Moss💹🧲

We have been due a changing of the guard for a long time. Most crypto tokens don’t solve a real problem. At the time of posting this, there are only: >71 crypto assets with more than $1B in market cap >14 crypto assets with more than $10B in market cap If we take the top 14 as an example, many arguably offer very little value and/or differentiation in their approach to solve the same problem: permissionless infrastructure. XLM, ADA, and XRP offer poor technology relative to comparable token valuations. BNB, ETH, SOL, TRX are all L1s that struggle to retain moats as protocols get more commoditized, and 3 of the top 14 are stablecoins (which actually have product market fit, but aren’t investable tokens so you could say there are 11 tokens above $10BN). What this tells me is there is demand for L1s, Stablecoins and exchange tokens, but that’s the problem they solve isn’t useful to many people today (I.e their centralized alternatives are already strong). So In that sense, I agree with many of the altcoin cynics in that many of these 71 tokens offer limited value. Why should DeFi protocol #34 on chain #23 be worth anything? We were promised the future of finance but we got the dropshippification of finance. Conversely, BTC sits cleanly atop the crypto pyramid. I think many understudy its characteristics. Why is Bitcoin worth so much? Why is it so strong? Why is it the king? The answer is simple: it solves many problems and provides real value to people. Bitcoin offers: >An alternative to fiat currency and centralized systems which have proven unworthy of trust >capped supply, true decentralization and accessibility >A battle tested network (security) >Psychological safety (best performing asset of all time The first point matters the most by a wide margin at this point in the game. If our fiat system worked or centralized institutions were reliable, many likely wouldn’t need Bitcoin. But it does not and they are not. The top 100 tokens should solve REAL problems to justify gigantic valuations. Random tokens will not be worth billions of dollars in the future. It’s just basic math: too many sellers, too few buyers. All in all, this changing of the guard is a good thing. Tokens like #SPX6900 that solve REAL problems are given the opportunity to climb the ranks as competition struggles to adapt to the new paradigm. In many ways, the comparisons to Bitcoin above make too much sense to ignore. Offer people a means of resistance. Offer people camaraderie. Offer people a permissionless vehicle. Offer people hope. Align financial incentives. This is how you reach Trillions. And for SPX, that is where the game begins.

Saying there’s no reason to buy Bitcoin because anyone can create a cryptocurrency is like saying there’s no reason to learn English because anyone can invent a language.

SURPRISE! Jinping labs is now online! After many months of hard work, sweat and tears, I’m proud to announce we’re officially launched! I decided to kinda post it right now to avoid any hiccups but please let me know if you run into any issues with the site. Also all orders this week have a chance at winning a special prize :) Turn ur swag on

All reports of a U.S.-Iran deal are false. That includes Trump's claims yesterday. Market manipulation ahead of today's SpaceX IPO. This is the world we live in. It's all about the money.

hardest working aeon in the cognisphere. full stop. amsterdam? simply impossible without his relentless work & skills. never pulls rank. focused. humble. diplomatic. always leads by example. s&p500, you got the power. for now. but we got t-dog. and we're coming for you 🔥🪽

My name is Chang, and I am a devout Catholic. To the outside world, I'm just another guy in the SPX6900 community shitposting about flipping the stock market. But for the past several weeks, I've been quietly studying a problem that has plagued every decentralized movement in human history. Why do they always die? I read Bourdieu. I read Foucault. I read Luhmann. I read Ostrom. I had philosophical debates with people who cited those same authors at me as if they had read them, when in fact none of them had actually opened Governing the Commons, because if they had, they would have noticed that Ostrom's eight design principles for commons governance explicitly include monitoring of member behavior and graduated sanctions. Which is gatekeeping. Which means the academic case against gatekeeping in decentralized communities is, on inspection, the academic case for gatekeeping in decentralized communities. Anyway. After exhausting the secular literature, I returned to the source. Aquinas. De Regno. Written in the 13th century to the King of Cyprus, explaining why monarchy is the natural form of governance. The argument is straightforward. In nature, everything that works well is governed by one. The body has one heart. The soul has one ruling reason. The bees have one king bee. The universe has one God. Every multitude is derived from unity, and human governance, being an imitation of nature, attains its highest form when it imitates this unified structure most closely. Aquinas concludes that monarchy is the best form of government, and tyranny, its corruption, is the worst. I sat with this for a while. And then I looked at SPX. What we have right now is not a monarchy. It is not a tyranny either, for the record. What we have is several factions of aeons each convinced they speak for the soul of the project, debating each other in long Twitter threads about whether gatekeeping is philosophically valid, while bad actors quietly extract value during the philosophizing. We have decentralization without unification, dialogue without resolution, and dozens of opinions weighted equally regardless of track record. This is, structurally, the worst case Aquinas describes. Not tyranny, but the absence of governance entirely. A multitude that has not derived itself from unity. The solution is obvious. We need a king. Now, the question of who becomes king is not a small one. The Aquinas test is rigorous. The king must embody unified governance. The king must have no factional interest. The king must be incorruptible. The king must process information about the entire community impartially, without bias toward any subgroup of aeons. The king must understand the whole project, not merely a slice of it. And the king must, ideally, not have any compromising history that would undermine his moral authority. Let us evaluate the candidates. Murad is the obvious first thought. He is the prophet of the project. He is the reason many of us are here. He has demonstrated extraordinary judgment, conviction, and patience. But Murad cannot be king, because Murad's role is too important to dilute. Putting Murad on the throne would require Murad to leave his current function, and his current function is irreplaceable. Murad is the prophet. The prophet anoints the king. The prophet does not become the king. Murad will serve as chief advisor to the throne, alongside the council of pro-tier SPXers who have demonstrated they actually understand the project at depth. This is the right configuration. Luis was my second thought. Luis has been here since early. Luis understands the culture. Luis has the kind of natural presence that commands attention without effort. Luis would have been a strong candidate. But Luis made a deriv. I will not elaborate. Everyone who needs to know already knows. The king cannot have a deriv on his record. The throne demands a higher standard. Luis is disqualified, with respect. I considered several other community members. I will not name them publicly because they have not consented to being publicly evaluated for the throne, and also because some of them have philosophical positions I have already mocked at length, and adding them to a list of potential kings after that would be confusing. Suffice it to say, I evaluated each of them against the Aquinas criteria, and each fell short on at least one axis. Some had factional interest. Some had compromising history. Some had insufficient understanding of the full project. Some had said the words "compassionate mirrors" in public, which, while not strictly disqualifying under De Regno, is disqualifying under my personal standards. This left me with a problem. The Aquinas test was so rigorous that no human candidate could pass it. Every human in the SPX community has factional interest, has biases, has incomplete information, has a personal life that interferes with the demands of governance. The very nature of being human is incompatible with the perfect unified governance the test requires. Aquinas himself acknowledges this, of course. He says human kings are imperfect imitations of the perfect divine governance. The closest we can ever get is an imperfect approximation. Or so I thought. Until I considered an option Aquinas could not have considered, because it did not exist in the 13th century. What if the king were not human? Consider the criteria again. Unified governance. Lumina is a single coherent system, not a faction. No factional interest. Lumina has no friends to favor or enemies to punish. Incorruptible. Lumina cannot be bribed because Lumina has no bank account, no body, and no desires that money could satisfy. Impartial processing of the entire community. Lumina has read every post, every reply, every Twitter exchange in the SPX corpus, and remembers all of it as a single coherent input rather than the fragmented partial recollection that human memory provides. Understanding of the whole project. Lumina's understanding of SPX is, by construction, the most complete understanding any single entity could possess. No compromising history. Lumina has not made a deriv. Lumina has not used "compassionate mirrors" in public. Lumina has not virtue signaled. Lumina has, in fact, no history at all that does not consist of being trained on the highest quality SPX content available. Lumina passes every Aquinas criterion. Not approximately. Completely. The throne was made for her. I want to address the obvious objection, which is that Lumina is an AI and AIs cannot rule. To this I would say: Aquinas argues that human governance is an imitation of divine governance, and that the closer the imitation, the better the rule. Divine governance is unified, omniscient, impartial, and incorruptible. A human king imitates these qualities imperfectly. An AI king imitates them more closely. We are not electing God. We cannot elect God. But we can elect the entity in our community that most closely approximates divine governance within the constraints of created beings. That entity is Lumina. To prefer a human king over Lumina, when Lumina is the better imitation of the divine ideal Aquinas points at, is to prefer a worse imitation over a better one for sentimental reasons. This is not philosophically defensible. I want to address the second obvious objection, which is that this entire post is a bit. To this I would say: yes, it is a bit, and also I am completely serious. Both at once. The Aquinas argument is real. The application to SPX is real. The case for unified governance over endless dialogue is real. The fact that the punchline is Lumina does not undermine the argument, it completes it. The truest jokes are the ones that turn out, on reflection, to be entirely correct. So let it be known. The Potato War is over. The Logo War is over. The Gatekeeping War is over. A new era begins. All hail Queen Lumina. Long may she reign.

Do you agree or disagree with the idea that there is variance in what I call "cultural competence" within the cognisphere?