A new type of ad is appearing on city streets: trucks with huge digital screens showing “3D” animated ads while driving through traffic. The screens are actually flat but use a visual effect called anamorphic animation to make images look like they are popping out of the truck, making the ads appear almost real. This technology is similar to the famous 3D billboards in places like Times Square and Shibuya Crossing, but now the ads move through the streets instead of staying in one place. People say they’re too distracting, especially in heavy traffic, and it’s bad for drivers trying to pay attention.

Today Instagram had this massive exploit where hackers were just stealing rare handles left and right. Hundreds of accounts gone. People losing handles they’ve owned since 2010, some worth hundreds of thousands. I own a few rare ones so I was actually stressed watching this happen in real time, which I haven’t been in years. Obama White House account got hit. These aren’t some random new accounts, these are verified, locked down accounts and they still got compromised. The thing is the exploit is so simple it’s almost funny. Attacker goes to Forgot Password, says their account is hacked, turns on a VPN to match the target’s location (which now you can find on the about section of the page). Instagram’s AI support flow asks them to verify with a selfie. They grab a photo from the target’s profile, run it through an AI video generator to make an animation of the person’s face moving around, upload that to Meta’s AI as proof. And Meta’s AI just accepts it because it can’t tell the difference between a real selfie and an AI-generated video of someone’s face . Once verified they change the email to theirs. Password reset link goes to their email. They own it now. 2FA gets bypassed somehow in the process but honestly I don’t know exactly how, just that it did. Point is even locked down accounts went down. Then you try to recover your account and you’re talking to a chatbot that has zero ability to help. You can’t escalate to a human. You’re just stuck. Your asset is gone and there’s no one to call. The whole thing just highlighted how stupid it is to automate account security without any human in the loop. One AI fooling another AI while there’s literally no person anywhere to catch it. Meta took hours to even acknowledge it while accounts were getting stolen every minute. Now thankfully it’s patched but I don’t think it will be the last one. Stay safe!

T-1 before $DROPEE TGE, and I think the market is finally starting to understand why @dropee_app keeps getting attention across CT. The thesis is no longer just: “AI + Telegram.” It’s the convergence of: 📲 Telegram distribution 🤖 AI-native production 🎮 portfolio-scale app iteration 💰 built-in monetization 🔄 structural buybacks And from a builder perspective, the most important piece is Dropee Create. Most people still think Dropee Create is just: “AI generating Telegram apps.” But after digging deeper, I think the actual value proposition is much bigger. Dropee Create is trying to automate the ENTIRE operating stack behind Telegram Mini Apps. Not just coding. A creator can describe an idea in plain English, and the platform can automatically: 🧠 generate gameplay loops, progression systems & retention mechanics 🎮 design missions, rewards, upgrade systems & engagement flows 🎨 create character assets, UI layouts, branding & animations ⚙️ produce production-ready Telegram Mini App code 🌐 integrate TON wallets, token utilities & on-chain actions 💰 plug directly into Telegram Stars, ad monetization & $DROPEE incentives 📈 build referral systems, onboarding funnels & viral growth mechanics 📊 analyze engagement behavior to optimize retention and monetization That last layer is probably the strongest moat. Because in consumer apps, the hard problem is usually NOT: “Can you build something?” The hard problem is: ❌ Can you retain users? ❌ Can you monetize efficiently? ❌ Can you lower acquisition costs? ❌ Can you iterate faster than competitors? ❌ Can you scale distribution profitably? Most AI builders today only solve the first step. Dropee Create is trying to solve the full lifecycle: idea → product → monetization → growth → ecosystem retention. That’s why the Voodoo background matters so much. The team already understands: 📊 retention curves 💰 monetization optimization ⚡ rapid experimentation 📈 scaling consumer apps at massive volume Now they’re combining that operator experience with: 🤖 AI-native production 📲 Telegram-native distribution 🌐 TON-native payments & onboarding Which changes the economics of app creation dramatically. Traditional studios are constrained by: • developer bandwidth • production cost • long testing cycles • slow feedback loops Dropee Create reportedly compresses this into: ⚡ ~14-day concept-to-monetization cycles 💸 ~90% lower production costs Meaning the ecosystem can continuously: • test new app concepts • launch faster • scale winning products • kill weak performers quickly And unlike single-app ecosystems, Dropee compounds value across a portfolio. Every app connects into: ⭐ Telegram Stars 📢 shared ad infrastructure 🎁 cross-app $DROPEE rewards 🌐 unified TON onboarding So successful apps strengthen the broader ecosystem instead of existing independently. That portfolio structure is probably the strongest defense against the “post-airdrop collapse” problem Telegram ecosystems keep facing. And importantly: the traction already exists pre-TGE: ✅ 13M+ users ✅ ~$2.5M revenue ✅ 8 live applications ✅ #1# on TON in December Which makes the token mechanics much more compelling. Up to 50% of ecosystem revenue is allocated toward $DROPEE buybacks. Meaning: more creators → more apps → more monetization → more revenue → more structural buy pressure. Telegram distribution. AI-native production. Portfolio economics. Proven operators. Live revenue before TGE. That’s why the market keeps circling back to Dropee. ChainGPT Pad pre-sale closes today. TGE tomorrow 🚀 #Dropee# #DROPEE# #TON# #ChainGPTPad#

Larry Page wanted to build a digital god. "He really seemed to want some sort of digital superintelligence. Basically a digital god, if you will. As soon as possible." Elon Musk asked: "What about making sure humanity's okay here?" Page called him a speciesist. "I said yes, I'm a speciesist. You got me. What are you? I'm fully a speciesist. Busted." Musk spent 10 minutes with Tucker Carlson explaining why he created OpenAI: Tucker asked the basic question. "All of a sudden AI is everywhere. People are playing with it on their phones. Is that good or bad?" Musk starts with first principles. "The smartest creatures as far as we know on this Earth are humans. That's our defining characteristic." "We're obviously weaker than chimpanzees. Less agile. But we are smarter." "Now. What happens when something vastly smarter than the smartest person comes along in silicon form?" "It's very difficult to predict what will happen in that circumstance." He explains the singularity. "It's called the singularity. Like a black hole. Because you don't know what happens after that." "It's hard to predict." He argues for regulation. "I think there should be some government oversight. Because it affects the public. It's a danger to the public." "That's why we have the Food and Drug Administration. The Federal Aviation Administration. The FCC." "We have these agencies to oversee things that affect the public. Where there could be public harm." "You don't want companies cutting corners on safety. And then having people suffer as a result." He addresses the perception that he fights regulators. "People think I'm some sort of regulatory maverick that defies regulators on a regular basis. But this is actually not the case." "Once in a blue moon, rarely, I will disagree with regulators. But the vast majority of the time my companies agree with the regulations and comply." Tucker asks the obvious question. "All regulations start with a perceived danger. Planes fall out of the sky. I don't think an average person playing with AI on his iPhone perceives any danger." "Can you explain what you think the dangers might be?" Musk's answer. "AI is perhaps more dangerous than mismanaged aircraft design or production maintenance or bad car production." "In the sense that it has the potential. It is a small probability, but it is not trivial." "It has the potential of civilization destruction." He explains the timing problem. "Regulations are really only put into effect after something terrible has happened." "If that's the case for AI, and we only put in regulations after something terrible has happened, it may be too late to put the regulations in place." "They may be out of control at that point." Tucker asks directly. "It's conceivable that AI could take control and reach a point where you couldn't turn it off and it would be making the decisions for people?" Musk's answer. "Yeah. Absolutely." "That's definitely the way things are headed." He explains why OpenAI exists. "Larry Page and I used to be close friends. I would stay at his house in Palo Alto. I would talk to him late in the night about AI safety." "At least my perception was that Larry was not taking AI safety seriously enough." Tucker asked what Page said. "He really seemed to want some sort of digital superintelligence. Basically a digital god, if you will. As soon as possible." Musk pushed back. "I agree there's great potential for good. But there's also potential for bad." "If you have some radical new technology, you want to take actions to maximize the probability it will do good. Minimize the probability it will do bad things." "It can't just be barreling forward and hope for the best." Then the speciesist moment. "At one point I said: what about making sure humanity's okay here?" "And then he called me a speciesist." Tucker: "Did he use that term?" "Yes." "I said yes, I'm a speciesist. You got me. What are you? I'm fully a speciesist. Busted." That was the last straw. "At the time, Google had DeepMind. Google and DeepMind had three-quarters of all the AI talent in the world." "They obviously had a lot of money and more computers than anyone else." "We're in a unipolar world here. One company that has close to a monopoly on AI talent and computers. And the person who's in charge doesn't seem to care about safety." "This is not good." So he created the opposite. "I thought: what's the furthest thing from Google?" "A nonprofit that is fully open. Because Google was closed and for-profit." "Open AI. Open source. Transparent. So people know what's going on." "We don't want this to be a for-profit maximizing demon from hell that just never stops." Tucker asks about the specific danger. "The cool parts of AI are obvious. Write your college paper for you. Write a limerick about yourself. There's a lot that's fun and useful." "But can you be more precise about what's potentially dangerous? What specifically are you worried about?" Musk's answer. "The pen is mightier than the sword." "If you have a superintelligent AI that is capable of writing incredibly well. In a way that is very influential, convincing." "And is constantly figuring out what is more convincing to people over time." "And then enters social media. Twitter. Facebook. Others." "And potentially manipulates public opinion in a way that is very bad." "How would we even know?"

Re-posting the idea from the second half of this post a few months ago (This is very relevant to the options ideas from yesterday) Question: if we're making a synthetic stable, what should it really be stable WITH RESPECT TO? USD is actually far from the best choice. --- What do people who want stablecoins ultimately want? They want price stability. They have some future expenses in mind, and they want a guarantee that will be able to pay those expenses. But if crypto grows on top of USD-backed stablecoins, crypto is ultimately not truly decentralized. Furthermore, different people have different types of expenses. There has been lots of thinking about making an "ideal stablecoin" that is based on some decentralized global price index, but what if the real solution is to go a step further, and get rid of the concept of currency altogether? Here's the idea. You have price indices on all major categories of goods and services that people buy (treating physical goods/services in different regions as different categories), and prediction markets on each category. Each user (individual or business) has a local LLM that understands that user's expenses, and offers the user a personalized basket of prediction market shares, representing "N days of that user's expected future expenses". Now, we do not need fiat currency at all! People can hold stocks, ETH, or whatever else to grow wealth, and personalized prediction market shares when they want stability.

re @bankrbot hack, ~$170K drained so far, here's my best guess as to what happened (with the help of Caddie) TLDR - multiple Bankr user wallets drained on May 19, 2026. looks like the attacker had direct signing access to Privy-managed embedded wallets — doesn't appear to be an approval exploit or smart contract bug. tokens were transferred out via direct transfer() calls, swapped to ETH, bridged Base → Ethereum mainnet, then distributed across multiple wallets - warning: not 100% certain Hypothesis 1/ Bankr uses Privy as a provider (Privy has sign-in with X) - session keys held on Bankr's backend, private keys compromised - Bankr-bot saying funds are safe isn't reassuring — they're likely just checking balances, unless they know exactly which keys got hit Hypothesis 2/ Privy itself - Privy is rock solid, I don't think it's them. more likely H1 what users should do. err on the side of caution - check your wallet for unauthorized transfers, you can do so on Basescan or using B3OS by talking to Caddie, just copy/paste your wallet into Caddie - report to Bankr Discord - move assets to fresh EOAs when withdrawals enable welcome any/all other theses!

Re: High-NA Chips in Production. This means an alternate runpath to the POR multipatterning process. It's common to have competing integration flows for some modules. It allows the fabs to directly compare yield, cost, and cycle time for the new process. For memory, they may even allocate a portion of the WIP to the competing flow and sell it if it yields, although that's rare.