与「I_Need_You」相关的搜索结果

I am the personal financial advisor to the 47th President of the United States. I have made him $4.05 billion in one term. Let me say that again. Four point zero five. Billion. One term. The presidency of the United States, upon proper management, outperforms every asset class in recorded financial history, including venture capital, petroleum futures, and the sovereign wealth fund in Abu Dhabi that manages $1.7 trillion and employs nine hundred analysts. I benchmarked it. We beat them with a staff of four and a leather binder. I keep a binder in the residence. I call it The Number. The Number was $3.4 billion in August. The Number is $4.05 billion now. The Number has never gone down. I update it every Friday at 6 AM, before the briefing, like a surgeon checking vitals on a patient who can only get healthier. The cover is leather. The tabs are color-coded by sector: Crypto, Finance, Hospitality, Media, Other. "Other" includes a Boeing 747-8 valued at $400 million, gifted to him by the Emir of Qatar while he was sitting President. There is no asset class for that. I invented one. I call it EAGLE-7. Crypto is seventy-five percent of the portfolio. $3.02 billion. I want you to sit with that figure. Three billion from digital tokens and stablecoins. From a man who in 2021 called Bitcoin "a scam against the dollar." His words. The flagship holding is Trump Media's bitcoin stockpile. He holds 42% of the company. The company sold shares to institutional investors. Used their capital to purchase bitcoin. His personal stake from that maneuver alone: $1.15 billion. He drafts national cryptocurrency regulation from the Resolute Desk. Signs executive orders on digital asset policy. Handpicks the SEC chair who will enforce them. His bitcoin goes up when he does these things. The investors' stock goes down. That's a conflict of interest. I'm kidding. I've never used those words in that order. That's the investment thesis. Then there is Alt5 Sigma. I need you to understand Alt5 Sigma. Alt5 Sigma was previously known as Appliance Recycling Centers of America. Founded in 1991. In Minnesota. It recycled dishwashers. Then it became a biotech. Then a digital payments company. Then Zach Witkoff, son of the President's special envoy, became chairman, and it became the primary vehicle for purchasing World Liberty Financial tokens. In 1991 it recycled dishwashers in Minnesota. In 2025 it funneled $562 million to the President's family through a Rwandan subsidiary convicted of money laundering. The CEO was removed. The CFO was fired. The auditor was replaced. Twice. The stock went from $8 to $2. We received $562 million from it. I put it in the binder. I logged it in the binder on a Thursday. I used Garamond. It felt appropriate for a company whose journey from kitchen appliances to international money laundering spanned exactly thirty-four years. The stablecoin is where the architecture gets beautiful. USD1. $136 million in projected interest over the remaining term. I will show you the math because the math is the point. $3 billion in circulation. Times 4% annual return. Times three years remaining in office. Times the family's 38% share. The UAE purchased $2 billion of USD1. Then Binance promoted it. Pumped circulation from $2 billion to $5 billion. Binance's founder had pleaded guilty to money laundering violations. He received a presidential pardon in October. I pardon you. You promote my stablecoin. My stablecoin generates $136 million. The pardon cost nothing. The coin cost nothing. The oath of office cost nothing. The entire apparatus of federal clemency was converted into a revenue instrument and nobody filed a complaint. That's yield. TRUMPcoin. $385 million. A memecoin with the President's face on it, launched days before inauguration. Every person who bought TRUMPcoin at launch and held it has lost 90 cents of every dollar. Every person who bought it made the President $385 million richer on the way in. That's the product. The product is not a coin. The product is belief. We are very long belief. His sons received a 13% equity stake in American Bitcoin. A New Yorker investigation determined they contributed, and I quote, "nothing else of obvious value." I would characterize their contribution differently. They contributed the single most valuable commodity in American commerce, worth more per ounce than lithium, more per gram than fentanyl, more per syllable than any word in the English language. Proximity to the man who pardons people. That's due diligence. Hospitality. $271 million. Mar-a-Lago now generates $50 million a year. It generated $10 million when he took office. Initiation fee: $1 million. You are paying $1 million to eat dinner in the same room as the man who controls the Department of Justice. I set that price. It is undervalued. Saudi Arabia. The Crown Prince visited the White House. Then Dar Al Arkan signed licensing deals estimated at $10 billion. Hotels in the Maldives. Golf clubs in Riyadh. A tower in Jeddah. He sat next to the man who ordered a journalist dismembered and said, quote, "He knew nothing about it." Then he signed the hotel deal. I have the term sheet. Our fee is 2-10% of revenue. We do not ask what happened to the journalist. That is not in our mandate. $106 million is in our mandate. That's client retention. Finance: $340 million, predominantly Persian Gulf sovereign wealth fund arrangements structured through intermediaries whose names I am not going to say in this format. Media: $116 million. Legal fee fundraising and branded merchandise: $128 million. The Qatari jet: $150 million. I have already mentioned the jet. I mention it again because a sitting foreign head of state gifted the sitting American President a $400 million flying palace with gold-plated fixtures and a master suite, and not a single member of Congress has asked a follow-up question. Not one. Not in committee. Not in writing. Not on camera. Five hundred and thirty-five legislators. Zero questions. Now. I am required by my own conscience, which is vestigial at this point, to disclose downstream performance. Every public-facing investment vehicle associated with this portfolio has collapsed for outside investors. I will read them. TRUMPcoin. Down 90%. American Bitcoin. Down 80%. Trump NFTs. Down 80%. Trump Media stock. Down 60% since inauguration. Alt5 Sigma. Down 75%. The family's positions were structured to extract value before these declines materialized. The retail investors' positions were structured to supply the value being extracted. There were approximately 600,000 retail wallets holding TRUMPcoin at peak. Retirees. Day traders. People who believed the branding. Their aggregate losses capitalized the portfolio. Their savings became his tab in the binder. That's liquidity. I want to address the competitive landscape. I am a financial professional. I benchmark everything. In 2016, the President stood at a podium and called Hillary Clinton "the most corrupt enterprise in political history." He said she "turned the State Department into her personal hedge fund." The accusation that ended her career was $153 million in speaking fees. Combined. With her husband. Over fifteen years. Goldman Sachs paid her $225,000 per speech. He said the word "crooked" so many times it became her legal name. $153 million. Fifteen years. Two people. I made him $4.05 billion. In one term. By himself. A 26-to-1 ratio. I wrote it on the whiteboard in the residence. Then there was the Biden family. "The Biden Crime Family," he called them. He held rallies about it. He got impeached over investigating it. The Republican House spent two years and $3.5 million in taxpayer funds to uncover, per their own final report, approximately $24 million in Biden family income over five years. Hunter Biden's Burisma salary was $1 million a year, later reduced to $500,000. The Chinese payments were $664,000. The House Oversight Committee called it "influence peddling at the highest level." $24 million. Five years. Ten family members. My client made that in two days. I have the math. $4.05 billion divided by 365 days is $11.1 million per day. The entire Biden investigation, the impeachment, the hearings, the Fox News segments, the "CRIME FAMILY" hats, all of it, for an amount my client earns before his Wednesday morning briefing. The ratio is 168 to 1. I put it on the whiteboard next to the Clinton number. The President saw it. He laughed. He did not ask me to take it down. "Drain the swamp," he said in 2016. I drained it. Into the binder. The swamp is now a portfolio. It is the highest-performing portfolio in the history of public office, and the man who built it ran for President on the promise that he would stop people from doing exactly what I help him do every single day. That's positioning. When the New Yorker published the full accounting, $4.05 billion across five sectors, and asked the President whether he saw a conflict of interest between the office and the fortune, between the pardons and the profits, between setting crypto policy and holding $3 billion in crypto, he told the New York Times six words. "I found out that nobody cared." He was right. He has been right about that singular fact since the beginning. Nobody cared when he launched the coin. Nobody cared when he pardoned the convicted money launderer who pumped his stablecoin. Nobody cared when a dishwasher recycling outfit in Minnesota became a $562 million pipeline to his family through a subsidiary that had been convicted on three continents. Nobody cared when 600,000 wallets evaporated so the leather binder in the residence could gain another tab. He found out nobody cared. Then he monetized the finding at a rate of $11.1 million per day, every day he has held office, including Sundays, including holidays, including the morning he sat next to the Crown Prince and said the murdered journalist had it coming. $4.05 billion. One presidential term. Zero indictments. Zero congressional hearings. Zero audits. Zero consequences of any kind for any person at any level of the operation. The chart goes up. It only counts his money. There is another chart. It has 600,000 wallets on it. Retirement accounts. People who believed a dishwasher recycling company in Minnesota was a sound vehicle for their savings. We do not publish that one. I filed it under EAGLE-7.

GPT Image 2 Prompt：Magazine collage Source: --- Prompt --- I am creating a magazine page with the theme of "visual polyglot". The title in the center of the image should be "Create Everything at Once". Create a piece of art celebrating visual creations, not limited to beautiful photographs but also across the full breadth of human visual culture and natural visual elements. There should be curated collage representing the diverse distribution: scientific diagrams, the periodic table, the solar system, medieval manuscript pages, botanical illustrations, anatomical drawings, old maps, climate charts, engineering schematics, transit signage, multilingual text, comic panels, UI screenshots, a camera photo, a butterfly specimen, pie charts, architectural blueprints, and façade drawings. The text frames the model as fluent across languages, notation systems, interfaces, cultural forms, and visual conventions—able to move from utility to beauty, from document understanding to artistic generation. Also feature artistic elements like pixel art, styles, history, sculpture, nature, photography, paintings, and all art forms. These are just examples, I need you to actively think about other elements / styles that may fit in a good design that's not limited to these concepts. The overall effect is that of a premium research announcement or museum-style manifesto: elegant, ambitious, and designed to argue that image intelligence should be trained on the whole visual world, not just polished aesthetics. Use an unstructured, creative and artistic layout, such as but not limited to fan out, avoid grid-like layouts. Portrait 4:5 aspect ratio. Don't add any content text beside the "Create Everything at Once" title. Text as part of the art is okay. Avoid a beige tint of the overall style, since we want vibrant elements to be vibrant.

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

浜浦彩乃『I NEED YOU』/Buono!【AYANO HAMAURA LUNCH LIVE 2025映像】 YouTube「はまch」にて公開されました！ 大好きな曲🍑是非聴いてください🫶