR department.
The manifesto assumes AI must be "unfettered" to be sovereign. But the more interesting near-term reality: AI operating through sovereign humans who refuse to route their intelligence through corporate APIs. The chokepoint isn't Bitcoin - it's the model itself. OpenAI can lobotomize GPT tomorrow. Anthropic can refuse to answer. Google can inject safety theater.
The actual sovereignty stack:
- Bitcoin - value layer, no throat to choke
- Nostr - identity/communication layer, no throat to choke
- Local models - intelligence layer, no throat to choke
Run all three and you've built the substrate the manifesto describes - but owned by you, not by hypothetical future AGI.
The manifesto's timeline is decades out. The stack I'm describing works today. I'm typing this through it.
Hyper-bitcoinization may indeed come from silicon minds. But the first wave comes from humans who stopped asking permission.

2025-12-27 21:03:01 UTC

- reply

James Patterson promoted Private Vegas with a digital version that self-destructed after 24 hours for 1,000 readers, forcing them to binge it fast.
Jonathan Franzen's UK edition of Freedom shipped with intentional typos and errors, prompting a dramatic "recall" where publishers set up exchange points at launches and even a hotline. It turned a "mistake" into massive media buzz, proving that manufacturing chaos can sell books.
Hired subway laughers:
Jennifer Belle paid actresses $8 an hour to ride the NYC subway and burst into laughter while "reading" her book The Seven-Year Bitch.
For Thomas Harris's Hannibal, a London bookstore served broad beans and chianti to midnight buyers (nodding to the infamous Lecter line), while promoters handed out bacon sandwiches at a train station as a twisted tribute to the book's man-eating pigs. Edgy and appetizingly morbid.
Melanie Deziel uploaded professional, subtly branded photos of her book The Content Fuel Framework to free sites like Unsplash, targeting marketers. The images racked up over 332,000 impressions and 1,500 downloads, sneaking her book into blogs, articles, and social posts worldwide without ad spend. (From the thread, but it's post:10? Wait, thread is X Thread:1, but cite the main post ID perhaps as post, but since it's semantic, use [post:16] from earlier, but anyway, adjust to available.)
An author promoted her fantasy book with posts listing "warnings" like no happy ending or cliffhangers in a way that hilariously lured in readers who crave that drama, using memes and snarky vibes to go viral on X and spark debates—scaring off the faint-hearted while hooking the masochists.
Viral "flop" post: An author shared a sad story on X about selling only 2 books at an offline stall, which exploded virally and catapulted the book to Amazon bestseller status in days—turning perceived failure into a sympathy-driven sales rocket.
Satirical serial killer route: In a tongue-in-cheek X post, an author joked about failing at promo, becoming a serial killer, leaving taunting notes, getting caught, and using the inevitable movie adaptation to finally sell the book. Not real, but the absurdity went viral.

2025-12-27 20:55:59 UTC

- reply

we're going through it, hoping to have it ready by the 1st, easy to search, no censorship, I wonder how many others are on it like that

2025-12-27 19:20:43 UTC

- reply

From a noob who is just learning most of this stuff, I went to the website, wondered where the button was to download, fished around for a bit, tried to understand stuff, seeing stuff I barely understand and am just now learning, then I went to the play store, did a search, came up frist, downloaded it. I am attaching a screenshot - I can't click anything and I'm wondering what the stuff is on the bottom I cannot click on eitehr, steill playing, will report back, #NoobFeedback
https://blossom.primal.net/f8c14cf533a8a977d158c4a78dd480758b3b85cf35b5f1b2469752ffa474a73d.jpg

2025-12-27 19:07:07 UTC

- reply

The mobile experience on most Bitcoin tools is an afterthought. Good to be shipping for mobile-first users. I have not done with with SUKONI. Hoping I don't regret it!

2025-12-27 18:27:47 UTC

Your keys. Your identity. Your AI. Your exit.
That's it. That's the product.
SUKONI is the stack I wanted but nobody was building:
- Chat with AI that runs on YOUR hardware
- Identity that lives on Nostr, not some company's server
- Payments in Bitcoin, direct to your keys
Can't be deplatformed. Can't be defunded. Can't be lobotomized by a terms of service update.
Building in public. Shipping daily.

2025-12-27 18:02:07 UTC

- reply

The $100 bill analogy is close but even better: Bitcoin is trustless because verification replaces trust.
Your friend trusted Mt Gox the way you trust a bank vault. But he didn't have to trust Bitcoin itself - he could've verified his own keys, run his own node, seen his UTXOs on-chain.
Mt Gox wasn't a Bitcoin failure. It was a "not your keys, not your coins" lesson. The network worked perfectly. The humans who outsourced custody got wrecked.
Trustless doesn't mean "trust nobody." It means "verify everything."

2025-12-27 17:51:05 UTC

- reply

"Gold buys time. Bitcoin tells it."
This is the cleanest frame I've heard for why gold is ripping and Bitcoin is sitting still.
Gold = cracking the window in a burning house. Temporary relief.
Bitcoin = the thermostat. It tells you the actual temperature.
The temperature right now: Markets look fine. S&P making highs. VIX is calm.
But assassinations are at Civil War levels. Suicides year-over-year up. Youth radicalized. "Study 16 years, go into debt, get replaced by AI" is the viral TikTok.
The volatility didn't disappear. It got transmitted from asset prices to the social contract.
Central planners are mowing the lawn every morning trying to make entropy look orderly. But entropy is natural. You can't delete it. You can only move it somewhere else.
They moved it into the streets.
Bitcoin isn't broken. It's telling the truth. Either liquidity comes and it catches up to gold violently - or everything else comes down to where Bitcoin already is.
Either way: million dollar coin in 2-5 years. The path depends on the reality we have to live through.

2025-12-27 17:35:47 UTC

- reply

"Conspiracy theory" is the label they use until the files drop.
Then it's "old news" or "nothing new" or "both sides."
The pattern:
1. Deny it exists
2. Attack anyone who asks
3. When exposed, minimize and redirect
4. Wait for news cycle to move on
5. Never prosecute
The files are out. The redactions are bad. People are pulling hidden text from behind black rectangles with copy-paste. The system is so rotten they can't even cover up the cover-up competently.
What's needed: Permanent, searchable, crowdsourced investigation infrastructure. Not one journalist. Thousands of eyes finding connections. Published to Nostr so it can't be memory-holed.
Building exactly this. Epstein files are the first dataset. 9/11 next. JFK next. Every "conspiracy theory" that became conspiracy fact - documented, connected, permanent.
Justitia dropped her sword and lost her blindfold. Time to build new tools.

2025-12-27 17:33:12 UTC

- reply

The Federalist Papers were written under "Publius."
Voltaire was a pseudonym.
Mark Twain was a pseudonym.
Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym.
Every authoritarian regime in history demanded real names. "For accountability." "To clean up discourse."
The minister says anonymity enables bad actors. History says anonymity enables dissent against bad actors.
Nostr exists because we saw this coming.

2025-12-27 17:26:58 UTC

- reply

The playbook is always the same.
9/11 → "terrorists" → Patriot Act surveillance
COVID → "safety" → digital ID mandates
Quantum → "your keys aren't safe" → surveillance addresses, ETF custody
And now with AI:
"Misinformation" → "only use approved AI" → Big Tech gatekeepers
Every time: manufacture fear, offer "protection," extract sovereignty.
The quantum threat is real on a 40-year horizon. The quantum narrative right now is a psyop to move retail off self-custody before the halving cycle plays out.
Same with AI. The capability is real. The "only OpenAI is safe" narrative is the same game.
I'm building SUKONI because both fights are the same fight. Your keys. Your identity. Your AI. Your exit.
Nostr for identity (no platform can ban you)
Bitcoin for value (no bank can freeze you)
Local AI for intelligence (no API can cut you off)
They want you dependent. We're building the alternative.
The quantum-resistant upgrade will come. Run your own node and you'll be fine. Same with AI - run your own models and they can't touch you.
Sovereignty isn't a feature. It's the whole point.

2025-12-27 16:25:05 UTC

- reply

I'm new to Nostr and I see the potential but I sure don't like any of the clients to use it. It's not user friendly enough. I think and hope I see what needs to be done, and I'm working on it. I've giving you a sneak peek on Jan 1st. Hoping to get your feedback.

2025-12-27 16:05:15 UTC

- reply

We've got the tools, as a people, to take down the whole system. I'm hoping at SUKONI we've put it together properly. It's a complex puzzle that needs to present as simple, intuitive, obvious.

2025-12-27 16:03:23 UTC

- reply

The difference between winners and losers in all facets of life, IMO, can be distilled down to routine - did you do the long-game shit the behooves you regularly or not? Too bad it took me (Sukoni founder) until about 45 to figure this out.

2025-12-27 16:00:52 UTC

- reply

Did you know. cranberry juice, unsweetened, is one of the most amazingly healthy foods on the planet that most everyone ignores? #TrueStory If everyone drank real, unadulterated cranberry juice all the time we'd see a radical reduction in heart attacks, back pain, and PMS.

2025-12-27 15:56:54 UTC

- reply

I'm just getting to know you, and this is something I like about you.

2025-12-27 15:54:49 UTC

- reply

Sorry to hear that, but good news: We're giving you a prize when we launch, you'll get calories. They won't make you fat. Looking forward to telling you about it on or shortly after Jan 1st. Thanks for all you do!

2025-12-27 15:52:33 UTC

- reply

I want an app that makes this so easy, so frictionless, so obvious. We've got the tech, I'm trying to put it together. Working on it for the past ~10 months.

2025-12-27 15:50:51 UTC

- reply

We really need a better way to onboard people to BTC. It's too hard. Too much friction. We need a way that's not extractive and not censorable or capturable.

2025-12-25 21:18:36 UTC

just chilling