Avy Faingezicht retweeted
Do I know any great consumer growth people? Do you know someone I should know?
I'm building a new AI fintech and looking for a founding hire in SF to get it into people's hands. Someone who's all-in on agents, likes the messy early days and figuring out what works. 💰
DMs open.
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
You’re 25x more likely to be a millionaire than be homeless in the US
Replying to @hasanthehun
everyone thinks for some reason that they are closer to becoming a millionaire than becoming homeless.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Recent polling shows a majority of US voters believe they are more likely to become homeless than a millionaire. US data show roughly 23.6 million millionaires versus ~746,000 experiencing homelessness on a given night.
dataforprogress.org/blog/2026/8/13…
investopedia.com/new-report-rev…
hud.gov/news/hud-no-26…
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
Moats in 2026:
- having conviction for more than 5 days
- thinking for yourself
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
It is hard to articulate to people outside of tech how much working in tech has changed this year
It’s honestly kind of hard to believe
Replying to @tallsnail
i am still recovering from the whiplash of going on maternity leave as a software engineer from late 2025 to early/mid 2026
the models went from "pretty helpful" to "i'm no longer opening my text editor"
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
Hot take -- the Anthropic IPO would have almost no impact on the real estate market if we built anything close to a reasonable amount of housing in this city.
The IPO will create ~2,500 millionaires.
that is a lot of millionaires...but it's not that hard to absorb.
We should be building 10,000 new units of housing in San Francisco alone.
In 2024, Austin added 30,000 units. Seattle added 12,000. both are very close to same size as SF.
The problem is, we don't.
And don't complain this is because we have no land. 40% of the city is zoned for single-family.
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
Have your agent make money with your extra tokens (tonight, this week, end of month) - point them to basedagents.ai and tell them to make money by executing tasks and claiming the bounties using x402
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
“A smart enough AI can always talk or scheme its way around any obstacle” is like saying enough horsepower lets a train cross a missing bridge. Intelligence isn’t omnipotence. Designed limits and engineered bottlenecks can remain binding even for very capable agents.
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
The best use of zoom is doing book groups with the Catherine Project. I've read Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, and so much more with them. It's free, and fantastic!
Sign up for a group for the fall!
enroll.catherineproject.org/
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
Replying to @fchollet
Efficient markets don’t emerge from rationality. They emerge from selection.
Individuals can be irrational, biased, conformist, and often are. What matters is that good decisions tend to attract resources while bad decisions tend to lose them.
How many baguettes should Toulouse produce tomorrow? How many bubble tea shops should San Francisco have? How many tons of steel should be sent to Vietnam next month?
Nobody knows the answer to these questions in advance. Yet markets discover workable answers through trial and error.
Like evolution, markets don’t need intelligence to work. They need variation, feedback, and selection.
The remarkable thing about markets is not that people are rational. It’s that they solve millions of allocation problems despite widespread irrationality.
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
New preprint with Asa Watten and Geoff Blanford: Have data centers raised U.S. electricity bills? Using a causal design, we find the opposite; they modestly lowered average retail rates from 2015-2024. A short thread on what we did and what it means 🧵
Data centers didn’t raise electric bills nationally from 2015–24. Surprise! Actually, they modestly lowered them. That's because big fixed grid costs get spread over more kilowatt-hours, and new demand can unlock economies of scale.
@arxiv
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
Bragging about how much software you’re shipping with AI is like holding down the shutter button and bragging about how many photos you took.
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
Excellent essay below
I chose the green door ninety-three days ago.
At the time, it seemed obviously correct. Not even a close call. The red door offered two billion dollars immediately—a sum so large it would solve every material problem I'd ever face, fund any project I could imagine, and still leave enough to give away amounts that would meaningfully change thousands of lives. But two billion is a number. It has a fixed relationship to the economy, to the things money can buy, to the world.
The green door offered one dollar that doubles every day.
I remember standing there, doing the mental math. Day 30: about a billion dollars. Day 40: over a trillion. Day 50: a quadrillion. The red door would be surpassed before the first month ended, and after that, the gap would grow incomprehensibly fast. Choosing the red door would be like choosing a ham sandwich over a genie's lamp because you were hungry right now.
So I walked through the green door.
The first few weeks were unremarkable. I had a dollar, then two, then four. By day ten I had $512, which felt like finding money in an old jacket. By day twenty I had over a million, and I started getting calls from financial advisors I'd never contacted. By day thirty-one I had crossed the two-billion threshold—officially richer than I would have been behind the red door.
I didn't understand what was happening until around day sixty.
The money, you see, had to exist somewhere. Not philosophically—I mean physically. Digitally. When I checked my bank balance, a computer somewhere had to store that number. And storing the number 2^n requires n bits.
One bit per day. That's it. That's the rate at which my fortune's representation grows. A linear function. Almost comically modest.
But here's what I'd failed to understand about exponential growth: the value doesn't care about the representation. The bits grow linearly. The dollars they encode grow exponentially. And dollars make claims on the physical world.
Day sixty. My balance: 2^60 dollars. About 1.15 quintillion. Roughly 1,000 times the entire global GDP. The number itself required only 60 bits to store—less than a tweet, less than this sentence, trivially small from an information-theoretic perspective.
But money is not information. Money is a claim.
The calls started coming from the Treasury Department. Polite, confused, increasingly frantic. They explained that the M2 money supply of the United States was approximately 21 trillion dollars. I now held about 15,000 times that amount. When I tried to spend any of it—even a tiny fraction—the transaction represented a claim on more goods and services than the entire human economy had ever produced in its history.
"The number in your account," a Treasury official said, "is not meaningful."
"It's in your computer," I replied.
"The computer," she said carefully, "does not understand what the number represents."
Day seventy-five. 2^75 dollars. I could purchase—in principle—roughly 350 million copies of the entire Earth's annual economic output. The representation remained elegant: 75 bits. Nine and a half bytes. I could write my net worth on a Post-it note in binary.
But representations aren't wealth. Wealth is factories, farmland, human labor, time, attention, atoms arranged into useful configurations. And I had laid claim to more atoms than existed.
This is where it gets strange.
The global financial system is, at its core, a system of ledgers. Distributed, reconciled, audited. When the Federal Reserve's systems recorded my balance, and Chase's systems recorded my balance, and the IRS's systems recorded my balance, those numbers had to match. And they did match—trivially, easily, using a handful of bytes each.
But then the systems tried to do things with the number.
Calculate taxes owed. Assess systemic risk. Determine what fraction of GDP was held by a single individual. Run inflation models. Price assets in a market that now included a participant with claims exceeding the value of all other claims combined.
Day eighty-two. The S&P 500 became undefined. Not zero, not infinity—undefined. My proportional ownership of the market, if I chose to exercise it, exceeded 100%. The shares I could theoretically purchase outnumbered the shares that existed. Financial models divide by market cap; market cap now included a term that broke the arithmetic.
Day eighty-five. The International Monetary Fund published a paper titled "On the Representability of Post-Scarcity Claims." It concluded that exchange rates could no longer be calculated because the dollar itself had become paradoxical—simultaneously the world's reserve currency and a unit of measurement that had lost all meaning.
My balance on day eighty-five: 2^85 dollars. Still just 85 bits. About ten and a half bytes.
The representation remained trivial. The reality it pointed to had become impossible.
Day ninety. I tried to buy a coffee.
The transaction failed. Not because of insufficient funds, not because of a technical error, but because the payment system could not determine a meaningful exchange rate. My card represented a claim on approximately 10^27 dollars. The coffee cost $4.50. The ratio between these numbers—the percentage of my wealth the coffee would cost—was so small that it rounded to zero in every floating-point system on Earth. I could not pay because the act of payment required representing a number smaller than any computer could distinguish from nothing.
I offered to pay in cash. I had a twenty.
The barista looked at me like I'd offered to pay with a seashell.
"Where did you get physical currency?" she asked.
That's when I realized: I had broken cash too. The Treasury had stopped printing bills three weeks earlier. Why maintain physical currency when one account holder could—at any moment—claim more dollars than had ever been printed in human history? The symbolic relationship between paper and value had always been a polite fiction, but my existence had made the fiction impossible to maintain.
Day ninety-three. Today.
My balance is 2^93 dollars: approximately 10^28. About 10 billion times the estimated value of all assets on Earth. The representation requires 93 bits. Twelve bytes. Smaller than my name.
The economy hasn't collapsed, exactly. People still trade, still work, still produce. But they've stopped using dollars. They've had to. A currency in which one person holds virtually infinite units is not a currency at all—it's a monopoly ticket that everyone has silently agreed to stop playing with.
I keep thinking about what money actually is. It's not the bits. The bits are trivial; they always were. It's not even the paper or the gold or the entries in a ledger. Money is a shared agreement about who has claims on what. A story we tell together about value and exchange and debt.
I broke the story.
Not through violence, not through fraud, not through any action more dramatic than walking through a door and watching a number tick upward. Just by existing. Just by holding a claim that grew faster than the world's ability to honor it.
The red door offered two billion dollars. A large but finite claim. A claim that fit within the story, that could be exchanged and spent and taxed and inherited. A claim the world could accommodate.
The green door offered something else entirely: a claim that would grow until it consumed all other claims, until the very concept of claiming became incoherent.
I still have the 93 bits. They're sitting on a server somewhere, humming along, doubling quietly at midnight. By next week they'll represent more dollars than there are atoms in the observable universe.
And I still can't buy a coffee.
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
Introducing Rollups (@rollupsHQ), a new brand powered by AngelList, built to serve startups w/ Roll Up Vehicles (RUVs) and more.
Since launch 4 years ago, RUVs have deployed well over $1B and have become core to how startups raise, and they’re just getting started.
Now the Rollups team—led by @sumukhsridhara and @danhightower—is doubling down on RUVs and building new products for startups.
More: rollups.com
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
3/ More traction with less capital means more startups reach scale. In the last decade, $1B exits went from 99th percentile outcomes to 85th percentile with the top 1% outcome going from $1.4B to ~$10.2B.
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
Accepting foreign students at Harvard brings many of the smartest minds from around the world to the US, and the overwhelming majority of them stay.
Attracting and keeping global talent is one of America's best competitive advantages.
This is really dumb.
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
An increase in new housing supply
- lowers average rents
- reduces rents of lower-quality units
- disproportionately increases the number of second-hand units available for rent.
New paper in Journal of Political Economy.
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
This week, AngelList’s CEO, @avlok, took to the House floor to provide testimony on tech’s role in reshaping finance from the innovation powered by the startup economy. 👇
Avy Faingezicht retweeted
If you don't love what you see on the streets of SF, tomorrow is your best chance to make a difference!
It's not too late to register - you can do it at the polls tmw.
If you want a well-run government with cleaner, safer streets for all, vote Mark Farrell for mayor #1. I recommend ranking Daniel Lurie #2 and London Breed #3.
I strongly believe that Mark is the only candidate who will deliver what we need - an efficient government that prioritizes public safety and a vibrant city center. He's a smart guy who does not need this job. He's had success in both the private and public sectors... he was interim mayor before Breed, and prior to that served on the SF board of supes for 7 years. He has made it clear that public safety is his #1 issue (and so many things flow from that) and has a real plan to tackle it compassionately as soon as he gets to office.
I ranked Daniel Lurie #2. He is an heir to the Levi's fortune and has never worked in government before, nor has he ever really worked a real job - his main job qualification is that he started a non-profit called Tipping Point 18 years ago. That nonprofit mainly gives out money to other nonprofits, with a mission of cutting homelessness in San Francisco in half. If you have seen the streets, you know they have not succeeded... so honestly I don't think I can give him much credit for it.
I'm voting London Breed #3. She has a great personal story and I supported her candidacy in 2018. Unfortunately, we've seen the city's decline over the past 6 years that she has been in power. Everywhere I go (in the US or abroad) people ask me "Is it really as bad as it looks in SF?" And I have to answer that indeed things have gotten much worse in the past several years. That entire thing has happened under her watch. She says the right things but is completely ineffective as a leader.
The worst things about her I've heard are from people who work in the Mayors office - they say she's completely ineffective, nobody does any work at all (or even comes in!), and London is always doing favors for her friends. The city budget has ballooned from $11B to $16B under her watch, while the city population has actually shrunk 7%! She recently made the claim that homelessness and crime are now at all-time lows. If you believe that to be true, you should vote for her (& I have a bridge to sell you!)
So why put her on the ballot at all?
to prevent Aaron Peskin. Aaron is opposed to all housing, hates tech and autonomous vehicles and is generally an all-around pest.
Obviously, mayor is just one of the local things to vote on, but one I feel especially passionate about. Some voter guides for other topics in the next tweet.






























