与「lit_pouch」相关的搜索结果

기다리고 기다리던 릿파우치 4화 공개📣 아일릿이 찐으로 애정하는 키링 릿파우치 4화에서 만나보세요💕 ( #ILLIT# #아일릿# #lit_pouch# #릿파우치#

릿파우치 기다린 글릿~⁉️ 아일릿이 찐사용하는 향기 템👃🏻 탈탈 털어드립니다 멤버들의 향기 취향과 TMI 대방출😍 ( #ILLIT# #아일릿# #lit_pouch# #릿파우치#

릿파우치 지갑 사건 : 아낌없이 주는 아일릿이 민증 사진까지 전부 공개한 사건이다 ILLIT의 찐 지갑 보러가기👛 ( #ILLIT# #아일릿# #lit_pouch# #릿파우치#

아일릿이 쓰는 찐경 최초 공개 ⭐️귀하다⭐️ TMI 왕창 풀어주는 ILLIT 어떤데 릿파우치 👓찐경 편 ( #ILLIT# #아일릿# #lit_pouch# #릿파우치#

Robinhood 今早在 HOOD Summit 上宣布向美国用户推出永续合约，但走的是自家的 Robinhood Derivatives 和 Bitstamp，没有用 Lighter。 LIT 之前涨上去，靠的就是市场押注"Lighter 会给 Robinhood 美国永续做底层"，这个预期当场落空

🔥🚨 JUST IN — Melania and Madame Peng just stopped to hear young kids sing, and Peng LIT UP. They were moving through the Smithsonian program. Then the children started, and she FELL IN LOVE. That is the First Lady track doing what it is supposed to do. Melania hosted the moment on American ground. Peng reacted like a guest who got something she did not script. Cute stop. Real visit. Oval is still closed-press across town. Dinner still tonight.

牛初无疑，在接下来的一年内，会巨大的波动，满满积攒力量，直至冲到顶峰！ 周而复始 这一轮和之前的轮次有相同的周期，也有不同的地方。 主要不同： 1 Ai的变化 2 Rwa资产上链 3 Hyper带来的回购潮 因此，炒作和叙事的点，愈发清晰 一：Ai在当下的应用，可以找到你链上的隐私，所以，隐私赛道，被加密搞火了，相关的头部Zcach引领了隐私赛道叙事在冲锋。 Zcash 全隐私 Near 半隐私 Sol 不隐私 Near炒的点属于，说做了Eth要做的事儿，随便做协议，但是想隐私就隐私，不想隐私就不隐私！现在做成了收费站。 这是链类的，至于其他的链，现在干的事儿，和之前没区别... 但是最重要的我觉得是Zec可监管，门罗Xmr呢？ 这不是隐私之王？ 我甚至觉得XMR起码应该是比特币1/10的市值！ 虽然我说的但是算个屁 二： 资产上链，美国要做的玩意，还给了五年获免，就是你瞎搞啥就搞呗！ 这个很区块链，我们是来玩区块链的，不是来玩交易所的！ 名牌能看到的是，大资金不相信交易所，尤其是扎针交易所，都去Hyper上玩去了。 民心所向的是，区块链本身就应该在链上玩，而不是在交易所赌。 那就得出来一批基础设施，链上的，就之前纳斯达克那一套，给弄到链上，然后再升级，这块儿要出来好多庞然大物在未来！ Hyper就属于又踩中一个赛道 三 Hyper带来的回购潮，升级后变成了回购销毁潮，一把撕破了之前的这些骗子的伎俩！ 一边释放自己的币去卖，一边回购销毁，币价基本不变，四年收割一次，这些本质都他妈是web2的做法！ 我持币人和公司没有任何关系！ 很他妈的无耻，但是币圈好资产真的太少了。 上一轮，我看到了一个新模式资产，也是销毁类的，买了2M，扔着没管结果昨天看还有0.2M不到，Linea... 真是日了狗了... 算为新模式买单，也从里面学到了一个知识： 新模式，还得应用的起来，这个最关键！ 接下来，做一些可以看到或者未来可以看到的结论： 一 各个链，分红越来越明细。 Polygon就是预测链，Hyper就是合约链。 这玩意已经确定了，要改或者新王登基很难！必定牛市来时越滚越大！ Sol就是土狗链和创新链，老外在刷。Toly心知肚明，扶持谁不扶持谁肚子里门儿清！ Bsc很尴尬，国人带头刷，这块儿，何一是个外行！她最应该维护的人根本不是什么Kol，而是各个微信群的群主！ PancakeSwap 全家桶 占了总交易量的70%.... 真的都是小P子的功劳... Base很尴尬，老板看起来也很无奈... 土狗吧干不过别人，自己又不会做，现在资产上链吧，抢不来人，自己也不舍得拉，但是这个就是变数！ 一旦做起来，会有大增量。 Hood不知道能不能作为Rwa资产链，新赛季Pons真的是带着Robinhood吃麻了... 甚至扶持的Lit也麻了！ 这里有一个观点：Lit不是Hype的龙二！ Lit是Hood的龙一，这个观点一变，估值就会有变！ 最奇葩的是稳定币链看土狗赚钱，眼红别人去做土狗... 不他妈做支付？？？ 想白嫖dev过来做协议吗？ Eth还是老协议，借贷之类的，毕竟除了Btc和Eth，其他的链都有作恶的可能！ 机构不是不想选别的，是他妈没得选！ 所以我觉得这也是王纯这类大佬，大资金只敢拿大饼和eth的原因！ 二 资产上链，这个，我觉得可玩性最多。 1 借贷协议 借贷是所有链 TVL 的第一大头：以太坊 47%、Base 53%、Solana 35%、BSC 33% 未来加上美股等资产上链，这块儿蛋糕会更大！ AAve是大哥，但是Morpho直接不收过路费，直接砍掉所有人一块儿肉... 操！这种就是对别人狠，对自己更狠的人... AAve品牌溢价，Sky叙事太老旧，这个赛道，如果谁有新模式做起来，真的挺好的。 甚至结合一些模式来做，比如销毁机制等，把价值捕捉也能做到升级。毕竟之前的和持币人关系没那么大。 这个，收费吧别人不用你了，不收费吧，不赚钱，毕竟做协议花不了多少钱，主要是技术和品牌建设以及后台。 2 Dex类 这一类，太刺激了.... 交易终端类： 看看Gmgn，Axiom，Fomo，Terminal (PUMP)，Maestro这些的收益，所有人看着都流口水的东西！ 交易终端如果有带模式的出来，技术还硬的话，一定可以干掉很大的市场！！！ 请我们一起等待那一刻的到来，但这一块儿技术不硬不行，还得有背景，一起等！ 纯血Dex类 3 新玩意 比如 chip 这玩意，真他妈的新，是这一轮目前超级性感的叙事，借钱出去买Gpu，然后收租金，这块儿，如果Gpu涨了，能吃到很大，但是，他价值捕捉完了之后，价值不赋予币本身，所以，垃圾！ Fables（PROLOGUE）也是，做股票代币费率，收益也猛的很，但是就是不给代币赋能，日你妈垃圾！这玩意日后会很猛我认为，会非常猛，但是我投票你娘胎呢... 炒作没问题... 有赌之后被收购或者给持币人分钱的... 这玩意，和Risk Curators，BisonFi这种都一球样，赚钱的，要么不发币，要么发了跟散户没关系... 呵呵 4 剩下的还没想到 三 这一大类，就是由Hyper引发的回购热潮 Pons相当于Pump的升级版 要看懂这块儿，就不得不讲历史，并且历史教训告诉我们，一直赚钱不吐出来，觉得自己牛逼的Dev都得死，公司也一样，哪怕垄断，只要利润够，一定有人要把你翘掉！ Pump当年引发热潮，然后其他链开抄，但是Pump属于租地模式，毕业后要给Ray钱，一直给。 Ray做黑社会，pump被收的实在不行了，就自建了pumpswap 当年的屠龙者，现在成为了之前的恶龙，不发空投，天天卖sol。 当Pons出现的时候，直接： 自建发射曲线+多资产配对 结果Uni看不下去他赚钱了，反手自己做了Pools，而后没打过，怕他走pump的路，就直接在9.4买了pons的股份，但是没说咋买的，反正就是买了... 打不过就加入，直接做股东。 Pons相当于上门女婿，自己赚自己的钱，但是赚钱了给老丈人分钱。 不仅如此，毕业后swap的钱，老丈人还允许你自己设置， 至此，结论：Pons的格局已经定了。 未来大概率只有Pons，已经你要自己做，我pools的钱，全部砸给Lp，最厚，我不收这个钱，你除非补贴，要么，你就弄不死我！ 我永远是老大，这就是Uni牛逼的地方！！！ 这也是大资金可以随便干Uni的原因之一！ 平台大，还灵活，有赚钱的协议Pons出现之后直接做一个免费协议放过去做竞品（打不过的原因是他的费率本身设的0.25，根本收入比不过Pons索性不收了），打不过直接买你！ 这就是Rh协议的现状，至于其他的那些，比如 o1，给创作者分的太少，自己留的太多，死吧你！ Pair，有创新，多池子，没意思，鸡肋，死吧... Long，目前看有一点点竞争的，做股票成倍的塞到一个资产里组池子（其实有个几把创新？）。 赚的钱，全部买英伟达的股票，放到自己金库里。持有Ai的人，就可以有权利投票啥的，这他妈有屁用？ 我投票投你给我分钱你给我呢？搞笑 我觉得他们就是死骗子团队，拿散户的钱给自己做金库！ 而且这个家伙命好，正好Meme和Boner都发生在了Long... 如果没有这俩Long的命运应该也挺悲惨的... 还有他现在在做的给机构用的发币模式，也挺牛逼的，这个我觉得是趋势，未来会有机构发币，包括锁仓，分红，质押等一系列，这个做好了，也有大发展！ 也是他打不过Pons的另辟蹊径。 设想一下：未来三五十年，Ai作为基建，英伟达的股票得涨成啥逼样，那Ai的金库，得飞成什么样子，这是这一轮发射台最性感的一面，也是整个链上资产最性感的一面，之前币圈有波动，四年震荡一下子，但是这一次，直接把底层资产改掉了，我直接拿英伟达，美光，海力士.... Ai趋势向上，我的资产就一直向上，诶卧槽，这个是真的屌... 不敢想象这些Meme或者台子的财库未来会有多炸裂... 其他的，没了，嗯，真的没了，整个盘完，资产类就一个能买，Pons 赌的话，再多加一个Meme和Boner 观点和半个月前不变，别的资产都是打流水用的,压根没一点毛用。 接下来观察的是新协议，没有发现的。 然后是Sol，我们的巨型土狗天堂。 Sol真的很牛逼，在没有FTX扶持的情况下，自己还能活的这么好，真不知道是什么高人在... 并且和Zec的合作也这么好，我怀疑Zec就是Sol这帮人买了大量筹码，之前几十块的时候就疯狂喊，纳瓦尔是股东，所以大家喊起来也不怕，也有paypal黑帮撑腰。 Sol上一轮的屠龙者就Pump，但是长大了不认爹，不给大家分钱，大家都是流氓，我是发盘子的，你说了给我钱，你到现在还不给，一直压着我的款... 就真的说不过去了，然后Stonk出来，复刻了Pons在sol上，这个真的很悔恨，100多万市值买的，压根没看，出门玩了个把月，回来一看已经几千万了.... Pump是Sol上唯一： 自建发射曲线+Swap+多资产配对的台子了... 之前傲慢，现在被Stonk整服了之后，开始干活... 之前一直在干fomo，结果也干不过人家... 现在，做发射曲线的：Pump，Ray，Met Pump几乎都是自家干自家的，最强不说啥了，只是没有反哺生态，但实力确实是强，发力起来，还是很可怕，bug是dev的收益分成比例低，和Uni一样的问题，让dev们不愿意过去发盘子。 Ray上最大的就是Stonk Met上最大的就是Ember 感觉跟结盟一样后面俩... 但是，创作者，带点脑子的，都应该去自己收益最高的地方不是，现在sol上，发币收益最高的就是stonk，比pump高了三倍，所以，我觉得，这场仗，还没打完... 还得再看，再等... 然后Bsc的，不想说了，无论是蝴蝶，还是Four... 困了，睡午觉了，明天继续再理思路

为什么 $ZEC 和 $NEAR 会成为本轮周期的最大赢家？无限买盘究竟来自哪里？ Bankless 联合创始人 David Hoffman 再次重申了他的核心调仓逻辑。他于今年 5 月 21 日宣布清仓 ETH，此后买入 VVV、NEAR、ZEC、HYPE、LIT，并披露部分入场价：「NEAR 约为 1.40 美元、HYPE 约为 45 美元、ZEC 约为 560 美元、LIT 约为 1.35 美元。」结果大家也都看到了，全部起飞，ZEC 、VVV、HYPE、LIT 都是历史新高，NEAR 也极度强势。 他成功的换仓验证了自己的逻辑，现在他把逻辑又强调了一遍，为什么要换这些币。 1️⃣ ZEC 的无限买盘：来自 BTC 极端主义者的“秘密叛逃” * 市场疑惑：ZEC 凭什么能从 2 亿美元市值飙升至 260 亿美元？ * 真相：2026 年的 ZEC 就是 2021 年的 ETH。 * 买盘来源：1.7 万亿美元的 BTC 财富。 * 比特币极端主义者的谢林点（Schelling Point）极度坚固，明面上“只有 BTC，别无他物”。但在私下，他们也是人，无法免疫贪婪与避险本能。正如 2021 年 Su Zhu 提到的“比特币人偷偷跑冷钱包买 ETH”一样，今天大量比特币人开始将 ZEC 作为隐私与量子威胁的对冲。 * 数学逻辑：1.7 万亿的庞然大物，只需要 1% 的 BTC 财富为了“以防万一”换仓买入 ZEC，对一个中型市值资产来说就是近乎无限的溢价拉升。驱动 ZEC 的不是美元，是 BTC 的财富本身。 2️⃣ NEAR 的逻辑：赢得“智能合约换仓”奖杯 * 同样的故事正在 NEAR 身上发生。NEAR 赢下了 2026 年的“智能合约换仓”奖杯。 * 买盘来源：对传统蓝筹（ETH/SOL）脱节的技术债感到厌倦的资金。 * 随着 ETH/SOL 等老牌蓝筹技术债堆积、回报率边际递减，市场不再愿意为旧叙事买单。NEAR 凭借新一代技术架构吸引了这部分散落但极其庞大的智能合约流转资金。 3️⃣ 行业暗面：“蓝筹诅咒”与价值捕获的断层 * 老大老二涨不动了：BTC 尚未完全演变成黄金替代品，ETH 也缺乏支撑 10 倍重估的新叙事。 * 价值被 Web2 捕获：Hyperliquid、Venice、Morpho 等创新不断涌现，但如果加密总市值无法突破 10 万亿，这些新秀创造的价值，很大程度上不会回馈给 BTC/ETH，反而会被 Robinhood、Coinbase、Apollo 等传统券商和机构捕获。 山寨爆发的本质是谢林点的转移。只要你能说服 1.7 万亿 BTC 资产里的极小一部分“买一点以防万一”，就能缔造下一个千亿神话。

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.

A look at some top Variational points whales: 1. Contessa — $8B+ personal volume; heavy daily trading since last year; low-key 2. @linenmito — whale trader, HYPE OG, +1,311 BTC on BitMEX 3. @TaikiMaeda2 — well-known KOL / directional trader; $4M+ PnL on VAR; ETH & ZEC whale 4. @Metabape — CN community influencer; large-size arb trader; ~$30B personal + referral volume 5. Unknown — likely #3# by volume; wallet ending 558e 6. @lynn000333 — me; VC / equities background; still relatively new to crypto 7. @derteil00 — Panda community founder; HYPE OG, LIT points #3#; perpdex triple crown 8. Unknown — likely #11# by volume; wallet ending 91db 9. Unknown — likely RealBatman; multi-perpdex arb; +$2M PnL, ~$850M volume 10. @CryptoMadbad — HYPE whale / size trader (ranks 3–5, 8-9 may be slightly off, corrections welcome) Most plan to hold points long-term. Top 2: 80k+ pts. Top 5: 40k+. Top 10: 30k+. Together ~500k pts (~6%) Also on the platform: @Cbb0fe @izebel_eth @MomentumKevin @KookCapitalLLC @poorlydrNFT @hansolar21 @Henrik_on_HL and so on stacked lineup