I'm chronically ill. This week was a really bad one. I was up for 36 hours straight because my body wouldn't let me rest.
So I did what I always do when I can't stop. I built.
I'm an entrepreneur. I don't do idle well. Lying there doing nothing while my business exists felt worse than being sick. So I opened my laptop and got to work.
I wasn't selling anything. Wasn't shilling crypto. Wasn't even talking about crypto. I was creating a world for people to belong to. A community built on humor and character and something worth showing up for every day.
An intern filing incident reports. A cat submitting sushi orders as official sports coverage requests. Content designed to make people laugh and feel like they found something they weren't supposed to know about yet.
I've been in marketing for over 15 years. I don't need to sell you my product on day one. I need you to see my brand and feel something good when you see it. People remember humor. That's the whole game.
X restricted my account for it. Second time this has happened. Both times because I got too good at the platform and it flagged me for it.
I own the volume. I was awake for 36 hours and I chose to build instead of being miserable. That's who I am. I treat social media like a full time job, surely you remember those early start up days?
But here's my honest question
@elonmusk. If X's head of product advises a competing blockchain ecosystem, what does the appeals process actually look like for a verified crypto adjacent creator flagged as spam?
Not an accusation. Just a structural question that deserves an honest answer.
Appeal's filed. Work continues.