2040 HN:

"Ask HN: How do you prevent ad-injection in my brain implant?"

A 200M sale on a 16B net worth is like someone worth 1M selling about 12.5k of stock.

> Over 537,000 shares, which represent nearly 40% of the entire portfolio

@190/share this is $102 million

Also: > Vistra Energy, another 19% chunk, was wiped out as well.

> Moreover, the fund’s turnover hovered over 80%, leaving just three holdings: Tesla, Microsoft, and Apple.

Some would argue that tesla is a bigger bubble.

> his personal net worth is an eye-popping $16.3 billion as of 2025.

Cash is just another asset class, and since becoming a pure fiat it’s never been a good one: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL

Given the fiscal dominance we’re in now that pretty much guarantees higher rates of inflation in the future, I think there’s much better places to place your money if you want to diversify. At least cash equivalents would be better

You don't need money. What you need is wealth. I am going to leave it to PG to explain the difference [1]: Wealth is not money. Wealth is stuff we want: food, clothes, houses, cars, gadgets, travel to interesting places, and so on. You can have wealth without having money. If you had a magic machine that could on command make you a car or cook you dinner or do your laundry, or do anything else you wanted, you wouldn't need money. Whereas if you were in the middle of Antarctica, where there is nothing to buy, it wouldn't matter how much money you had.

AI & robots will generate wealth at unprecedented scale. In the future, you won't have a job nor have any money, but you will be fabulously wealthy!

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html

How come I never see any concrete proposals for how to equitably distribute the wealth of AI? It's always either "stop AI immediately for the sake of our labor" or "don't worry sometime in the future everyone will live in utopia probably".

Here's a starter example: any company whose main business is training AI models needs must give up 10% of their company to a fund whose charter is long-term establishing basic care (food, water, electricity, whatever) for citizens.

I'm sure people will come at me with "well this will incentivize X instead!" in which case I'd like to hear if there are better thought out proposals.

What metric are you looking at when you say "the size of government has vastly and consistently outgrown the private sector" - AFAICT, excluding 2020 and 2021 (which I think is reasonable), the federal budget has been between 17% and 25% of GDP for the past 50 years (where the fluctuations are more a function of variable GDP).

The number of federal government employees has also remained mostly flat for the past 50 years (and IIRC most growth in overall public sector employment comes from schools).

That only makes sense if Stripe issues their own stablecoins? If they let their customers hold USDC on the Tempo chain, then any revenue from holding short-term treasuries goes to Circle. Are you suggesting Stripe would force Circle to share some of their revenue with them or they launch their own stablecoin to compete with USDC?

so the short answer to the question of "why crypto" is just to work around regulation, to be able to act as a bank without the regulations that apply to banks?

So then by using this product you are de facto buying short term US debt lowering the debt costs in a way? Is that what you are describing? And Stripe makes money on that short term carry.