I've only played around a bit with it, but I've enjoyed using https://vercel.com/eve because of how "batteries included" it is on all the glue code/infra -- borderline just write Markdown skills + configure tools/connectors/schedule/etc, and things just work.
These are audited and regulated by the federal government!
Re: why do we need _so many_, I tend to agree but it's the equivalent of "USD" in the banking system really being a wide range of deposits at different institutions, with different underlying balance sheets (banks fail regularly, and are regularly backstopped by eg. the FDIC!). There is clearing infra being built around this problem (increasing fragmentation of deposits between stablecoins/etc), just like it was a problem for the old world in which clearinghouses emerged
This is one recent paper, but with this and other personnel details (eg. Fed governors attending the last few "A Very Stable Conferences", ex-Fed people working at Circle / doing stablecoin startups) you can infer that the Fed is more pro-stablecoin than you think.
Why? Cross-border payments are hard, CBDCs are unpopular / politically infeasible, and Fedwire takes up a ton of balance sheet capacity (etc).
UST and the other ones were "algorithmic" stablecoins collateralized poorly -- USDC and OUSD (eg.) are collateralized under the regulation of the OCC / by USD-equivalent short-term bonds etc.
This is not to say that there can't be liquidity challenges or "black swan" events, but the current iteration of stablecoins are _comparable_ to being "made by banks" and are certainly regulated.
Sure, but there are longer shots than others, where money alone won't make the difference and when conviction in mission is directly related to conviction in founders/leaders.
"subjective and deeply irrational" aren't the exception for how humans organize
Even if one were to grant the conclusion — leaders resist remote work to preserve their "power and status" — to what extent is the magnitude and success of a company (or for that matter, any serious enterprise) a direct function of its leader's ability to:
- Exercise authority / power
- Maintain status within the hierarchy
As in - who wants to work for a leader who is neither powerful nor high-status within their own company? Who consciously chooses a leader who is neither effective in getting people to do the right things, nor effective in commanding a (somewhat faith-based) trust in their long-term vision?
The study feels extremely leading in its idea of what a "good" leader would look like (presumably "hands off," leaves everyone alone such that good outcomes simple "emerge", etc) -- while treating this bent as obvious truth.
I say this as someone who spent the last 6 years straight working remotely (also having been successful in contributing impact).
Reminds me of this tweet thread from Emmett Shear (cofounder of Twitch):
"I used to struggle w needing to be “creative” or “original” in my work. At some point I had a breakthrough that really helped me: I cannot repeat an idea, no matter how basic or common, without imparting some of my worldview into it.
Even by choosing which basic ideas to amplify, I impart some small amount of myself into each output. It’s literally impossible for a given tweet to be “unoriginal”. Equally impossible to be Truly Original too of course, since you’re always remixing others thoughts.
This POV does put a premium on cultivating and developing one’s worldview, since that is the underlying originality simmering under the surface of each “basic” thought. The best writing is rewriting, including of other people’s words, and the lens is your whole mind."
This is cool - feels great that there's a growing long-term incentive to implement open SDKs and APIs, for the sake of agent-forward prosumers, in the spirit of earlier internet stuff that used to do it but stopped.
Natural | SWE (Product, Data, Design, Infra, Payments), Product Designer, GTM, more | San Francisco, CA (Onsite)
We're building payment rails for AI agents; fully-owned rails across traditional banking and stablecoins, and the full set of funds flows that AI agents need to transact in the real world with businesses, consumers, and other agents (wallets, pay, request, credit, billing, and more).
We've raised from some of the most well-known operators in fintech & payments to shape how agents interact with the economy, from scratch.
Pocket operator (particularly the KO) is the single thing other than maybe the OP-Z that I think has enough creative utility relative to its price to not feel like glorified furniture.
I agree with the premise, but it's quite painful in practice constantly probing and prodding for justification and explanation -- especially because _even with_ the justification, explanation, etc, one's mental map / the "topology" of the thing being built is only very loosely being populated as a result of the conversation. I say this having continuously tried to find a way to keep my learning rate comparable to if I was writing the code myself, and having somewhat failed.
I'm starting to wonder if the thing to address is the anxiety itself rather than the "fuzziness about the code" that creates the anxiety - and more explicitly model myself as an engineering and/or product manager counterpart to these things. I wonder how non-IC EMs/PMs do it - it seems maybe fundamentally anxiety-inducing? – but they _do_ do this already (tolerate the fact that the underlying technical system is not fully within their grasp).
TL;DR in this announcement seems to match: more control over rewards/yield (both in entitlement _to_it, and in the ability to customize the portfolio that generates it).
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/krrishd; my proof: https://keybase.io/krrishd/sigs/BnqnMzUAaGiBIIVEeDyIZ5uOhuk366T_rEsL0tjp4ac ]