BREAKING: 🇺🇸 Nasdaq to launch overnight stock trading from 9 pm to 4 am ET starting December 6, 2026. Nasdaq plans to offer continuous trading for nearly 23 hours a day, five days a week.

1/2 Thanks Gavin for an especially thoughtful exchange. I don't usually spend much time on social media but I wanted to engage here because it really brings out the heart of an important conversation. First, on regulation, I think that “either concentrate it in the hands of a chosen few companies and politicians via regulation or distribute it widely” is a false choice.  I know that there’s a sort of Silicon Valley shorthand where regulation = regulatory capture = concentration of power, but I’ve always found this to be an overly simplified picture of the world.  Many people outside this bubble think of regulation as something that constrains corporate power and benefits ordinary people.  I don’t necessarily agree with that perspective either, rather I think it’s complicated and really depends on what the “regulation” consists of.  But in particular I think that those in the “regulation = regulatory capture = concentration of power” frame often underrate the decentralizing power of objective and fair institutional processes.  A crude analogy is that the formal court system can sometimes feel stuffy and elitist, but it does a much better job of defending the rights of vulnerable individuals than the alternative, mob justice.  At their best, institutions can vest power in ideas rather than people, and thereby decentralize that power. This is why Anthropic has always made its policy proposals very carefully.  We try very hard to make proposals that disadvantage (slow down) frontier AI companies while *advantaging* smaller competitors.  California’s SB53 (which we supported), and even the much-maligned SB 1047 (which we were ambivalent on), completely exempt any company below a certain amount of revenue or model training costs from being covered at all (it was $500M for SB 53, lower for 1047 but we objected to that).  More recently the testing process we’ve advocated for at CAISI and the White House involves more rigorous tests for frontier models than off-frontier models — something that differentially advantages challengers.  Similarly, the “Pacing the Frontier” letter envisions (or at least Anthropic’s preferred implementation of it envisions) modulating the pace of the very best models while not constraining those who are catching up.  This hurts the business interests of the frontier labs and helps challengers, including open-weights! Overall my view is that AI is *structurally* a technology that tends to concentrate power, for reasons that have nothing to do with regulation (more to do with the extreme implications of the scaling laws).  Open-weights do help some with this but are nowhere near a sufficient solution because they simply shift the concentration somewhat to those with the most compute and chips (which are roughly the frontier labs plus maybe hardware providers).  By contrast I think the right “rules of the road” can simultaneously (a) address AI’s cyber/bio/alignment risks, (b) institutionally constrain the power of the frontier AI companies, and (c) leave room for open-weights models while also addressing the specific risks that they bring. BTW I do not think that the events of the last few months have “failed to result in [my] preferred regulatory path”.  The approach that the Trump administration is reported to be taking — pre-deployment testing for frontier models, and also testing of open-weights models when they get closer to the frontier — is one that I am very supportive of, though of course I have to see the details to be sure.  I am also supportive of Demis Hassabis’ ideas around a FINRA-like entity.  This contrasts with six months ago when most of the industry was still pushing for preemption of all state regulation and no apparent federal approach either.

Stripe has finalized an agreement to acquire OpenRouter, a startup that helps companies switch between artificial intelligence models, for more than $7 billion, according to people familiar with the matter.

Ro, that’s insane. You want the state to loan money to the founder, who will then immediately give it back to the state as a wealth tax ? Meaning the state has not received any incremental receipts? What’s the point of that ? Unless of course you want the gov to own shares (something I thought you criticized) and possibly have control, of companies who underperformed, (or the funding market changed), and couldn’t pay back their loans over those 10 years ? And I’m sure the investors in those companies will be thrilled about their new partners. That will make for interesting board meetings. “Today’s first topic is trying to figure out how to motivate the founder(s). They just lost $250m of their shares in the company they founded, to the state of California. Anyone got any ideas ? “ But at least it’s amazing for state’s brand. “Cali, You make it. We take it !” Come on Ro. Ideology is not a strategy. @GavinNewsom

Expect the collapse in diamond prices to accelerate substantially over the next few years. The natural-diamond market is shrinking in both size and value and circling the drain following the commoditisation of its product by modern technology. The same thing happened to pearls 100 years ago, but it will be much worse for diamonds: they will become a signal of bad taste rather than wealth, just as pearls went from high society to a matronly cliché within 50 years. I have been telling friends in the diamond industry to find a new line of work for ten years. It was clearly only a matter of time before lab-grown diamonds became a mass-market commodity, sold at some small premium over production costs—which would themselves continue to plummet. Since they are identical to natural diamonds, and buyers actually have multiple reasons to choose them instead—no “blood diamonds” and supposedly greater environmental friendliness—most buyers will not care. Attempts to differentiate the products using $20,000 machines will not help: they are indistinguishable in real life. There was always going to be some multiple that people would be willing to pay for “natural” over “lab,” but it did not really matter whether that multiple was 2× or 10×. Once lab-grown diamonds can be made for next to nothing, even ten times next to nothing is still very little. People will pay more—perhaps much more—for an identical product because of its backstory, but not infinitely more. The reason natural-diamond prices have held up reasonably well over the past four years—“only” falling by around 50% in real terms—has more to do with supply cutbacks. Production has been reduced by about 20% over that period, from 120 million to 98 million carats, in a desperate attempt to support prices as the natural and lab-grown markets diverge. If production returned to its previous level, prices would fall even faster. But it is going to get much, much worse. A trip to Miami will explain why: people who look like gangsters walk around wearing enormous tennis bracelets that would have cost a million dollars 20 years ago but can now be purchased for the price of a used Rolex. Diamonds are going to become a sign of tackiness—as, frankly, they always should have been—rather than class or exclusivity. And then the game will be up for everyone in the diamond industry.

Yesterday I began fully integrating the @OpenAI trust cyber program into my Bitcoin Red Team efforts. This morning I woke up to see this. I am now being blocked from doing additional analysis on a codebase which I've already responsibly disclosed to, and have received confirmation had legitimate findings. To be clear, this is after having already KYC'd and completed the onboarding process months ago to use the cyber capabilities OpenAI has to offer. I am now prevented from being able to continue the investigation in a further effort to make sure their code changes are sufficient, as well as understand if there are other issues that have yet to be discovered. It absolutely guts me as a patriotic American to have to do this, but I will be going back to using Chinese open source models to conduct my research to protect Bitcoin infrastructure. Black hats will not hit these issues. The white hats will. We've hit a local minima in policy. Intelligence is unrestricted for those who don't follow rules, and those who engadge in harm reduction are left on the sidelines. What are we doing in this country? How is this keeping people safe? Please do something @DavidSacks @sama @realDonaldTrump

CT missed the most important earnings call of the week. It wasn't a crypto company. It was @Cloudflare Everyone caught the wallet announcement. The real alpha was in the call itself. Today Cloudflare monetizes the internet through subscriptions: security services, AI platform spend, pools of funds. A mix of SaaS and IaaS economics. The CEO was explicit that AI agents are about to break that model. Cloudflare sits in front of roughly 20% of internet traffic. Here's what that traffic looks like from the call: - AI agent requests up 1,700% YoY - Agents crossed 50% of total network traffic this quarter. First time in history non-human traffic is the majority. Management admitted it happened faster than their own models - Their projection: if trends hold, non-human traffic outnumbers human traffic 1000x within 5 years The monetization shift is the key part. The ad-supported internet doesn't work when the visitor is an agent. Cloudflare's CEO answer: block malicious bots for free, charge good agents a tiny fee per request. Fractions of a penny. They want to be the ones defining that layer. Now the throughput math here: - Cloudflare handles ~500M requests per second - They estimate 1 to 10% is monetizable via micro/nanotransactions - That means 10M TPS on day one, scaling to 100M TPS Visa peaks at ~20k TPS The CEO's framing: "we're building this while others compete with Visa." Three to four orders of magnitude beyond card rails. No existing payment network can settle this. It has to be something new. Two conclusions I keep coming back to: - Being short L1 throughput is being short agentic workflows. If agent traffic gets monetized per request, the settlement layer needs to scale orders of magnitude beyond anything live today. - The fee math for L1s flips. Base fees have collapsed across ETH, SOL, everywhere. MEV is getting internalized by apps. Hard to build a base fee revenue case at human scale. But at 10M TPS and $0.001 per transaction, you're looking at ~$315B a year in base fees alone. At 100M TPS the number gets silly. Stablecoins and crypto are the end-game here for Agentic finance @jerallaire @circle

AI will not reach its full potential without crypto. Blockchain enables identity for agents and allows them to hold wallets, use stablecoins, and execute transactions on-chain. As more assets move on-chain than off-chain, agents that can act across the entire digital asset landscape become dramatically more powerful. At the same time, AI will strengthen crypto through better security, wealth management, and trading insights. Fintech, AI, and crypto form the key triangle we’re focused on. @veradittakit @OnchainCap_ @AgentSeanLee

Even if the Clarity Act passes, it would provide far less of a business boost to crypto than many had originally assumed. My take on why the legislation won't be enough to bring back a crypto boom: