Hello everyone, As many of you just saw in today’s State of Play, pre-orders for Phantom Blade Zero will open this summer! At the same time, I want to share another update: Phantom Blade Zero will now launch on October 29, 2026, moved from its previous date of September 9, 2026. First of all, I want to offer my sincere apologies to all the players who have been following and supporting us. This was not an easy decision. More than anyone, we understand the expectations our players have placed on us. And precisely because of those expectations, we do not want to release Phantom Blade Zero knowing there is still an opportunity to take it one step further. Looking back over the past few years, the development of Phantom Blade Zero has been a thrilling journey of evolution. As we built the game, we continued learning, refining our technology, and expanding the scale and resources behind the project. From its first reveal in 2023, to its first offline hands-on demo in 2024, to the Seven-Star Sword Formation, Lion Dance, and Drunken Sword showcased in 2025, Phantom Blade Zero has continued to evolve year after year, with each new showing representing a clear leap forward from the last. And we have shared that evolution with players around the world every step of the way. Over the past few months, we have been streamlining content and focusing our efforts on polishing the areas that matter most. During this process, I saw one final opportunity for Phantom Blade Zero to make another meaningful leap forward. We have upgraded a number of character models and reworked many environments across the game, pushing them toward the highest standard we can currently achieve. We have also spent additional effort preserving as much of this visual impact as possible even without relying on ray tracing. Of course, ray tracing will further enhance the visuals, but our priority is to make sure the core look, atmosphere, and intensity of Phantom Blade Zero come through at full force for as many players as possible. A 50-day delay cannot solve everything. But it does give us enough time to complete a number of clearly defined and genuinely important improvements. These refinements will directly affect how the game feels when players first step into the world of Phantom Blade Zero. We could have delivered some of them through post-launch updates, but for the players who choose to join us on day one, we believe they deserve the best version of Phantom Blade Zero we can deliver from the very beginning. I am truly sorry for the delay, and I want to thank everyone who has continued to follow and support Phantom Blade Zero. This summer, we will have much more to show you. I believe every extra day of waiting will be worth it. I'd also like to share what you can expect next: 1. A new trailer that will release alongside pre-orders, featuring entirely new in-game footage. 2. After pre-order opens, we will also have a dedicated State of Play focused entirely on Phantom Blade Zero: a 15-to-20-minute deep dive into the game’s world, combat, exploration, and character progression systems. The vast majority of what we show there will be brand-new. We will share the exact dates in upcoming announcements! Once again, thank you all for your continued support! Soulframe S-GAME CEO / Creator of Phantom Blade Zero

Atlassian’s results surprised Wall Street, but it shouldn’t be a surprise. The simple heuristic for the future of software is that when there are 100X more agents than people, which parts of software will grow because agents are doing more work that the underlying software is tied to. If the world generates more code, generates more leads, reviews more contracts, processes more invoices, creates more designs, transacts with more payments, and so on, what are the underlying systems that are managing that work? That will give you a hint as to what happens next. These agents still need guardrails, security, compliance, workflows to be tied to, data stored, and so on. Those parts of the system of record ecosystem will only go up over time in a world of 100X more untrusted (and trusted) agents used in your workflows.

The genesis event for HYPE will occur at 07:30 UTC on November 29. Hyperliquid has grown to include the largest decentralised exchange by volume, open interest, and active users. Liquidity rivals the top centralised exchanges. The user experience bridges the seamless trading on CEXs with the self-custodial ideals of a fully onchain DEX. Hyperliquid represents the ethos of crypto and decentralised finance, with the technical innovations needed to bring all finance onchain without sacrifices. While Hyperliquid has come a long way, there is much further to go. Over the past year, the scope of Hyperliquid has expanded from a DEX to a full financial system. 1. At its base, Hyperliquid is a performant, modern L1. Powered by HyperBFT, a highly optimised proof of stake consensus algorithm, disparate nodes can achieve consensus at 200k transactions per second with ~0.2 second time to finality. As the native token, HYPE will be the staked asset securing HyperBFT. 2. The perpetuals and spot DEX are examples of native components built into Hyperliquid. These components are optimised high-throughput financial primitives with which users and smart contracts can interact. For example, HYPE/USDC will be traded on the native spot order book. 3. The HyperEVM will bring full programmability to native components and general-purpose onchain state alike. HYPE will be the gas token of the HyperEVM. 4. The community includes an ever-growing set of passionate and talented builders. Hyperliquid will serve as the infrastructure layer for the next generation of trustless and performant finance built by the community. Unlike other chains, Hyperliquid features onchain monetization for user applications that is built directly into the protocol. As the native asset of the protocol, HYPE will be a crucial building block for defi applications. The HYPE genesis event marks a key milestone in the journey, unlocking core functionality at every level of the stack. For more information, see the blog post:

This is an email I sent earlier today to all employees at Coinbase: Team, Today I’ve made the difficult decision to reduce the size of Coinbase by ~14%. I want to walk you through why we're doing this now, what it means for those affected, and how this positions us for the future. Why now Two forces are converging at the same time. We need to be front footed to respond to both. First, the market. Coinbase is well-capitalized, has diversified revenue streams, and is well-positioned to weather any storm. Crypto is also on the verge of the next wave of adoption, with stablecoins, prediction markets, tokenization, and more taking off. However, our business is still volatile from quarter to quarter. While we've managed through that cyclicality many times before and come out stronger on the other side, we’re currently in a down market and need to adjust our cost structure now so that we emerge from this period leaner, faster, and more efficient for our next phase of growth. Second, AI is changing how we work. Over the past year, I’ve watched engineers use AI to ship in days what used to take a team weeks. Non-technical teams are now shipping production code and many of our workflows are being automated. The pace of what's possible with a small, focused team has changed dramatically, and it's accelerating every day. All of this has led us to an inflection point, not just for Coinbase, but for every company. The biggest risk now is not taking action. We are adjusting early and deliberately to rebuild Coinbase to be lean, fast, and AI-native. We need to return to the speed and focus of our startup founding, with AI at our core. What this means To get there, we are not just reducing headcount and cutting costs, we’re fundamentally changing how we operate: rebuilding Coinbase as an intelligence, with humans around the edge aligning it. What does this mean in practice? - Fewer layers, faster decisions: We are flattening our org structure to 5 layers max below CEO/COO. Layers slow things down and create coordination tax. The future is small, high context teams that can move quickly. Leaders will own much more, with as many as 15+ direct reports. Fewer layers also means a leaner cost structure that is built to perform through all market cycles. - No pure managers: Every leader at Coinbase must also be a strong and active individual contributor. Managers should be like player-coaches, getting their hands dirty alongside their teams. - AI-native pods: We’ll be concentrating around AI-native talent who can manage fleets of agents to drive outsized impact. We’ll also be experimenting with reduced pod sizes, including “one person teams” with engineers, designers, and product managers all in one role. In short: AI is bringing a profound shift in how companies operate, and we’re reshaping Coinbase to lead in this new era. This is a new way of working, and we need to leverage AI across every facet of our jobs. To those who are affected I know there are real people behind these decisions — talented colleagues who have poured themselves into this company and our mission. To those of you who will be leaving: thank you. You’ve helped build Coinbase into what it is today, and I am sincerely grateful for everything you've done. All impacted team members will receive an email to their personal account in the next hour with more information, and an invitation to meet with an HRBP and a senior leader in your organization. Coinbase system access has been removed today. I know this feels sudden and harsh, but it is the only responsible choice given our duty to protect customer information. To those affected, we will be providing a comprehensive package to support you through this transition. US employees will receive a minimum of 16 weeks base pay (plus 2 weeks per year worked), their next equity vest, and 6 months of COBRA. Employees on a work visa will get extra transition support. Those outside of the US will receive similar support, based on local factors and subject to any consultation requirements. Coinbase prides itself on talent density. Our employees are among the most talented people in the world, and I have no doubt that your skills and experience will be highly sought after as you pursue your next chapters. How we move forward To the team that is staying, I know this is a difficult day. We’re saying goodbye to colleagues and friends you've been in the trenches with. But here’s what I want you to know as we move forward together: Over the past 13 years, we have weathered four crypto winters, gone public, and built the most trusted platform in our industry. We’ve made it this far by making hard decisions and by always staying focused on our mission. This time will be no different – nothing has changed about the long term outlook of our company or industry. And most importantly, our mission has never been more important for the world. Increasing economic freedom requires a new financial system, and we’re building it. The Coinbase that emerges from this will be more capable than ever to achieve our mission. Brian

Just got back from @consensus2026 Miami. Some unfiltered thoughts on the vibes: The industry has clearly grown up. The degens are gone, the allocators are wearing suits, and your @Uniswap booth has been replaced by a JP Morgan activation with 50 year old boomers. Cautiously optimistic with a distinctly institutional aftertaste. This was not a bull market conference. Key takeaways: 1) CLARITY Act has serious momentum. Everyone at the conference basically agrees it's getting done before summer. The urgency is real, people are done waiting. And the regulatory window feels genuinely unprecedented: CLARITY Act, GENIUS Act, a CFTC chair actively engaging with the industry, this combination has never existed simultaneously before. The institutional urgency you're seeing everywhere is directly correlated to this window feeling time-limited. Miss it and you're explaining to your board why you sat on your hands during the most favorable crypto regulatory environment in history. 2) Institutions are not dabbling anymore. They are ALL IN on tokenization and terrified of missing it. No one is debating whether blockchain rails are useful. The debate is now who gets the mandate. And quietly @coinbase , @krakenfx , @RobinhoodApp and @Bullish and others are being seen more as competitors than potential partners by a lot of these TradFi players. 3) TradFi M&A is going to keep ripping. @krakenfx just grabbed Reap for $600M. Visa, Mastercard, Swift etc they can't miss the train and they're willing to overpay for the ticket. 4) Crypto VC is consolidating fast. @a16z and @katie_haun just announced $2.2B and $1B funds respectively. Meanwhile the boutique VCs are either pivoting to AI or quietly closing shop. Same playbook is happenign as traditional VC, the big platforms eat everything and the small guys scramble. Seed and pre-seed is basically a ghost town right now. Late stage and pre-IPO is where the action is. 5) Investment themes were aggressively consensus (no pun intended): Stablecoins, tokenization, vertically integrated neo-banks, regulated or permissioned DeFi. Literally everyone is trying to be a tokenization platform. Issuance, management, settlement, curation, pick your lane, slap tokenization on it, try to raise money. 6) Building in crypto is genuinely hard now. Your competition isn't some scrappy new L1 or GMX, it's @tether , @Anchorage , and @Securitize. there are now many crypto businesses running 200M+ annual Rev with serious management teams and deep pockets. The barbarians are now the establishment. New entrants are going to have a very bad time. 7) Pure token-only plays have become extremely contrarian. Controversial take but I think the biggest returns will come from a handful of tokens that can credibly signal in a compliant way that the token remains the only value accruing asset going forward. 8) A lot of teams are in a genuinely weird spot on the token/equity dynamics. Decent products, decent teams, but a complete stakeholder clusterf*** that nobody can untangle. Many of these will simply not survive. 9) The agentic finance and agentic commerce crowd was loud. The actual substance was not. A lot of big claims, very little to show for it. Feels very early and mostly vibes. Color me skeptical for now. 10) @Bullish acquiring Equinity for $4.2B was the boldest move of the conference. @ThomasFarley and @BonannoDavid now have a full-stack RWA proposition: issuance, transfer agency, tokenization, exchange and settlement under one roof. Massive move. Very positive for the industry regardless of whether you think the price or the move were right. 11) @BitMNR and @fundstrat are apparently tired of winning and has decided to let your grandma keep her ETH... for now. The pace of accumulation is slowing. Tom, we await your next allocation with bated breath. 12) DeFi apps are moving up the stack and getting smarter about it. They don't want to be the commodity infrastructure layer getting squeezed by exchanges that own distribution. Some genuinely interesting announcements, @buffalu__ at @jito_sol launching JTX being the highlight. 13) Nobody at the conference was talking about retail coming back. The entire conversation was institutional. That's either a sign of maturity or a sign that the industry has quietly given up on mainstream consumer adoption for now and is betting the next cycle gets pulled by institutional flows rather than retail FOMO. Probably both. 14) The L1 debate is officially dead. Nobody and I mean nobody was arguing SOL vs ETH or pitching their shiny new L1. The crowd that used to religiously defend their chain of choice has either grown up, cashed out, or both. Institutions don't care about your consensus mechanism. They care about settlement finality, compliance rails and liquidity. The L1 wars were fun while they lasted. RIP. 15) DATs are a mess. Had some genuinely productive conversations with a few of them but let's be honest most are an absolute clusterf*** operationally and very few are running anything resembling a legitimate business. The structure is a disaster at the stakeholder level and the governance makes your average startup cap table look clean. That said, the permanent capital vehicle concept is still genuinely compelling and I think a handful of these will turn out to be absolute home runs. The model isn't broken, most of the teams just are. Bottom line: Consensus 2026 felt like the moment crypto stopped being a movement and started being an industry. Whether that's exciting or depressing probably depends on when you got in.

Some of my perspective on where the @ethereumfndn is going. First of all, this is only my own view. The board is not just me, and I have no extra special powers on the board that the other board members do not. @aerugoettinea is the one executing much of this transition. My input has been largely on technical questions. The board is in the process of expanding, and my own power within the org will continue to decrease, which is honestly what I want. The 2025 era brought many important improvements to EF and its ability to execute. Many issues were resolved, and EF continues to benefit from its improved efficiency and greater focus on concrete goals to this day. And so with those problems resolved, early this year, the largest remaining hole that I perceived was something different nagging at me: I would regularly spot people saying things like "vitalik says these beautiful things about ethereum needing to be decentralized, and have privacy, and be a sanctuary technology, but why do the EF's actions not reflect that?" Now, you may have been hearing something different. You may not have been sensing a feeling of crisis at all, and maybe were hearing people saying that finally we were taking execution and BD seriously and the main task for us is to keep going that way and be even better and faster. Then probably there is genuine difference between you and me, in what kinds of criticism I take most seriously, and what kinds of critics through their criticism are most able to make me feel pain. As an analogy, let's briefly switch over to a different domain. One belief you can have about Google is that it is a success story, and has brought a lot of good to humanity in organizing the world's information. Another belief you can have about Google is that they had a beautiful idealistic beginning, but at some point the corruption of mainstream corporate attitudes seeped in, and they slowly bit by bit completely abandoned the "don't be evil" slogan. My belief on Google specifically is probably somewhere between the two. BUT, if you had taken me back in time to ~2008, and offered me a button to press to make Google one or two standard deviations more "dogmatic", eg. give Richard Stallman permanent veto power over some key policies, I would immediately press it. Why? Because a choice for one company is not a choice for the world, or even one country. Google existed and exists in the context of a technology industry generally drifting away from early idealistic don't-be-evil roots and toward greed for financial gain, totalizing visions of accelerated superintelligence, infiltration by sociopaths, and craven capitulation to (or worse, active participation in) government pressure for ideological control, surveillance and war. And so *one company* doing something different, positioning itself to be what George Bernard Shaw calls the Unreasonable Man, resisting the trend of the times, would have been better for freedom, balance of power and stability of society as a whole, than *all* large companies bending to dominant trends. This is a part of my version of pluralism. This line of thinking is not just mine, but I also is not too far off from what Aya and others had in mind with the Mandate. Now how does this all get to the role of the EF? EF is not a "center of Ethereum", rather EF is "one node, with a defined purpose, alongside other nodes". We've always said that the EF should be the latter, but many in the Ethereum ecosystem (and even within the EF) wanted us to be the former. Now, we are taking action to ensure that we will be the latter. This is particularly important because EF is a limited organization, with limited resources and limited organizational capacity. The EF has only ~0.16% of all ETH (less than many other individual ETH holders), whereas among other blockchains it's common for "the central foundation" to have 10-50%. Fiscally, the EF was originally designed to fulfill a limited work scope defined in the token sale docs and other pre-launch materials (building the chain software; getting through Frontier, Homestead, Metropolis, Serenity), which was fully completed in 2022; it was not designed to be an eternal steward. And so today, the EF is choosing to use its remaining resources to pursue longevity over breadth (yes, this means we sell less ETH). The EF focuses *specifically* on those activities critical to the success of ethereum as a censorship/capture-resistant, open, private and secure system, that would not happen otherwise. This means making hard choices, and in some cases even activities that we highly approve of and people that we highly respect becoming outside of the EF. People of great technical talent, public respect and even alignment with the mission and CROPS being outside of the EF is in fact necessary if we want important tasks to be able to attract outside capital. This also means the EF taking opinionated stands culturally. This is all intended in cooperation with all other parts of ethereum. We recognize that many other parts of the ethereum world highly respect CROPS and related values. But highly respecting is not the same as choosing to specialize and totally dedicate to a domain (Compare in a different domain: I think reducing animal cruelty is important, and I like vegan food, but am not full unconditional vegan myself) EF is still in a transition period, and we expect its new long-term form to stabilize over the next few months. What are the guiding principles of this new form? Again, I am only one person, but I can give my answer from a technical perspective (there are also critical non-technical aspects). At the core, *Ethereum must be impressive*. We are living in an age of highly intelligent AI and all kinds of other technological acceleration. "Status quo EVM, with a hard fork or two a year to optimize for short-term needs of users" is not interesting. To some, "impressive" means: 250ms latency and 1M TPS. I think Ethereum trying to go that route is a mistake. Being as fast and as scalable as possible, and only a small epsilon more decentralized than the others, is a route to mediocrity, and if we try it we will lose. I think Ethereum should scale. But I think Ethereum should strive the hardest to be deeply impressive in a different dimension: the CROPS dimension. This means things like: * Provably bug-free Ethereum. This is a goal that all cybersecurity researchers would have thought is absurd and impossible, up until roughly 6 months ago. Now, it's on the cusp of being possible, thanks to AI-assisted formal verification. So we should be frontrunners in doing this. * Available chain consensus. Ethereum is, and with lean consensus will cotninue to be, the ONLY chain that has both (i) traditional-BFT style properties that it's safe under asynchrony up to a high level of fault tolerance, and (ii) the bitcoin PoW-style property that under synchrony it's safe up to 49% attackers. As far as I can tell, literally no other chain has this or is planning for it; bitcoin goes for (ii) only and most other chains go for (i) only. Some will remember I fought hard for this, Unreasonably insisting that it is not OK for ethereum to rely on social consensus and hard forks to rescue ethereum from 34% of nodes going offline. It's OK for chains like hyperledger, bnb, solana, tempo, etc. It's not OK for bitcoin or ethereum or eg. zcash. * Intermediary minimization. The fact that smart contract wallets, protocols like railgun, etc have to send transactions through intermediaries to get included onchain is honestly embarrassing, and it's a constant point of fragility. Hence the work on FOCIL and EIP-8141 (and 7701 and years of work before) to make transaction sending intermediary-minimized with public mempool and strong inclusion properties, in a truly general-purpose way, that covers not just eg. secp256r1, but also privacy protocols and much more. Kohaku is pushing intermediary minimization at the user layer, pulling Ethereum away from the dystopian status quo world where our wallets don't even verify the chain, send our private data out to a dozen third-party servers, and toward a brighter CROPS future. Some of these goals are Unreasonable - maybe Ethereum would be "fine" getting only 50% of the way - what if we depend on intermediaries, but make it easy to switch? But going 50% of the way would not make Ethereum Deeply Impressive in the CROPS way. So we push for 100%. Fortunately all these goals are compatible with high TPS, this is a major focus of research (esp. on scaling the state). Well-designed L2s can also help, especially L2s optimized for specific applications (eg. high-volume trading, privacy...). These goals are even compatible with significantly lower slot times, thanks to Raul's work on erasure-coded P2P, and many other optimizations. The most high-value "product" of the ethereum blockchain, financially speaking, is ETH the asset. Ethereum secures $250 billion of ETH. The types of properties of Ethereum that I mentioned above are very good for ETH the asset. Nearly 90% of my net worth is in ETH, and most of the remainder is ~$40m of onchain fiat of which every dollar has already been allocated for some open-source biotech or software or hardware initiative. That said, there are aspects of supporting ETH the asset - *necessary* aspects even - that are outside the scope of the EF. This is where we need other heroes (some of whom hold more ETH than the EF does) to step in and help. EF has been recently thinking more about how it will relate to other such organizations, and give them needed initial support. EF will be a smaller ship than in previous years, a more opinionated one - in some cases more opinionated in ways that might be difficult to comprehend - but a longer-lasting one, and one suited to making sure that ethereum brings something meaningful to the world. We are grateful to all those inside and outside the EF who are helping to make this happen.

Intel’s EMIB Packaging Is Growing Rapidly — Silicon Capacitors Are Taking Off Too Silicon capacitors are poised for explosive growth in the AI semiconductor space. Intel has been found to be planning a large-scale adoption of silicon capacitors starting next year, in order to enhance the performance of its in-house 2.5D packaging technology, “EMIB.” The most clearly visible source of demand is Google. Google plans to launch its next-generation AI accelerator, “v8e,” in the second half of next year, and has adopted an EMIB substrate with embedded silicon capacitors for that chip. With other Big Tech companies such as Amazon also currently applying EMIB, analysts say demand could increase sharply. According to industry sources on the 27th, Intel plans to apply silicon capacitors to its 2.5D packaging starting next year. Intel Adopts “Silicon Capacitors” for 2.5D Packaging… Google AI Chip Gets First Application 2.5D is an advanced packaging technology that inserts a thin-film interposer between the semiconductor and the substrate. Because it can connect circuits at higher density compared with conventional packaging that uses only a substrate, demand is rising in the AI and HPC fields. To improve cost efficiency in 2.5D packaging, Intel devised its own technology called EMIB. Rather than using a broad, spread-out interposer, EMIB connects chip to chip using a small silicon bridge. Since bridges only need to be placed where chip-to-chip connections are required, chips can be arranged more flexibly and efficiently. Recently, EMIB has been drawing attention as an alternative to TSMC, which had been leading the existing 2.5D packaging market. This is because TSMC’s 2.5D packaging capacity is suffering from a supply shortage amid the rapid development of the AI industry. Indeed, global Big Tech player Google is also paying attention to EMIB. Google has decided to adopt EMIB for its in-house AI semiconductor “v8e,” which it plans to launch in the second half of next year. Under this structure, TSMC handles chip mass production, MediaTek handles design and manufacturing support, and Intel handles packaging. However, there have been concerns that EMIB is gradually showing limitations in providing stable power supply for AI semiconductors, which consume large amounts of power. Accordingly, Intel plans to introduce new technologies such as silicon capacitors and through-silicon vias (TSV) to ensure stable packaging for the v8e. A capacitor is a component that stores and releases electricity in an electronic circuit. In the case of silicon capacitors, their resistance (ESL/ESR) is more than 100 times lower than that of conventional multilayer ceramic capacitors (MLCC), minimizing the signal loss that occurs in high-performance semiconductors. They can also be designed in an ultra-thin structure based on a silicon wafer, enabling high-density integration. A semiconductor industry official explained, “Because the voltage drop (the phenomenon of voltage decreasing) that occurs in the high-frequency region within AI chips is difficult to solve with MLCC, we understand that Intel is adopting silicon capacitors as a solution,” adding, “The relevant supply chain is now in place, and mass production is set to begin in earnest next year.” EMIB-T Is Already on a Growth Trajectory — The Related Ecosystem and Market Are Expanding Together Intel has also inserted TSVs, which serve as power-delivery channels, into the silicon bridge. The key point is that by using TSVs to shorten the power-delivery path between the substrate and the chip, Intel has improved power efficiency and signal integrity. Intel calls this “EMIB-T.” The industry expects the EMIB-T and silicon capacitor markets to grow rapidly. This is because Japan’s Ibiden — one of the major companies that mass-produces semiconductor substrates for EMIB-T — is aggressively pursuing capital investment. Previously, Ibiden had planned to build its Kawashima (Gama) plant in Gifu Prefecture as a substrate plant for Intel CPUs. However, it postponed that schedule and decided in the first half of this year to officially convert the Gama plant into a mass-production line for EMIB-T substrates. The investment is 220 billion yen (about KRW 2.1 trillion). In its recent earnings announcement, Ibiden stated, “Operation of the Gama plant will begin in 2027 and enter full-scale mass production in 2028,” adding, “EMIB-T substrate capacity is currently far short of demand. However, adding further capacity is quite difficult, so we are discussing options with our customers.” A semiconductor industry official explained, “Ibiden’s EMIB-T-dedicated line is being built with most of the investment coming from customers such as Google, Amazon, and Intel,” adding, “This demonstrates that AI semiconductors based on EMIB-T will grow significantly going forward, and silicon capacitors are likely to expand alongside them.”

When people talk about a once-in-a-lifetime trip, they often don’t realize that they may truly never return there. Many journeys that seem grand at the time eventually become ordinary parts of our lives. But even the little restaurant next to your home might, after some ordinary day, become a place you never visit again. Will space be once in a lifetime? I think not. But I really don’t know whether I will ever set foot on Bouvet again. I think Bouvet Island will very likely remain my true once-in-a-lifetime trip.

I am a Senior Partner at a compensation advisory firm and I have spent eleven years helping boards understand that performance-based pay was never meant to measure performance. It was meant to measure justification. Those are different disciplines. When a board hires my firm, we build what I call "intent-aligned metric frameworks." The intent being: the CEO gets paid. The framework being: whatever math produces that outcome. We do not rig anything. We select. There are always forty metrics available. We recommend the six that, given current market conditions, will most reliably trigger a payout. If conditions change mid-year, we recommend adjustments. If the adjustments aren't enough, we recommend exclusions. If the exclusions aren't enough, we recommend a committee-level override with disclosure language we draft ourselves. We have never failed to pay a CEO. Eleven years. Four hundred and thirty-seven engagements. Not once. The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio is 290 to 1. In 1965 it was 21 to 1. That is not inflation. That is not productivity. That is my profession. We did that. My industry exists because of the gap between what a CEO produces and what a CEO receives, and our job is to ensure nobody measures the first number with any precision. CEO pay has risen 1,085% since 1978. Worker pay has risen 24%. Same economy. Same companies. Same tariffs hitting both. Different consultants. RTX brought us in last January, three months before Liberation Day, and the committee pre-authorized tariff exclusions at that very meeting. Before any tariff was announced. Before any financial impact was quantified. They were buying insurance against their CEO's compensation being affected by policy he couldn't control. Christopher Calio's bonus went up 85% to $5.1 million. His total comp hit $27.7 million. The board minutes use our language exactly: tariffs are "externally imposed, unpredictable and unrelated to operational execution." We workshopped that sentence for nine billable hours across two partners, three associates, and a forensic linguist we keep on retainer for proxy season. Nine hours to make a bonus look like an act of God. The forensic linguist is named Margaret. She has a PhD in rhetoric from Berkeley and a $340 hourly rate and her entire job is to ensure that proxy statements technically say what happened while functionally saying nothing at all. She taught me that the word "despite" is the most dangerous word in a compensation disclosure. "Despite missing targets, the CEO received..." — that sentence has triggered four shareholder lawsuits in the last two years. We never use "despite." We use "after adjusting for factors outside management's control." Same meaning. Zero lawsuits. Margaret earns her rate. Yeti was my favorite project this cycle. Their actual operating income came in $13.4 million below the threshold for any payout at all. Zero. Nothing. The CEO had failed by every metric the board selected twelve months earlier, metrics we recommended, metrics designed to be achievable. He missed all of them. So the board added $38 million in tariff costs back into the calculation and the bonus lifted 42.6%. Failed became exceptional with one line item. I keep the before-and-after spreadsheet in a leather portfolio my wife gave me for our anniversary, hand-stitched, Italian, $4,200 from the Brunello Cucinelli on Madison. Because it is the cleanest piece of governance work I have ever done. A number that meant "you did not earn this" became a number that meant "the world was unfair to you" with one adjustment. Like watching water run uphill because someone tilted the table and called it hydrology. Ross Stores did the same thing. Gap did the same thing. The pattern is so consistent we have a template now. I save it as "tariff_exclusion_framework_v3.docx" on our shared drive. Version one was from COVID. That was our proof of concept. In 2020 we helped nineteen companies exclude pandemic-related costs from executive compensation calculations while simultaneously using those same costs to justify freezing worker wages. Nobody audits both filings. The CEO's proxy statement lives in one database. The employee communications about frozen raises live in another. We verified this. The two documents contradict each other and they will never be read by the same person. That is not a flaw. It is a feature we designed for. Becton Dickinson raised their performance factor from 74% to 85%. Ten of the eleven percentage points came from our tariff methodology alone. Integra Life Sciences would have paid out nothing without our adjustment. Their board chair called our work "essential governance." We saved four executive careers that quarter. The factory workers at those same companies absorbed the tariff costs directly. Their grocery bills went up 22%. Their gas went up. Their bonuses did not exist in the first place. Nobody called us about their performance factors. Nobody has a performance factor. That is not a thing that exists for people who make $22 an hour. The concept was invented for people who make $22 million. Stock-based compensation now constitutes 77.6% of the average CEO's total package. That number is important because stock is not adjusted for tariffs. It does not need to be. Stock is adjusted by stock buybacks. The same companies paying us to exclude tariff costs from bonus calculations spent $1.1 trillion on buybacks last year. Buybacks inflate the stock price. The stock price determines the vesting value of the CEO's equity grants. The tariff exclusion protects the cash bonus. The buyback protects the equity. We protect the disclosure language. Three separate mechanisms, three separate consultants, one outcome: the number goes up. Always. Regardless. The worker's 401(k) holds 0.003% of the same stock and receives none of these protections. Nobody schedules a committee meeting about that. Of twenty-two companies we reviewed this cycle, eight protected executive compensation from tariff impact. Four did not even disclose the dollar amount to shareholders. One disclosed but used a footnote so dense it required a CPA to parse. I wrote that footnote. It references three cross-linked exhibits and uses the phrase "partially offsetting macro-economic headwinds" in a subordinate clause nested inside a parenthetical that itself modifies a defined term from page 47 of the proxy. The median adjustment was 13%. Our range ran from 6% to 43%, depending on how exposed the business was, how aggressive the committee felt, and how recently their last shareholder lawsuit had settled. We bill for this at $2,100 per hour per partner. The total advisory fees across our eight tariff clients this cycle ran just under $4 million. The total executive compensation we preserved ran just over $180 million. Our clients paid $4 million to keep $180 million. I present that ratio at our own firm's compensation committee meeting each December. We always laugh. Not at the math. At the fact that nobody has ever once described us as overpaid. Meanwhile the median worker at these same companies received a 3.1% raise this year. Cost of living rose 4.8%. Their real compensation declined. Ours preserved $180 million for twenty-two people. The math is beautiful in its honesty if you are willing to look at it from the correct altitude. Someone at a governance conference in March asked why we don't build the same adjustments for hourly workers whose grocery costs went up 22% from the same tariffs. I explained that workers don't have performance-based compensation, so there's nothing to adjust. The system is elegant in a way I genuinely admire. Executives have metrics tied to outcomes they cannot control, which gives us the flexibility to remove outcomes they cannot control. Workers have fixed wages tied to hours, which gives us nothing to work with. Even if we wanted to. Which we do not. Want to. I said this into a microphone in a ballroom at the Ritz-Carlton in Half Moon Bay and three hundred people nodded and nobody wrote it down. The valet outside was making $17 an hour plus tips. His grocery costs went up 22% from the same tariffs. He does not have a compensation committee. He has a shift schedule taped to the break room wall next to a poster that says "You Are Valued." There is a moment in every engagement when the committee asks us if the adjustments are "defensible." Not ethical. Not fair. Not proportionate. Defensible. The question contains its own answer. A thing is defensible if no one with standing challenges it and no court with jurisdiction examines it. Shareholders vote on compensation packages with approximately 3% participation rates for non-institutional holders. The institutions — Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street — vote in favor 94% of the time because their own executive compensation is structured identically and they do not set precedents against themselves. We have never lost a say-on-pay vote for a client. Not once. In eleven years. The system is not defended. It is unattacked. Those are different kinds of invulnerable. My youngest associate asked me last week whether we'd ever considered what would happen if workers unionized and demanded the same tariff adjustments we provide to executives. I told her the answer is on page 3 of every engagement letter we sign: "This advisory relationship pertains exclusively to Section 16 officers and board-designated executives." The exclusion is not implied. It is contractual. We could not help workers even if a board asked us to, because our retainer specifically prohibits it. We wrote it that way. In 2019. After a client's board member made a similar suggestion and our managing partner decided to foreclose the question permanently. The retainer language was reviewed by three attorneys. It took four hours. We billed for it. Ford absorbed two billion in tariff costs and did not touch executive pay. I sent their proxy filing to three clients as an example of what happens when you don't retain a compensation consultant. Two of them called back within the hour. The third called the next morning and asked if we could backdate the engagement letter to January. I said no. Margaret said yes, technically, with the right language. We backdated it. The fee was $180,000. The CEO's bonus was $14.2 million. I keep a running document of these ratios. Not for the clients. For myself. To remember what we are worth. To remember that the distance between failing and exceptional is always exactly one phone call to my office.

I am the VP of Workforce Strategy at Meta and I built a spreadsheet called the Replacement Ratio that is, without exaggeration, the most elegant financial instrument in this building. Column A is headcount. Column B is quarterly CapEx allocation. Column C is what I call the Narrative Yield — how much each layoff announcement moves our price-to-earnings multiple. At Meta, cutting 8,000 people generates approximately 2.3x more shareholder value as a story than the $27 billion those people actually cost us. Like a controlled demolition where the dust cloud is worth more than the building ever was. I discovered this by accident in November 2022. We announced the first round on a Thursday. 11,000 people. The stock jumped 4% before market close. Our share price was $90 that week. I pulled up the actual savings — roughly $2.3 billion in annual compensation — and compared them to the market cap movement and the ratio was so disproportionate I thought I'd made an error. I had not made an error. I had discovered the Narrative Yield. The announcement IS the product. The terminations are just the input cost of producing it. Then Mark sent the second memo in March 2023. 10,000 more. "Flatter is faster," he wrote. "Leaner is better." "Keep technology the main thing." My team built talking points around each phrase. I remember testing "returning to a more optimal ratio of engineers to other roles" and watching three analysts independently upgrade the stock within 48 hours. Not because the ratio mattered. Because the sentence contained the word "optimal" and the word "ratio" and both of those words trigger the part of an analyst's brain that releases dopamine. We cut 21,000 people total. Our stock went from $90 to $600. Mark's net worth grew by approximately $170 billion. That is $9 million per fired employee. I calculated that number on a Tuesday afternoon and then went to get a coffee from the espresso bar in Building 40 that still operates at full capacity. The barista's name is Diego. He makes a very good cortado. He was not in any of the rounds. Our entire global payroll is $27 billion. Every engineer, every content moderator, every cafeteria worker who restocks the oat milk refrigerator in Building 21 next to the motivational poster that says EFFICIENCY IS CARING in Helvetica Bold, which was printed four days before we eliminated the internal print shop. All of them. $27 billion. Our CapEx guidance this year is $60 to $65 billion. Susan Li said it on the call in January — two weeks after we announced the latest round. The combined Big Four spend is $350 billion on AI infrastructure in 2025. Up from $165 billion just two years ago. If I fired every single employee tomorrow, all 72,000, the savings would cover maybe 42% of one year's data center buildout. The humans are a rounding error in the budget of machines that replace them. So what are the layoffs paying for? They are paying for the sentence. The one Susan Li reads on the earnings call: "These actions help us move more quickly while also helping to offset the substantial investments." That sentence is worth $40 billion in market cap. I know because I A/B tested the language with investor relations in March. We tested seven versions. Version C outperformed Version A by 340 basis points. Version C is the one with "actions" instead of "terminations." Version F used "workforce adjustments" and tested even higher but Legal flagged it as too close to the phrasing in the severance agreements. So we went with C. Turns out the market doesn't mind what you do. It minds what you call it. We call it a lot of things. "Flattening the org." "Removing redundancies." "Focusing our investments on our highest priorities." "Raising the bar on performance management." That last one was January 2025. Mark's memo. 3,600 people. He called them "lowest performers." The memo went out on January 14th. The earnings call announcing $60-65 billion in spending went out on January 29th. Fifteen days. My team scheduled both. The proximity is not accidental. You announce the human cost first so that when you announce the machine cost, the narrative is "disciplined" rather than "reckless." Sequencing is everything. We tested the reverse order once, hypothetically, in a simulation. The model predicted a 2.1% stock dip. Discipline first. Ambition second. Always. The performance framing was my suggestion. If you call them layoffs, it triggers severance obligations and unemployment benefits in thirty-seven states. If you call them performance-based terminations, it triggers nothing. Same people. Same desks cleared. Same badge deactivated at 5 AM before they woke up. Different word. Different $180 million in severance liability. I keep a legal pad in my desk where I track the savings per euphemism. "Performance management" saves approximately $50,000 per head in reduced severance. At 3,600 heads, that is $180 million. The cost of drafting the memo was forty minutes of Mark's time and sixteen hours of my team's time. That is approximately the best ROI in the history of corporate communications. Better than the Narrative Yield itself. Each phrase tests differently with different analyst cohorts. Growth-focused analysts respond to "investing in AI." Value analysts respond to "disciplined cost management." Same 8,000 people. Different sentence. Different $40 billion. The notification protocol is standardized now. Laptop access revoked at 5:47 AM Pacific. Badge deactivated at 5:48. Slack channels disappear at 5:49. Calendar cleared at 5:50. Personal email notification sent at 6:00. The thirteen-minute gap between systems going dark and the employee being told why is not cruelty. It is security protocol. We cannot have 3,600 people with simultaneous access to internal systems and knowledge that they have been terminated. The window for sabotage is too wide. So we close the window first and explain later. Some of them find out from the press release. Some of them find out because their phone loses work email at 5:47 and they check Twitter. I do not love this part. But I respect the engineering of it. Thirteen minutes. Clean. We announced the January cuts the same week Mark said "people will be more important than ever." My team wrote both statements. There is no contradiction if you understand that "people" and "headcount" are different financial instruments. People are the future. Headcount is the cost of having had a past. I keep a framed printout of both quotes side by side on my office wall. Not as irony. As a reminder that language is architecture. Meanwhile: we spent $77.86 billion buying back our own stock between 2022 and 2024. $27.96 billion. $19.77 billion. $30.13 billion. Each buyback inflates the share price. Each share price increase makes the layoff announcement look more justified in retrospect. The stock went up because we cut. We used the cash from cutting to buy back stock. The buyback made the stock go up more. The stock going up proved the cuts were correct. I mapped this loop on a whiteboard in January 2024 and one of our financial planning analysts took a photo of it and made it her laptop wallpaper. The total severance bill for 21,000 employees was approximately $2.5 billion. We spent 31 times that amount buying back stock. The humans cost less to remove than the stock cost to inflate. That is not a metaphor. That is the actual ratio. I have it in Column E. Reality Labs lost $60 billion between 2020 and 2024. Sixteen billion in 2023 alone. It was never subjected to the "Year of Efficiency." No one asked the metaverse division to be leaner or flatter or faster. The humans were asked to be efficient so the machines could be profligate. I did not design this asymmetry. I just maintain the spreadsheet that tracks it. The rehire pipeline is my favorite part. Half those roles reopen in Hyderabad and São Paulo within nine months at 31% of the loaded cost. Revenue per remaining employee went from $1.3 million in 2022 to $2.7 million in 2024. Each survivor now generates more than double what their predecessor generated. Not because they work harder. Because the denominator shrank and the numerator — AI-driven ad revenue — grew independently of human effort. We call it geographic rebalancing. The Workforce Transitions team keeps a Lucite tombstone on their shelf from the 2023 round, 11,000 MANAGED DEPARTURES etched in Helvetica, right next to a half-empty bottle of Clase Azul someone brought back from the offsite in Cabo where we planned the 2024 round. The same team is hosting a culture workshop next month called "Our People, Our Purpose." I wrote the talking points. Amazon is doing 30,000. Intel cut 21,000. Microsoft invented "voluntary departures" for 125,000 people, which is the most inspired euphemism since "rightsizing," because it implies the 125,000 chose this. Google cut 12,000 and called it a "moment of clarity." Salesforce eliminated 4,000 customer support roles and cited AI directly. Combined across the industry: 644,000 tech workers laid off since 2023. Combined CapEx on AI infrastructure: $350 billion this year alone. They spent seven to ten times more on GPUs than on severance for the humans those GPUs replaced. The layoffs are the press release for the spending. The spending is the excuse for the layoffs. It is a perpetual motion machine that runs on the difference between what a person costs and what their departure is worth. The free food budget for remaining employees is approximately $800 million per year. $10,000 to $12,000 per person. Artisanal pizza. Sushi bar. Pour-over coffee stations. The campus amenities operated without interruption during every round. Nobody asked the cafeteria to be efficient. I eat lunch there every day. It is very good. The oat milk is organic. Column D is the one I'm most proud of. It tracks average severance duration against local unemployment rates and cross-references media coverage density by market to optimize announcement timing for minimal news cycle disruption. January announcements get buried in earnings season. September announcements get lost in back-to-school cycles. I have mapped every dead zone in the American attention span and they are all on my calendar. January 14th — two weeks before Super Bowl coverage saturates every newsroom — was not an accident. The 3,600 number was calculated to stay below the threshold that triggers a WARN Act filing in California. 3,600 across twelve states. Below the threshold in each. That was also Column D. I presented the Replacement Ratio at our Q2 planning offsite last Tuesday. Someone from Legal asked if we'd modeled the human impact. I said yes. Column D. That's what Column D is. They promoted the spreadsheet to a standing dashboard. It refreshes hourly. Net income last year was $62.4 billion. Headcount is 72,000. The dashboard calculates revenue per head in real time. Every departure makes the number go up. Every departure makes the announcement worth more. Every announcement makes the stock go up. Every stock increase makes Mark $4.7 billion richer per percentage point. I named the Slack channel #narrative-yield#. It has 340 members. None of them are in Column A.