Burn the limits. Build the future. LETSBURN is more than a name. It is a mindset. Where bold ideas turn into real innovation⚡ #LETSBURN# #Innovation# #Technology# #Future# #Web3# #AI# #Builders# #BuildTheFuture# #ThinkDifferent# #InnovationMindset#

As promised Why tokenization + AI will shift the macro debate from money supply to money velocity. When Wealth Becomes Money: Why Crypto Matters for Economists As Steve Jobs said, "here's to the crazy ones" - Think Different

Supply control and a big story are the key After this “extraction” stage ends, tokens will be highly likely priced based on hard metrics - revenue, TVL, user base or any other business parameters Those project that will not have great performing yet, will need to be able to sell big stories in order to capture market and investors attention. For pre TGE coins it’s kinda easier - people gamble around imagination But for already listed tokens it’s going to be challenging - if too much supply is out of control, then harder to create any positive price impact, then much harder to get attention (remember - people buy pump). Conclusion - find projects with great metrics or great stories, that have enough cash or strong financial partners to buy back supply and control it properly. These are the best bets now. When market is up - they will outperform and it should be very lucrative to offload bags easily on high demand. Think different. Cheers

Congratulations to Artemis II on a successful mission! You captured the wonders of space and our planet beautifully, taking iPhone photography to new heights, and we’re grateful you shared it with the world. Your work continues to inspire us all to think different. Welcome home!

So thrilled to celebrate #Apple50# with @paulmccartney! His music has inspired us from the beginning, so this is a full circle moment to close out our celebrations. Thank you, Paul, for proving that when you think different, you have the power to change the world.

Why Generic Humanoid Robots Will Fail — And What's Next Imagine an alternate world where we never invented the car. In that world, a robotics engineer might reasonably conclude that robotic horses are the future — replace the living ones, keep the stables and saddles, ride them to work. Convenient, modern, and the roads stay free of manure. It sounds absurd only because you already know about cars. We keep making the same mistake with humanoid robots. Consider transportation. To finally make driving safe, we had two options: put a humanoid in the driver's seat, or embed sensing and compute directly into the vehicle. Waymo chose the latter. It has no steering wheel. It exists purely to move people efficiently from A to B. The humanoid was not needed. Consider a sock factory. Yes, you could replace workers with humanoid robots one-for-one on the assembly line — and gain maybe 2-3x efficiency. Or you could completely redesign the workflow around a purpose-built autonomous sewing system and eliminate most of the factory, the chairs, the cafeteria, the manual sewing machines, the HVAC, the doors, and the restrooms. The actual optimization is to side-step the previous human-imposed physical constraint. Look at Ukraine. The front lines aren't filling up with Terminator-style humanoids carrying rifles. Human soldiers are being replaced by heterogeneous swarms of purpose-specific drones: some for reconnaissance, some for logistics, some for delivering munitions. War is being restructured around the desired outcome (survival), not the soldier's shape. Consider a 1970's office. Want to move information through teams of people? We once used typists, paper, trucks to supply the paper, typewriters, and repair technicians. A linear improvement would have been to replace the human typist with a 10-fingered humanoid. What actually happened? The entire workflow — paper, printers, typewriter factories, delivery trucks, the desks, the offices — was obliterated. Email deleted the human clerk's entire universe. Consider cancer early detection by mammography. Today, getting a mammogram requires expensive hardware, logistics infrastructure, human nurses and doctors, a biopsy workflow, a human pathologist with a microscope (imported from Germany or Japan), a written finding, multiple physician reviews. Sure, you could replace the pathologist with a humanoid (the microscope focus knob requires finger dexterity) and get a modest efficiency gain (and faster responses at 2 am). Or — the far more likely future — we all swallow a cancer detection pill every few months, and 24 hours later a color-changing sticker on our arm turns red or green. No hardware. No hospital. No logistics. No pathologist. No office. No desk. No humanoid. The workflow isn't optimized by a literal drop-in swap of a human pathologist for a humanoid. The entire workflow simply ceases to exist. Consider life sciences research and drug development. We're seeing excitement about robot arms and humanoids pipetting water in research labs. Robot horses, episode 7. We don't design aircraft by crashing test planes — we simulate them entirely in software first. Biology will go the same way. The path to scalable drug discovery isn't robot arms in conventional wet labs demonstrating 10 fingered prowess in manipulating Eppendorf tubes filled with purple food coloring. Rather, we need in-silico biological models that evaluate billions of hypotheses computationally, with physical manipulation of atoms only at the very end. The clear pattern. Efficient automation doesn't try to replicate a 10-fingered human in a static context. Automation eliminates physical rate-limiting steps in their entirety. That's why "classical" humanoid robots, as a generic category, will largely fail. They're robotic horses. They assume the infrastructure and workflows stay fixed and only the 10-fingered human is swapped out. That's not how economic and technological pressure works. What actually matters? If humans continue to inhabit the physical world, then moving atoms will remain important, and that requires five things: atoms, energy, force generation and actuation, sensing, and compute. Everything else — form factor, number of limbs, type of end effector — is a variable to be optimized for the task. So if you are a pathologist, a robotics engineer, a teacher, a parent, a politician, or a sewing factory owner - please think different. Most obviously, we should all anticipate, and build for, a future in which robots exhibit extreme physical fluidity: Two arms or four. Wheels or legs. Tentacles or flippers. Three fingers or twelve, or none at all. Eyes at the front, side, or tip of a tentacle. At OpenMind, we don't care what you look like right now - we got you, in all your physical form factors. OM2 ships in July, for all machines. Let's build.