Artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships, and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate or even simulate, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational, and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. #MagnificaHumanitas

🚨JUST IN: The Clarity Act ADVANCES out of the Senate Banking Committee in a 15-9 bipartisan vote, with two Democrats voting in favor: @SenRubenGallego and @Sen_Alsobrooks. Next stop: the full Senate.

I am surprised more people are not paying attention to this update from Anthropic on its stock policy. This seems like a potential bombshell. There is an active secondary market purportedly in Anthropic stock or derivatives including on fairly reputable (or at least well-known) platforms like Forge. Anthropic is calling them out *specifically*, by name, and essentially *saying* 100% of these are illegal. Some may be frauds (people selling Anthropic stock or interests in Anthropic stock that they don't truly own), but more likely many are legit attempts at transferring Anthropic equity (directly, as SPV shares, or as some type of 'beneficial interest' or future, etc.) Anthropic appears to be saying it will treat all these transfers as void. I don't have access to their terms, but it's very interesting to think what this could mean. Do the 'first purported sellers' in the chain potentially have an opportunity to do a double-dip? Does the first seller and all downstream buyers get the entire entitlement nuked? Anthropic is threatening that--are they just bluffing? If they're not bluffing, what litigation is likely to ensue? This can get into really esoteric areas of corporate law that depend on exactly how the transfer restrictions are drafted as well as the language around how violations of transfer restrictions are treated--for example, if they are merely voidABLE then downstream buyers can assert various equitable claims/defenses, but if they are VOID ab initio then in some jurisdictions that forecloses equitable defenses.

After months in rooms at the WH and Senate, this much is clear: a lot of the public debate overstated the risks and ignored the substance. This outcome preserves activity-based rewards tied to real participation on crypto platforms and networks, which is what the bank lobby said they wanted. We've long believed that this issue did not warrant legislative changes. But whatever-- we’re focused on getting a bill done and are satisifed that this language should not be the basis of any objection. Onward.

There are no more M’s on the University of Arizona’s campus 😭🤣

🚨Trump: We're on track to fully eliminate capital gains tax in 2026

Kalshi has secured a license allowing it to offer margin trading to users, a feature that would make the prediction market platform more appealing to sophisticated institutional investors bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

Zero into Celo & $CELO : zero-in.beehiiv.com/p/celo

We're excited to announce 'The Situation Room' by Polymarket is coming to Washington, D.C. The world's first bar dedicated to monitoring the situation. 🧵