Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...

Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...

Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
>300 subscribers
>300 subscribers
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
I am still trying to figure out what exactly Paulson is proposing, but a few things seem clear. First, people had been misled on a massive scale about the safety of money market funds. Even today the New York Times writes in one of their cover story “ultra-conservative money market funds” – as if. Earlier this year we advised all of our portfolio companies to make sure that the money market funds they were holding did not invest in anything that could turn toxic. Turns out almost all of them were to some degree in money market funds that had exposure to the credit market. For an explanation, see my post from March on “Cash is King – Except When It Isn’t Cash." Second, with a few money market funds beginning to "break the buck” and being forced to temporarily stop withdrawals to allow for an orderly liquidation of their positions we were at the brink of a trillion dollar bank run. This forced the hand of the government to say something about backing money market funds and announce some overall larger plan. Third, once the plan was announced people seemed to conclude that this would at least temporarily stop the downward spiral. Combined with a ban on short selling of financials it produced a huge squeeze on the shorts. In fact, a short examination of yesterday’s rally suggest that many shorts had to trade out of safe stocks to cover their short positions. So on a day with some financials up 20% and more, Clorox was down. Some of the lift for equities may also have come from folks exiting the bond market and heading over to equities fearing that the government action will do to interest rates. It is the potential implications of the latter that are truly scary. More on that tomorrow.
I am still trying to figure out what exactly Paulson is proposing, but a few things seem clear. First, people had been misled on a massive scale about the safety of money market funds. Even today the New York Times writes in one of their cover story “ultra-conservative money market funds” – as if. Earlier this year we advised all of our portfolio companies to make sure that the money market funds they were holding did not invest in anything that could turn toxic. Turns out almost all of them were to some degree in money market funds that had exposure to the credit market. For an explanation, see my post from March on “Cash is King – Except When It Isn’t Cash." Second, with a few money market funds beginning to "break the buck” and being forced to temporarily stop withdrawals to allow for an orderly liquidation of their positions we were at the brink of a trillion dollar bank run. This forced the hand of the government to say something about backing money market funds and announce some overall larger plan. Third, once the plan was announced people seemed to conclude that this would at least temporarily stop the downward spiral. Combined with a ban on short selling of financials it produced a huge squeeze on the shorts. In fact, a short examination of yesterday’s rally suggest that many shorts had to trade out of safe stocks to cover their short positions. So on a day with some financials up 20% and more, Clorox was down. Some of the lift for equities may also have come from folks exiting the bond market and heading over to equities fearing that the government action will do to interest rates. It is the potential implications of the latter that are truly scary. More on that tomorrow.
No comments yet