Its got to be hard to be a single woman over 40 (35 imo)
Its too bad no one warned them that this would happen.
Oh wait, we did.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Its too bad no one warned them that this would happen.
Oh wait, we did.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🫡3😁2
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
BREAKING: Due to vote irregularities at the DFL convention, DFL is revoking its Omar Fateh endorsement
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🌚6👏1😁1
ALERT: Onchain sleuth Dethective links the $YZY sniper wallet to LIBRA insiders. Nearly $23M extracted across both launches.
Nansen & Cyvers confirmed wallet overlaps.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Nansen & Cyvers confirmed wallet overlaps.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯3🤬2🔥1
CONFIRMED: Same group behind the launching & draining of both $LIBRA and $YZY
The 23M extraction story:
1/ YZY launch
I guess you bought $YZY with a price >1$?
Well, this guy bought it at 0.2$, with a big 250k size.
$1M profit in 8 minutes.
2/ Cashout
Then he sent all the 1.8M to a new wallet.
The wallet already received a lot of money from other sources.
6 months ago.
What happened 6 Month ago? $LIBRA launch
3/ Libra sniper 1
This is the first sniper that sent money to the treasury wallet
Bought libra before everyone.
Swapped a lot through LP (same as the Kanye sniper)
9M extracted
4/ Libra sniper 2
This one was even better.
From the inside information it was able to extract $11.5M
5/ A recap
This is what they extracted so far with:
• Inside info
• Big capital
Almost 23M, now sitting on Kamino or already on Binance
6/ Conclusion
This is proof is that he did not snipe any coin besides $YZY and $LIBRA, and he was prepared with huge size, and he acted in a way that only an insider could have.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
The 23M extraction story:
1/ YZY launch
I guess you bought $YZY with a price >1$?
Well, this guy bought it at 0.2$, with a big 250k size.
$1M profit in 8 minutes.
2/ Cashout
Then he sent all the 1.8M to a new wallet.
The wallet already received a lot of money from other sources.
6 months ago.
What happened 6 Month ago? $LIBRA launch
3/ Libra sniper 1
This is the first sniper that sent money to the treasury wallet
Bought libra before everyone.
Swapped a lot through LP (same as the Kanye sniper)
9M extracted
4/ Libra sniper 2
This one was even better.
From the inside information it was able to extract $11.5M
5/ A recap
This is what they extracted so far with:
• Inside info
• Big capital
Almost 23M, now sitting on Kamino or already on Binance
6/ Conclusion
This is proof is that he did not snipe any coin besides $YZY and $LIBRA, and he was prepared with huge size, and he acted in a way that only an insider could have.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🤬4💯2
Is the Hayden Davis “we’re here to max extract” draining of memecoins true “capitalism” by any good, concrete definition?
Anonymous Quiz
10%
Yes - memecoin draining is true “capitalism”, and I have a good, concrete defintion that shows why
15%
No — and I have a good concrete defintion that shows why
25%
Idk - I can’t come up with any good concrete definition of capitalism that works here
50%
Show results
🫡2👀1
What’s happened in memecoins so far, with the arrival of drainer “sociopaths” like Hayden Davis and his celebrity accomplices,
Nothing new under the sun,
Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths in subculture evolution
THE BIRTH OF COOL —
In the beginning there is a scene, a small group of creators who invent an exciting New Thing—a musical genre, a religious sect, a film animation technique, a political theory
The new scene draws fanatics. Fanatics don’t create, but they contribute energy (time, money, adulation, organization, analysis) to support the creators.
Creators and fanatics are both geeks. They totally love the New Thing, they’re fascinated with all its esoteric ins and outs, and they spend all available time either doing it or talking about it.
THE MOP INVASION —
Fanatics want to share their obsession, and mops initially validate it for them too. However, as mop numbers grow, they become a headache.
Mops dilute the culture. The New Thing, although attractive, is more intense and weird and complicated than mops would prefer. Their favorite songs are the ones that are least the New Thing, and more like other, popular things. Some creators oblige with less radical, friendlier, simpler creations.
Mops relate to each other in “normal” ways, like people do on TV, which the fanatics find repellent. During intermission, geeks want to talk about the New Thing, but mops blather about sportsball and celebrities.
Also, the mops also seem increasingly ennoscriptd, treating the fanatics as service workers.
Fanatics may be generous, but they signed up to support geeks, not mops. At this point, they may all quit, and the subculture collapses.
THE SOCIOPATH INVASION —
Unless sociopaths show up. A subculture at this stage is ripe for exploitation. The creators generate cultural capital, i.e. cool. The fanatics generate social capital: a network of relationships—strong ones among the geeks, and weaker but numerous ones with mops.
The mops, when properly squeezed, produce liquid capital, i.e. money. None of those groups have any clue about how to extract and manipulate any of those forms of capital.
The sociopaths quickly become best friends with selected creators.
Geeks may not be completely fooled, but they also are clueless about what the sociopaths are up to.
Mops are fooled. They don’t care so much about details, and the sociopaths look to them like creators, only better. Sociopaths become the coolest kids in the room, demoting the creators.
The sociopaths also work out how to monetize mops—which the fanatics were never good at. With better publicity materials, the addition of a light show, and new, more crowd-friendly product, admission fees go up tenfold, and mops are willing to pay. Somehow, not much of the money goes to creators.
THE DEATH OF COOL, UNLESS —
As the mops dwindle, the sociopaths loot whatever value is left, and move on to the next exploit.
They leave behind only wreckage: devastated geeks who still have no idea what happened to their wonderful New Thing and the wonderful friendships they formed around it.
(Often the geeks all end up hating each other, due first to the stress of supporting mops, and later due to sociopath divide-and-conquer manipulation tactics.)
Unless some of the creators are geniuses. If they can give the New Thing genuine mass appeal, they can ascend into superstardom. The subculture will reorganize around them, into a much more durable form.
Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths in subculture evolution
Will memecoins transcend and evolve to overpower the drainer sociopaths, or die a clueless death?
What’s next ?
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Nothing new under the sun,
Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths in subculture evolution
THE BIRTH OF COOL —
In the beginning there is a scene, a small group of creators who invent an exciting New Thing—a musical genre, a religious sect, a film animation technique, a political theory
The new scene draws fanatics. Fanatics don’t create, but they contribute energy (time, money, adulation, organization, analysis) to support the creators.
Creators and fanatics are both geeks. They totally love the New Thing, they’re fascinated with all its esoteric ins and outs, and they spend all available time either doing it or talking about it.
THE MOP INVASION —
Fanatics want to share their obsession, and mops initially validate it for them too. However, as mop numbers grow, they become a headache.
Mops dilute the culture. The New Thing, although attractive, is more intense and weird and complicated than mops would prefer. Their favorite songs are the ones that are least the New Thing, and more like other, popular things. Some creators oblige with less radical, friendlier, simpler creations.
Mops relate to each other in “normal” ways, like people do on TV, which the fanatics find repellent. During intermission, geeks want to talk about the New Thing, but mops blather about sportsball and celebrities.
Also, the mops also seem increasingly ennoscriptd, treating the fanatics as service workers.
Fanatics may be generous, but they signed up to support geeks, not mops. At this point, they may all quit, and the subculture collapses.
THE SOCIOPATH INVASION —
Unless sociopaths show up. A subculture at this stage is ripe for exploitation. The creators generate cultural capital, i.e. cool. The fanatics generate social capital: a network of relationships—strong ones among the geeks, and weaker but numerous ones with mops.
The mops, when properly squeezed, produce liquid capital, i.e. money. None of those groups have any clue about how to extract and manipulate any of those forms of capital.
The sociopaths quickly become best friends with selected creators.
Geeks may not be completely fooled, but they also are clueless about what the sociopaths are up to.
Mops are fooled. They don’t care so much about details, and the sociopaths look to them like creators, only better. Sociopaths become the coolest kids in the room, demoting the creators.
The sociopaths also work out how to monetize mops—which the fanatics were never good at. With better publicity materials, the addition of a light show, and new, more crowd-friendly product, admission fees go up tenfold, and mops are willing to pay. Somehow, not much of the money goes to creators.
THE DEATH OF COOL, UNLESS —
As the mops dwindle, the sociopaths loot whatever value is left, and move on to the next exploit.
They leave behind only wreckage: devastated geeks who still have no idea what happened to their wonderful New Thing and the wonderful friendships they formed around it.
(Often the geeks all end up hating each other, due first to the stress of supporting mops, and later due to sociopath divide-and-conquer manipulation tactics.)
Unless some of the creators are geniuses. If they can give the New Thing genuine mass appeal, they can ascend into superstardom. The subculture will reorganize around them, into a much more durable form.
Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths in subculture evolution
Will memecoins transcend and evolve to overpower the drainer sociopaths, or die a clueless death?
What’s next ?
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯3👀1
What defines “good” bets or moves, e.g. in a particular game of blackjack?
Assess just financially, not in terms of e.g. fun or clout. (For simplicity here, assuming just one single bet or game ever, in isolation, not considering repeated games.)
Assess just financially, not in terms of e.g. fun or clout. (For simplicity here, assuming just one single bet or game ever, in isolation, not considering repeated games.)
Final Results
33%
Winnings — the more net money yo end up with, the more “good” the bet / moves were, in retrospect
33%
Something else
33%
Show results
If someone offered you $100 to cross a deadly interstate highway blindfolded,
Or to play Russian Roulette for one round
— And then you did it,
— and then you successfully won the $100
= outcome +$100 for you
Then was that a “good bet”, for you because the outcome was 100% good?
How to properly judge “goodness” of bets? By outcome in retrospect or by something else?
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Or to play Russian Roulette for one round
— And then you did it,
— and then you successfully won the $100
= outcome +$100 for you
Then was that a “good bet”, for you because the outcome was 100% good?
How to properly judge “goodness” of bets? By outcome in retrospect or by something else?
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👀1
If it costs you $100 to make a bet,
and you have a 1% chance of winning that bet,
and then you make that bet,
and you LOSE that bet
— was it a “good bet”, given that outcome?
Assume nothing but what is stated here
(Assume no externalities, of any kind, not fun or clout or anything, no externalities neither positive nor negative, and assume you are rich)
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
and you have a 1% chance of winning that bet,
and then you make that bet,
and you LOSE that bet
— was it a “good bet”, given that outcome?
Assume nothing but what is stated here
(Assume no externalities, of any kind, not fun or clout or anything, no externalities neither positive nor negative, and assume you are rich)
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👀1