2 months ago, we started the challenge of turning $1,000 into a house ($1m down payment) and doing it all publicly we've all seen the ups and downs, but in this exact moment, we crossed the +$50k milestone, i am beyond grateful yes, we touched $500k for a day, but always, it reverts to the mean, i think the story that we needed to tell was destined to look a little different all a part of the lore also this doesn't account for all the reflections we got from holding stock/tokenized rwa pairs (gold, usdc, etc.) and that was maybe +$10,000 my favorite part about all of this is how transparent it all is, people can see my exact emotions, my thought process, all in real time sometimes we're wrong, sometimes we're right and with that, the results it yields, hopefully helping educate others, so people can skip the mistakes ive made, and replicate the good parts if you'd like to see what im doing, or have not signed up, itd mean a lot if you used my ref link on fomo! my biggest "trade" of this cycle is focusing on this new social layer of trading, something we've never done this well in years think this is just the beginning of that and we genuinely are VERY early there i cannot wait to continue sharing updates and soon show you guys the 7 fig overall pnl, we can do it

In the popular movie The Matrix, many pivotal lines echo the Bhagavad Gita: Here we see the mention of the gunas and the role it plays in creating a ‘Maya’. But, what are these gunas that play such a key role? The gunas are not mere concepts but subtle energies or forces that govern the interaction between consciousness and matter. They shape how the jiva perceives the world and reacts to various situations. They are broken into: 1) Sattva - The mode of goodness A person dominated by sattva tends to respond thoughtfully and calmly. 2) Rajas: Mode of passion A person dominated by rajas reacts impulsively and often gets agitated. 3) Tamas: Mode of ignorance A person influenced by tamas may freeze, become indecisive, or act irrationally. These modes function like invisible threads, subtly influencing thoughts, emotions, and actions, thereby determining the individual’s experience of the material world. Even though the soul is beyond these modes, identifying with the body and its desires causes him to be bound by them. ✨🙌🏾💫

Some of the most important lessons in my life didn’t come from business meetings or boardrooms. They came from sport. My father introduced me to boxing at a young age - not just how to throw a punch, but how to control myself. Discipline. Respect. Self-control. Focus under pressure. Later, I trained in karate, and over time developed a real passion for MMA. What always struck me was this: the best fighters are usually the calmest people in the room. They understand control, responsibility, and limits. Combat sports teach something many people forget: strength is not aggression. Real strength is discipline. You learn to stay composed when emotions rise. You learn to respect your opponent. And you learn that success comes from consistency - not excuses. It took me time to realise that the same principles apply far beyond combat sports. In chess, like in fighting, the biggest mistakes happen in moments of lost control. One second of impatience. One emotional decision. And the position changes completely. Different arena - same discipline. These lessons have stayed with me in business, leadership, and everyday life. Sport builds character. Combat sports reveal it. Chess tests it.

The moment propaganda becomes truly powerful is when nobody recognises it as propaganda. The leaders of the USSR understood this - and they had a name for it: agitprop. Today, we see it everywhere. The term originated shortly after the Russian Revolution. In 1920, the Bolsheviks established the Department of Agitation and Propaganda (Agitprop) under the Central Committee. Lenin viewed agitation and propaganda as essential revolutionary tools. Agitation was designed to stir emotions and mobilise the masses around simple, powerful messages. Propaganda aimed at deeper ideological indoctrination of party cadres and intellectuals. Together, they formed a systematic effort to control how people thought, spoke and interpreted reality. The Soviets used agitprop aggressively through posters, films, newspapers, theatre, education and workplace meetings. Its goal was not merely to inform, but to create a new consciousness aligned with Marxist-Leninist ideology. Dissenting views were not debated - they were pathologised as “bourgeois”, “reactionary” or “counter-revolutionary”. This approach proved highly influential beyond the USSR. Modern leftist movements have adapted many of its core techniques. Contemporary identity politics, critical theory and institutional activism often operate through similar methods: framing language as a site of power, portraying disagreement as moral failure, and using institutions (universities, media, corporations, and NGOs) to enforce ideological conformity. Rather than seizing factories, today’s agitprop focuses on capturing culture and institutions. The methods have become more sophisticated and less overtly violent, but the underlying logic remains consistent: reshape perception, control the narrative and make alternative viewpoints socially and professionally costly. What began as a Bolshevik instrument of total ideological control has evolved into a subtler but no less powerful strategy for advancing collectivist goals in open societies.

💌 9.39PM Hello Villains, This is Gun-il I think this will probably be my last greeting to you as a member of Xdinary Heroes. I really wanted to remain Xdinary Heroes until the very end, and I wanted to protect the six-member Xdinary Heroes. But as you all know, I had no choice but to accept the company’s decision Even now, it still doesn’t feel real to me. There are so many things I want to say to Villains. I still don’t know where or how to begin. But now that I am no longer a member of Xdinary Heroes, I don’t want to hide the truth or make excuses with lies just to protect myself. I believe there are things that I need to tell you myself, which is why I am writing this. First of all, the person who wrote the post that started all of this was someone I met through an acquaintance and we dated for about two weeks. At the time, I was mentally very exhausted because of the malicious comments and false rumors about me that had been going on for some time, as well as the various concerns I had about XDIZ’s music and performances. Rather than burdening the people close to me by opening up about how I was feeling, I was at a point where it felt easier to vent my frustrations to a stranger who didn’t really know me. The person who made the inappropriate remarks about fans in the phone recording that was made public to Villains was indeed me. Regardless of the reason, the fact that I said those things does not change. I sincerely apologize to everyone who was disappointed and hurt by what I said. However, I want to honestly explain what kind of situation and emotional state I was in at the time and who those words were directed toward. Earlier this year, sasaeng fans broke into our dorm, and they even put a tracking device on my personal vehicle and followed me around. After experiencing things like that, I developed a lot of fear and resentment toward certain malicious fans, and I went through a very difficult time emotionally. But because I was the leader and also the oldest hyung, I couldn’t easily talk about my fears or anxiety. I tried my best to control my emotions and carry on. Then, in June of this year, I prepared for the Inspire Arena concert with the members, wanting to give Villains the absolute best performance we could. We prepared incredibly hard, and after finishing the first day’s performance, I checked social media with excitement and anticipation. Of course, no performance can ever be perfect, and I believe we need to acknowledge our shortcomings and continue improving. However, that day, I saw a lot of malicious posts that went beyond criticism or opinions about the performance, things that were difficult for us to understand. Because it was a performance I had prepared with all my heart, I think I broke down emotionally a lot when I saw the unexpected criticism and malicious comments. That said, I didn’t want to cause worry to the company people or the members, so I couldn’t easily open up about my feelings. In the end, I poured out the emotions I had been holding back to someone I had only met not long ago, and in the process, I blurted out expressions that were too strong and wrong without hesitation. I never thought that conversation would be recorded and made public. However, regardless of whether it was made public, I am fully aware that the very fact that I said such a thing was wrong. There is only one thing I absolutely want to say. At the time, the people I was speaking about emotionally were some malicious fans who, hiding behind anonymity, recklessly blamed us and violated our privacy. It was never what I said to all the villains who believed in and supported us. I believe that because I have tried to show you the image of a diligent and reliable leader, the disappointment and sense of betrayal you may have felt through this matter must have been even greater. I sincerely feel very sorry about that.

The World is Changing: AI For Creativity By Jeffrey Katzenberg A few months ago, I sat in my office in Silicon Valley and watched as a tech founder showed me something extraordinary. On the screen was a fully realized, beautifully lit, well-composed animated scene. It was stunning and it made me feel exactly what I felt in 1986 watching Luxo Jr. That was the first time I watched a computer-animated 3D character take a breath and seem, against all reason, to have life. It left me in awe. Later that day, I received a text from an artist I've known for thirty years, 350 miles to the south, in the city where I spent most of my career. After seeing a similar video, she texted: "Is this the end of us?" My answer was, "Certainly not.” I have spent the better part of the last decade in Silicon Valley, but the heart of my career has been in Hollywood. Being deeply connected to both worlds means I have deep loyalties to each and a responsibility to speak honestly to both. In 2023, I said that these new AI tools would cut the time and cost of producing world-class animation by as much as ninety percent within three years. Some colleagues were alarmed, many were furious. There is growing fear and resistance surrounding AI within the creative community. I deeply understand it, because I've spent countless hours walking through animation studios watching gifted artists bent over their desks, rebuilding a single second of film for the tenth time because the ninth version wasn't quite right. I've sat in screening rooms where four years of people's labor played out in minutes, and I knew the name of every person that had spent countless hours bringing those images to life. The creative process is a calling, there's really no other way to describe it. From the outside some see resistance. From the inside, it is love. People do not fight this hard for things they don't care about. The pushback coming out of Hollywood represents the collective effort of people who are deeply passionate about their craft. Is History Repeating Itself? The history here is more complicated than either side may realize. In 1906, the most famous composer in America, John Philip Sousa, published an essay titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music." He warned that the phonograph would become "a substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul." Sousa's fight was not really about the machine, it was about money. The machines were playing his compositions, and the men who built them weren't paying him a cent. His campaign helped create the Copyright Act of 1909. He did not stop the technology. He changed the terms under which it could use his work. A hundred years ago, sound came to the movies. We remember it now as a miracle, and it was. What we forget is who paid for it. Before sound, tens of thousands of musicians made their living in the orchestra pits of movie houses, scoring every film live, every night, in towns all over the world. When the soundtrack arrived, the work of one composer and one orchestra was recorded for a film that went into thousands of theaters. The union fought back with everything it had, taking out newspaper ads across the country warning against the menace of "canned music," one of them showing a mechanical man tearing the strings out of a harp while an angel wept. They were not fools, and they were not Luddites. They were right. Those pit jobs did not come back. And yet (this is the part we have to be brave enough to admit), sound gave us the movie musical, the modern score, sfx, sound design, audio engineering, and an art form vastly larger than the one it disrupted. And it helped keep Hollywood in the forefront of world entertainment for the rest of the century and into the next. The loss was real. And yet the art form expanded. This is a story that has been told over and over again. To resist technology is to risk irrelevance. Just look at Kodak or Blockbuster. To embrace technology is to open doors of new possibility. Just consider Apple and Netflix. What I Learned From Walt Disney In the mid-1980s, I was tapped to lead Disney's animation division at a moment when the studio was at an inflection point. Animation wasn't just another business unit. It was the soul of the company, a medium revered because of Walt's genius and his passion. But the production system was cumbersome and unforgiving. A single movie was 125,000 individual hand-drawn and painted cels, photographed one frame at a time. Every revision carried a cost measured in months. These degrees of difficulty shaped the kinds of stories we could tell. We found our way forward in an unexpected place: Walt himself. The Disney archives held astonishing recordings of Walt explaining his creative process. His own writings. His notes and storyboards. Work product captured at every stage of his process. This was truly a gift. Listening, reading, sitting with the work itself, we heard him talk about character, about emotion, about how an audience feels when a character truly comes alive. He talked about making bold choices and refining a scene until it genuinely moved people. We didn't hear a word about pencils or paintbrushes. In fact, Walt was famous for being a technologist, forever hunting for state-of-the-art tools, often inventing them himself to achieve the images he saw in his head. But he never defined animation by the tools. He defined it by whether the audience believed the character. His principles were timeless. The tools were not. That realization changed everything. We co-developed the Computer Animation Production System (CAPS) with a young Northern California company called Pixar, replacing hand-painted cels with CGI. In The Little Mermaid, the final scene shimmered with a dimensionality and light that the old process simply couldn't achieve. In Beauty and the Beast, the ballroom sequence moved with a cinematic sweep that placed the audience inside the emotion of the moment. In Aladdin, the Cave of Wonders felt vast and alive, and the Magic Carpet became an intricate, compelling character all its own. In The Lion King, the stampede carried a scale and intensity that raised the emotional stakes beyond anything we'd done before. Technology didn't diminish the craft, it expanded the canvas. It gave artists more room to create. A decade later, the canvas expanded again. When Disney released Pixar's Toy Story, it wasn't simply a technical milestone. It was proof that a fully computer-animated film could carry real emotional weight, that it could make audiences laugh, cry, and believe. At DreamWorks, we made the difficult decision to sunset hand-drawn animation and become a fully computer-animated studio. It was the right thing to do, but it was not without pain. It cost talented people their place in an industry where they had worked their whole lives. Some made the leap to the new tools and did the finest work of their careers. Some never did. Tools are never the point. The instruments change with every generation. What endures is taste and imagination. The magical ability to make an audience feel. One of the greatest storytellers of our generation, George Lucas, succinctly captured the eternal essence of this issue: “It’s not the how, it’s the why.” A Distinction With a Difference I asked one of the leading AI models a question that has been challenging me for months. What is the difference between reasoning and creating? Its answer changed how I think about almost everything happening in this industry. It said . . . Reasoning and creating are two distinct cognitive modes, though they also work together. Reasoning is fundamentally evaluative and analytical. It operates on what already exists: facts, premises, evidence. It moves toward a conclusion that was in a sense already implied by the input. Reasoning is constrained by logic and truth. Its goal is to arrive somewhere correct, not to invent somewhere new. Creating is fundamentally generative. It produces something that didn't exist before. And crucially, there's no single right answer waiting to be found. A blank page has infinite valid responses. Creation involves choices that can't be fully justified by logic alone. Taste, intuition and vision fill the gap where deduction runs out. Reasoning is what Silicon Valley has been perfecting. Creating is what Hollywood has been practicing for more than a century. AI today operates almost entirely on the reasoning side of the line. It can deduce, evaluate, optimize, and pattern-match brilliantly. And while it can create, there is a real distinction to being creative. What it doesn’t yet have is those things that make us human: empathy, devotion, serendipity, the kind of creativity that comes from a person trying to say something only they could say. When the bot generates a piece of art, it is not trying to communicate anything. It is statistics, not soul; it is emulating things that have been done. By contrast, human creativity isn’t about repeating patterns of zeros and ones; it is about doing something new. One day, AI may close this gap. Three years ago, the leaders building AI would have called what they are achieving today, improbable, if not impossible. Impossible is no longer improbable. Today, the line between reasoning and creating is real. Even the leading technologists acknowledge we are not there yet. There is no scientific path to crossing this divide that anyone in the field can articulate today. Understanding that gap is where we will find common ground. A Path Forward In 2016, I closed one chapter in Hollywood with the sale of DreamWorks and opened another in Northern California, co-founding WndrCo. We’ve backed more than 50 founders building the next generation of technology and watched how breakthroughs in Silicon Valley emerge, first as experiments, then as platforms, and finally as infrastructure that reshapes entire industries. It's worth remembering that the last great revolution in animation also came from the north. Pixar was a Northern California company, forged not in the conventions of the Hollywood studio system, but in the technological breakthroughs of Silicon Valley. I've spent years on both sides of this bridge. For sure, I don’t have all the answers (take Quibi, for one!). But, from my past and present vantage points of my long career, here is what I see . . . Brilliant people in Northern California building this technology have made something extraordinary. They have earned the right for the rest of us to be, if not believers, at least optimistic that what comes next will be remarkable. But they have not made an artist. The tools are powerful, but they are not what makes a story matter. That knowledge lives 350 miles to the south, inside people whose life's work has informed the very models you are building. The right path forward includes them by design, with credit, with consent, and with compensation. Build this with the storytellers. Not on top of them. Taste is not something that can be synthesized, it is uniquely human. At the same time, Hollywood needs to accept that AI is not going away. The energy they are spending trying to make it disappear is energy they are not spending deciding the terms on which it will exist. And the terms are everything. The north needs something from it that they cannot build and cannot buy: creativity. The kind that takes a blank page and conjures a single right answer where there was none and has held audiences for a century. Without it, the most powerful reasoning engine ever invented will still be missing the only thing that makes a story worth telling. The artists who learn to wield these new instruments will do things the engineers never dreamed of. They always have. Edison invented the motion picture but made terrible movies. It took Chaplin, Lloyd, Keaton and so many others to make movies emotional. Now, the canvas is about to expand yet again. We should decide now that we intend to paint on it. There are so many valuable lessons in history. This has happened many times before, and it was never settled by the technology. It was settled by the terms. Sousa did not stop the phonograph; he helped write the law that made sure composers got paid. And two years ago, when the writers and the actors walked out, they were fighting for the very things Sousa was fighting for in 1906. Consent, compensation, the basic recognition that human creative work has a price that must be paid. The terms of that fight are still being negotiated, but the principle is older than any of us. The tools-versus-no-tools argument is a trap. First, we must all agree that there should be terms. Then we can have the crucial debate about what fairness requires. What I Learned From Steve Jobs Years ago, Steve Jobs said, "It's in Apple's DNA that technology alone is not enough. It's technology married with the liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our hearts sing." He was describing a device. But he could just as easily have been describing this tale of two cities. What I See Coming Soon As the barriers and the costs come down, more films will get made, not fewer. Studios will get to take more risks. There will be more seats at the table, and very soon entirely new forms of storytelling. In the 1980s, animation was dismissed as a niche corner of the business. Today it is one of the most beloved and profitable forms of storytelling in the world. In live action, filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Peter Jackson embraced new visual tools not as shortcuts, but as instruments, and expanded cinema in the process. Every time storytelling has met a genuine technological shift, from synchronized sound to color to computer animation, it has redefined the boundaries of the medium and grown larger in the process. Assuredly, I don’t have all the answers, but I am confident that the creative opportunities will expand yet again. How we come through this is a choice. The north has the new tools. The south has the creative soul. The best future will draw on the best of both worlds.

Emotions are just the lubricant—interests are the real engine. When the payoff gets big enough, or survival itself is on the line, cold hard calculation will steamroll right over all those warm fuzzy feelings in a heartbeat.