与「genius」相关的搜索结果

你们知道genius某个决策是cz顾问点头后才出现的么？ 正统的东西不玩儿你非要去玩儿垃圾🦋的DAO，快去吧，想在那里格局的时候千万别忘了 #ben# 祝君好运。

这次中期选大家怎么看？ 我觉得可能是影响加密行业最大的一次中期选举。 1️⃣市场会交易国内政策预期； 和之前不一样，目前美国已经走向了加密改革的关键部，前段时间，参议院没有通过推进 CLARITY Act 所需要的 60 票，结果当天 BTC 一度跌超 5%，Coinbase、Circle 股价跌约 9%-10%。 这说明现在市场已经会直接交易美国国会 Crypto 政策预期。 2️⃣国会调查权易主导致的不确定性； 如果民主党拿下众议院，特朗普仍然是总统，SEC、CFTC、OCC、财政部等行政部门的政策方向不会因为众议院换党立即反转；而且稳定币的 GENIUS Act 已经在 2025 年成为法律，换届也不会自动失效； 但是，国会调查权不在这边了； 众议院多数党将掌握委员会主席席位，而美国众议院大多数委员会的主席拥有直接签发 subpoena（传票）的权力，可以要求企业、高管和政府部门提交文件、通信记录并出席听证会； 所以如果出现政党控制权变化，Crypto 行业面对的更可能是：立法不确定性 + 大量听证会 + 利益冲突调查 + 外国资本调查。 3️⃣特朗普家族和加密行业； 特朗普本人及家族已经和 Crypto 产业产生了非常直接的商业利益关系‘ 如果万一民主党赢得中期选举，特朗普家族特别是 @EricTrump 和他参与的 Crypto 项目会不会受到波及？ Eric 参与的两个核心 Crypto 资产： ① World Liberty Financial / USD1 ② Eric Trump 的 American Bitcoin（ABTC） 会受到多大影响，还不得而知！

$Gstock 从交易动量和K线看，主升浪估计也不远了 十月本身偏向BSC行情，加上 $Gstock 与Binance 系的战略一致性。 0xcafdbce93477261db8250e42bdae6e66733f9e20 $Gstock 上次我记得说回调差不多了，CZ刚好互动Gstock开始涨,这次不会，但底层数据来说，快了。 🌟GSTOCK 有机会成为“股票 Meme”赛道的代表案例 更新一下进度，这个图鉴为最新研判（落到真实运作层了）： 1）Genius 先提出社区与基金会各加 20 万美元全区间 LP；之后官方称基金会已向 GSTOCK 池加入 20 万美元。 2）在Binance Alpha现今收口的当口，GStock能快速上上去， 相当于开绿灯了； 3）Binance Wallet Meme Rush 接入 协议，让发射台项目获得更多发现入口。 4）今天榜单收录 $GSTOCK，页面所列项目中市值和成交量均列第 1。

4stock涨起来的时候我买了点form，亏了。fourmeme历史第一次回购的时候我又买了一点form，又亏了。genius第一天做台子的时候我又相信了genius，又又又亏了。 我由衷的喜欢币安，在币安交易所里玩meme和在bsc链上玩meme已经是现在散户为数不多还可以赚钱的路径。但几乎所有人都发自内心的讨厌这些趴在币安生态上吸血的蛀虫项目。 人们早就受够了这些只吃不吐的吸血鬼。brew或许会不一样，散户需要一个能够将收入回流到战壕里的发射台，而brew仅仅上线19天就已经销毁了百分之八的总量。 我买了一点brew，我想要相信一次勇士打败恶龙的故事 买币需谨慎谨慎再谨慎 0xfa6d9b504848606eb9aec04ccc161d169b3f2159

为啥一直坚持买 gstock:native ，叙事想象力足够高肯定是第一位的，还有就是bsc这几个发射台我肯定要赌CZ担任顾问的发射台能成功啊，如果它能成功那龙头20m不是送钱吗？ 对比下罗宾汉的long平台的龙头AI，GStock的叙事和它同类型，但AI那只是口号，GStock是实打实的和Genius平台一起做这个事情，实现这个叙事。那20m对比AI 300m，空间就足够大值得出手了。 如果你觉得币安上的叙事会比罗宾汉的叙事天花板低这么多，只能说你没见识过币安mm的威力。

The @GeniusFDN added $200,000 in liquidity to the $GSTOCK pool. A step closer toward building deeper and more resilient liquidity around pairs launched through

S1我在Genius上确实赚到过一笔，也认真帮你们推过项目，带进来的朋友不少人都拿到了收入。 所以后来就算外面有人在FUD，我也一直没发声。因为我原本是真心支持的。 S2我也参加了。我自己刷得不算多，更多是想继续支持这个产品。 身边更有人已经不只是拿利润在刷，而是掏出收益之外的本金继续砸进去。 当时想得很简单：既然一起走过S1，那就再给一次信任。 但最近这波表现真的看不下去了。 返佣拖了将近两个月不发，积分突然宣布延期，社区该兑现的7000万枚代币还从近期直接推迟到2028年。 前期付出的时间、手续费、本金和信任，换来的却是一拖再拖。 更让人失望的是，主平台自己的承诺都还没兑现，团队却把精力转到新开的meme台上。 连返佣、积分和发币都维护不好，还想再铺一个新盘子继续讲故事，这怎么可能走得通？ 不是反对你们做新产品，而是先把已经答应社区的事办完。 请正面回应： 返佣什么时候补发？ 积分和S2代币到底何时兑现？ 已经投入成本和本金继续支持的人，怎么交代？ 太失望了。 @ryanmyher @GeniusTerminal

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.

我作为 $4Stock 和 $GStock 一开始都在底部买入的一线meme玩家 我给大家分析一下这两个亲儿子台子标的叙事以及后市表现推测 这两个标其实都是参考之前罗宾汉fami的叙事，Gstock 加了一层董事会席位 一、$4stock fourmeme做的pre币股发行模式，先拿bnc举例 在bnc还未在bstock 发行时，fourmeme可以率先发出作为pre发射 bstock发行后可以直接由fourmeme发行的不合规 bnc4 股票直接转换为 合规的 bncb 股票 叙事走通的结果是 由不合规股票转向合规股票的叙事，因为有币股先发性，利于fourmeme抢占新池子meme份额 那么最大的利好就是 1、bnc4 在 bncb发行出来后 池子要做对应的转换，转换为bncb 2、如果上了alpha的标的alpha账户分红直接分合规的bncb股票 3、4stock产品发射出来的代币，手续费回购4stock 4、由于已经上了alpha，暴力拉升的利好就是上合约 目前来看 第一点已经不重要了，因为bncb出来这么久了......他都没转换，第二点已经达成，第三点可以忽略了，因为他们已经宣布了回购form，对于fourmeme来说form的重要性应该比4stock要大，毕竟自己有很多货，第四点我觉得上alpha跟上合约难度还是完全不一样的。 二、$Gstock genius台子的rwameme，总体台子核心叙事是通过meme来回购公司股票，用meme的回购持股来争取上市公司的董事会席位 分析下$Gstock的利好 1、创始人说要买币，目前还没买 2、台子手续费回购，目前在投票，但是投票的选项在我看来只有2，回购Gstock+平台币 3、上币安alpha，上了alpha之后带来比较大的交易量，继续回购股票 3、回购股票超过一定额度，目前是14w股，占比0.33%左右，比如超过1%，cz奶，毕竟cz明确回复meme当公司董事的想法是天才想法 4、回购股票到一定份额申请董事会席位成功，这也是最大的利好 5、董事席位成功之后，公司决策董事投票，投票权结果由Gstock hodler来投票，相当于dao 目前这几个利好一个没出 再说说结论 4stock叙事层面利好出尽了，剩下的就看庄和币安愿不愿意给上合约，而且全是套牢盘，币安为什么要上合约给套牢盘解套 Gstock到目前大利好一个没出，meme叙事更宏大，想象空间巨大，最重要的一点，Gstock 其实就是通过拿散户的钱来办自己的事儿，上一个这样的标的是GGG，cz 必然会很支持，因为对他来说 bnc 本身是币安控股公司，genius这个项目币安投资并且cz是顾问，散户买的股票相当于左手倒右手还在他们自己手里，不管出于什么目的我找不到他们不支持的理由 所以你告诉我现在要买4stock的理由是什么？不服来辩