Ivan on Tech analyzes Trump's Iran war speech, the $270M Drift Protocol hack, and crypto market conditions
Ivan on Tech (Ivan) delivers a solo live stream covering geopolitical market impacts, a major DeFi exploit, AI coding security risks, and crypto chart analysis.
Summary
Ivan opens by analyzing oil prices as the key indicator of whether financial markets believe the Iran conflict is truly winding down — arguing that despite Trump's public statements that the war is nearly over, rising oil prices tell a different story. He notes that prominent Trump supporters, including Alex Jones, are publicly expressing disillusionment with Trump's direction. Ivan then covers the $270 million hack of Drift Protocol on Solana, warning his audience against DeFi lending yields and explaining how two signers were socially engineered into pre-signing malicious transactions. He also discusses the leaked Claude Code source code, the Axios npm supply chain attack, and the broader risks of AI-generated code in production environments. The stream closes with chart analysis of oil, gold, yields, and a Binance-listed token Ivan flags as a likely insider pump.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Oil Price as the Real War Indicator
Ivan: As you can see right now, oil is pumping — through the roof. This is, of course, after Trump's speech, which we will analyze. And Bitcoin is back towards 66K, having gone all the way to approximately 69 yesterday, because people were expecting Trump to de-escalate the conflict, to come out and say that the war is over, that we're pulling out. Instead, we got something else entirely, and it is directly reflected in the oil price.
The oil price is the indicator to look at. This is the most important chart in the world. I keep repeating that, but it is also the chart to see whether the world — the economics — think that the war is over or not. This is important because you may have talking heads, Trump people in the media, saying that the war is over, that we won, that Iran is obliterated, decimated. Trump is saying every day that the war is done. But when you see where people are putting their money, where people are doing something with their hard-earned money, they're not betting on that at all. Instead, we are seeing oil continue to go up.
This is, of course, putting pressure on Bitcoin, on stocks, on everything. And likely we will see escalation in the coming days, because Trump now has four days — Good Friday, the stock market is going to be closed, then Saturday, Sunday, and then Monday. Bond markets will close early at 2 p.m. on Thursday as well. So basically he has one extra day. One extra day to do something. Trump wants the market to go up, and if he can have one extra day where he can go heavy on Iran, do something quickly — it's never going to be quick, but he can try. Likely we're going to see something starting tomorrow. So if escalation is to happen, I think it's in the coming days.
Trump's Speech: What He Actually Said
Ivan: Now, the Trump supporters really did not like the current situation with the war. We will soon watch Alex Jones, our good old friend. But before that, let's just summarize what Trump said.
He basically yet again said that we won the war, but still the war will last two or three more weeks. I don't know if he said the same thing last week — it's always two to three weeks away. It's kind of like the Lightning Network, guys. Lightning Network is always 18 months away from being mass adopted. We've been speaking about it since 2020. Since 2020, Lightning Network on Bitcoin has always been 16 to 18 months away from getting fully adopted. And this war is always two to three weeks from being fully done.
Next, he says power plants get bombed if no deal is reached. Core objectives are close to completion — they're always close to completion. The US will bring Iran back to the Stone Age. America won't import oil from Hormuz in the future, so even if the US leaves, you will have a big issue with oil anyway, because now the other countries have to step in and fight for Hormuz. And Iran's navy is gone — but they don't need a navy. That's the thing. They send cheap drones. This is when he keeps saying the navy is gone, the air force is gone — I get a bit nervous, because it's like he doesn't speak the truth about the asymmetric warfare, where no one really cares about navy or air force. It's all about the small drones. Boom. Just destroying different facilities in the Gulf, obviously attacking ships as well. It's all about asymmetric warfare, not big fat ships.
Anyway, you see here — this is not de-escalation. This is in fact escalation. Preparing the nation, having a speech to the nation saying listen, we need to take care of this, within two to three weeks we should be gone. Pete Hegseth is saying on Twitter we're going to get Iran back to the Stone Age. So I don't know if this is de-escalation, guys. He just tweeted "back to Stone Age." Is that de-escalation?
Financial markets are not seeing this as de-escalation at all. If you are in the US, let me know what's happening there. But yeah — back to the Stone Age. Hopefully it will all be over just like a bad dream and we can get back to a peaceful situation in the world.
For now though, you see yourself — oil is the way it is. Until oil does anything except go up, until oil goes into a bear trend, this pressure on stocks and this pressure on Bitcoin is likely to continue.
Stock Market and Macro Chart Check
Ivan: If we look at the stock market — S&P 500, clear bear trend, trying to get back above the 50-week, using it currently as resistance. Let's see how the week closes, but it fell off a cliff basically since the bear trend broke. The same thing with NASDAQ — also since this break of support a week ago or so, a big fat cliff.
So yeah, stocks are not going to do too great while oil is high. If oil goes down, stocks are going to pump bigly, because then you will have a discussion about rate cuts again. Discussions about rate cuts are now not present — they're not in this room with us at all. But if oil goes down, then yes, then they can focus on rate cuts and stimulation and everything that was in store for 2026 and 2027 in terms of stimulating the market.
Alex Jones Breaks with Trump
Ivan: Guys, let's go to Alex Jones.
Alex Jones: "I am sick to my stomach and horrified at the change in Trump, and just wounded and sad and upset, because I have been so satisfied and so proud of what Trump's been through and what he's done and how far we came together. And it was a pleasure to stand with him and be persecuted right alongside him. And I still respect Trump for all that. And I still believe he is at heart a good man. But whether it's mental exhaustion or whatever it is, or who's around him, he's making more and more big mistakes. There's still a lot of good going on, but quickly Trump is moving away from his main mission. And on the current trajectory, he'll be Barack Obama in a few months if he continues this slide in policy, turning into a globalist Democrat."
Ivan: The globalist, guys. You can watch the full thing on his Twitter. But it's just interesting that Trump supporters are one by one — at least when it comes to the podcaster class — moving away. I don't know how it is with the regular mom and pop on the ground in the US. Let us know in the comment section what you guys think, because obviously this wasn't the plan. It should be no war, low tax, and good for crypto. Control the border, tough on crime — that was the whole idea. Now it's something else.
And it's okay. It's okay to not support something if it's something else. I mean, some people they lick the boss's donut no matter what, and I don't think that's good. If the plan is not the plan, we need another one. We need another public servant. At the end of the day, the president is a public servant — an employee of the state, to do what was promised.
Anyway, guys, let's not get too much into that. But it's clear that the pressure is on Trump to deliver — either to stop it, or to win, or what the hell. Not too good of a position to be in with this pressure. And look at the oil price. Forget the politics. Just look at the oil price. You want a simple answer? Look at the oil price. That's it. Despite the politics, whether you like this invasion or conflict or not — forget that. Let's unite instead around the oil chart. There you're going to get the answer.
Trump on Daycare: "We're Fighting Wars"
Ivan: Oh yeah, and something else. Trump may actually — despite the pressure — like this kind of Age of Empires thing, because he's a bit annoyed when people ask him about daycare and Medicare and all other stuff. He wants to do the Age of Empires. Listen to this.
Trump: "Because the United States can't take care of daycare. That has to be up to a state. We can't take care of daycare. We're a big country. We have 50 states. We have all these other people. We're fighting wars. We can't take care of daycare. You've got to let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too. They should pay. They have to raise their taxes, but they should pay for it. And we could lower our taxes a little bit to them to make up. But we — it's not—"
Ivan: Age of Empires. Age of Empires. Like the dudes in power, whether it is in the US or Russia, they love the Age of Empires again — drawing on the map, where is the border, get the border bigger and nicer, get back the stolen lands. It's back to the age of empires.
And listen, we cannot change too much — instead we just adapt to it and trade accordingly, positioning ourselves in the best way possible in this new age of empires. I know guys, if you play Age of Empires — when I was a kid we could play like five hours. Get the elephants in. Get the elephants to destroy the wall. Get that monk to pick up the relic. He goes back to the castle. Good times, man. Good times.
They don't make such games anymore, because it's way more economically advantageous to do some crap attention-grabbing thing like Candy Crush. Just dumb. But it's optimized for your attention — to grab your brain and get it glued to the screen so you swipe and you pay. Gaming has become very much a science where it's clear how to get people hooked, how to get them step by step into your funnel, how to get them to pay, how to target the whales. There are certain people that spend tens of thousands on mobile games — the so-called whales. The art of it has disappeared.
Anyway guys, to summarize: oil is high, Trump is escalating, Bitcoin and stocks don't like it. The path of least resistance is still down for Bitcoin and for stocks. I don't want to give you fake bullishness, but at some point we will turn bullish. Long-term we're still bullish on Bitcoin. It's better that you hear the truth and we adapt in real time as it progresses.
The $270 Million Drift Protocol Hack
Ivan: Now guys, let's switch gears. Let's speak about Solana, because Solana has a big hack right now — $270 million gone from Drift Protocol. It's one of the biggest DeFi protocols.
And this is why, guys — sometimes you ask me, "Hey Ivan, what do you think about DeFi this, DeFi that? What do you think about lending on DeFi?" You remember one or two days ago someone asked me this, and also last week someone asked me this on our Bullmania private live stream. Like, what do you think about this yield here? I'm lending my Bitcoin to get some yield, or lending my SOL.
Guys. Not worth it. Not worth it. I've been telling you this. DeFi only makes sense if the yield is very high. Because the problem is in DeFi you get like 4% yield, man — it's US Treasury yield. You can get it in your bank. You can get US Treasury. All brokerages have a US Treasury money market fund. You just go to BlackRock or you put your money in a money market fund and you get 4%. It's called risk-free yield because it depends on the US government's solvency, and basically everyone assumes they're going to be solvent. So that's why they call it risk-free.
And so what are they doing? They are getting hacked bigly right now — $270 million gone. Some people are saying it's an exploit from the team. Let's see. You never know. Don't want to accuse anyone. But what happened was that they got access to the wallets of the team. Apparently the team controlled the funds. They never say it's the team — they always say it's a decentralized council. Basically they needed two guys to click accept. Decentralized governance, decentralized council, grand council — two guys had to press a button, money gone. All money gone. $270 million gone. Just two guys.
Now some people are saying it was a private key exploit. Some other people are saying — which seems more correct — that this wasn't a private key exploit, but they got phished. They got socially engineered to sign things — basically pre-signed transactions. The first transaction got pre-signed a week ago already. And because it was pre-signed, the hacker just held it and waited for the second signer to sign. So within this week, he got two signatures basically via social engineering.
Because it just happened, there are not too many details. But the main theory now is that somehow he got two guys in the grand council to sign transactions and they didn't know what they signed. It could have been that you send them to a fake website that looks like, I don't know, Jupiter, but it's not Jupiter — where you get them in a malicious way to click yes on their wallet and they think they're doing one thing but they're doing something else. It's possible to do a fake website. There are many different ways to do it.
So that's the main theory now, and yeah — $270 million just gone. Whether it's DeFi or CeFi — I mean, how is it DeFi if this can happen? How is it DeFi? I don't know, guys, you tell me.
Now, who is the founder of Drift? It is this lady who said basically: "Today has been an extraordinarily difficult day for Drift. I'm incredibly grateful for the outpouring of support from the community. This is a brief interim report ahead of a full postmortem. Drift has been working around the clock with partners, exchanges, and security firms to understand what happened and respond quickly."
Earlier today, a malicious actor gained unauthorized access to Drift Protocol through a novel attack involving durable nonces — this is the way on Solana to pre-sign transactions — resulting in a rapid takeover of the Drift security council. It was two guys, guys. I mean, what kind of council? They got two guys. This was a highly sophisticated operation. What they should have written here is: "rapid takeover of the two guys who could steal all funds." That's the truth.
"Drift security council administrative powers" — it sounds so complex and bureaucratic, like they hacked the US nuclear codes or something. I mean, it was just two guys. They didn't hack Fortnox. They hacked two guys. "This was a highly sophisticated operation that appeared to have involved multi-preparation and stage execution, including the use of durable nonce accounts to pre-sign transactions that delayed execution. This was not a bug in Drift's code. No evidence of compromised seed phrase."
So the two guys got hacked and they signed. It's a hard day for everyone involved. Big shout out to you, strength to you, big love to you. But if you are in our community, I hope you're not part of this, because I've been telling you to stay away from DeFi lending. You get a few percent, man. Get freaking US Treasury. You get 4 to 5%, zero risk. That's it.
This DeFi where you lend something — I don't know, man. The reward needs to be very high. The yield needs to be super high for that to make sense. If you get below 10%, don't even think about it. If you get below 20% — but then if it's too high, it's also suspicious that it's some kind of Ponzi. So overall, it's just not my cup of tea. DeFi in this decentralized way makes sense for swapping — there I know exactly how it works. This lending stuff, man, I don't like it. If you want yield, you need treasuries. Everything else, for my taste, is too risky.
The Hacker's Trail and Circle's Failure
Ivan: Now they are saying the hacker is smart. But then he's also not smart, because the Drift hacker is KYC'd on Backpack. So he used a KYC account. Maybe it's a KYC account but not his account — someone else's account. Maybe he paid someone to do KYC on Backpack. You can easily do that. And then yeah, you can use their account.
And he also used stablecoins — USDC, USDT — which can be blacklisted. And that feels very amateur for this level of hack. So he used a KYC account, even if it's not his account — there's still a connection. They have a lead. They have a trail here.
He used stablecoins. Maybe he was afraid of the volatility in Solana. Maybe he watched our clip where Solana is going to 30. He's like, "Holy crap, I cannot hold Solana. Let me do stablecoins." I don't know, guys. But the thing is — he was successful. He was successful because apparently USDC — Circle — was taking a coffee at that point in time. Circle was asleep while many millions of USDC was swapped via cross-chain CCTP from Solana to ETH. Circle missed the whole thing and did not freeze anything, according to ZachXBT.
Solana Price Outlook
Ivan: Speaking about Solana going to 30 — guys, will Solana go to $30? Many people are asking that. Here's the truth. Looking at the chart, the danger is still that we go to 30. But if we go to 30, guys, we buy with all the money we have. Chances are Solana is going to go back to 200 to 300 in the coming year. And buying at 30 is going to be a fantastic opportunity.
Chart Roundup: Oil, Gold, Yields, Google
Ivan: Okay guys, let's check a few charts. We did check oil already — this thing continues to moon, meaning that escalation in the Middle East is likely according to financial markets. It is now at 108.
GSG — let's see how this one opens. Oh my god, guys. GSG moves higher yet again. It's going to open very high, above 33 according to pre-market. No pump in stocks until this thing goes bare. GSG is another chart you can check. This one is like oil but it is tradable. What do I mean? Oil day-to-day is super volatile — Trump says this, Trump says that, oil is super volatile, you will be stopped out very quickly. GSG, the reason why I like this one more for trading, is because it is mainly oil — it's an ETF where they have mainly oil, like 70% is oil and other energy commodities, and then 30% is other commodities. So you don't have these crazy swings back and forth. This one is a more stable, tradable chart.
Gold — derping here in bear trend. Silver also derping here on bare, trying this support again, now it's resistance, likely to get rejected.
Yields — coming down. Nothing too crazy happening with yields. They went up a bit, now they're down a bit. Meaning that the financial world does not think we're going to hyperinflate, guys. This is how you see whether people are expecting big inflation — because if the yields don't go up a lot, it means no problem. If the yields go up a lot, it means that people are dumping bonds, financial institutions are dumping bonds, yields go up. If you dump bonds, if bonds decrease in price, the yields go up because yield is a fixed dollar amount. So if the price of the bond goes down and it prints a fixed dollar amount, that fixed dollar amount is now a higher percentage of the price. Go Google this — if you guys don't understand how bonds work, you should really Google it, because most people don't. They know stocks, they know crypto, but they don't understand bonds. You should really do a bit of research. Maybe I will record a video about it separately. But you should understand what yields are — it's very important because it literally tells you what the world thinks about the US financially.
So for example, when gold goes through the roof and you see many people saying, "Oh, now it's going to hyperinflate, silver is now going to be the new currency" — you don't understand what's happening if you don't see the yields. Because if the yields are stable, it means it's fine, guys. No one is really worried. It's only your Twitter feed trying to bring panic and get engagement from you. That's the only one who's worried.
Everything is quite stable here with the bond stuff, with the yields.
Google — guys, Google is coming here to the 250 or so, to the 50-week moving average. It had a bit of a pump, but listen, it's in bear trend. It broke down from this support here. And now we're going to head right here. And if it actually goes down now, this would be like just a retest of this breakdown, and then down from there.
Q&A: Claude Code Leak and AI Security
Ivan: Okay, let's go to Q&A. Thoughts on the Claude source code leak. So as far as I know, the Claude source code is not leaked, but what they leaked was the Claude Code source code — basically the app for coding. I don't think it really matters too much. Let me double check. Yeah, exactly — Anthropic leaked Claude Code source code. It's the code of the app that uses Claude AI for coding. I don't think it really matters, because this space evolves so quickly. You have Claude Code source code — I mean, they literally built it in a weekend using Claude. So Claude built Claude Code, which is an app that you use in order to code with Claude. But this thing develops so fast. You need new features all the time. So this version of Claude Code — it's not relevant in a few months. And also it's like a shell around Claude basically. So I don't think it really matters, but it became a big thing on Twitter.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but from my technical perspective — being a computer scientist, as you know, yours truly is a highly educated person, a computer scientist, been a full-time developer before crypto, that's why it's called Ivan on Tech, many people don't know that — based on my professional assessment of the situation, it's okay.
It just pushes them to implement a new version even faster. Yes, exactly.
Oh yeah, by the way — did you see the Axios hack? It had a bigger effect on the industry. Yes, yes, yes. So look here — the Axios hack is very serious because it's a network library that is used by literally everyone. Everyone who is using npm and Node.js installs Axios like the first thing they do to make a web request. So it's everywhere. And that library somehow got taken over on npm, and the malicious version was pushed that basically steals crypto and other stuff.
That's why when you code using dependencies such as npm dependencies, you always have to specify the version so your build pipeline does not auto-upgrade to new versions which may be vulnerable. And in crypto I see many applications using this technology — npm, Node, and JavaScript — because with this technology people build the front end, people build the back end, people also build mobile apps, people build desktop apps using Electron, the wrapper around Chrome to make desktop apps using web technologies. So basically it's everywhere — the full stack from back end to front end to mobile to desktop. So it is quite serious.
Now it became very big news very quickly. That's good that it got discovered quickly. So I think most people that have a brain and have some kind of product should have fixed it by now. But yeah, it just shows that dependency hell is quite serious. Supply chain attacks are quite serious, especially now that AI is going to be used more for pushing code. We need even more AI to check the security of the code.
I think we have to use AI — there's no option not to use AI. It's too good. We shouldn't use less AI, we should use more AI. But we also should have AIs checking the code. And these AIs that check the code need to have fully separate context — they need to be fully separated from the AI that does the code, because the AI that does the code is too deep into its context. That's why you need separate AIs checking. Anyway, let's see how that all evolves — this whole industry is new. Coding with AI, checking with AI — there are no best practices yet. But I think we're going to see more and more of this.
Let me actually see the result of this Axios hack. What happened? Did they fix it? Okay, so this was a few days ago already. Attacker hijacked an elite maintainer's npm account, swapped the email to an anonymous ProtonMail, bypassed GitHub Actions, and then pushed a new version. I guess it's fixed now — it got so much attention, I guess it's fixed.
What is uncover mode built into Claude Code? When their employees use Claude Code to contribute to open source repos, it's installed to hide the recent — okay, so never include in coding commit messages. There you go. So Anthropic is telling their AI not to reveal that it's an AI when it contributes to open source. You can easily do the same. They call it "do not blow your cover." Also found references to Capybara, the unreleased model that leaked from Anthropic's — yes, as you can see, it's a wrapper around Claude. I don't think they really leaked anything significant here.
Anthropic employees are actively using AI to write open source code, and the AI is trained to pretend it's human. There you go. Yeah, I mean, this is going to lead to some vulnerabilities, 100%. Because in the industry there are no best practices for this. You have to use AI — yes. But let's say you don't use AI. Some other guy is going to use AI and tell the AI to pretend that it's not AI. So AI is here. We have to use AI. But how do we protect against all of these bugs and everything? It's tough, because AI — for this logical thinking — maybe it is too limited still.
I remember like one year ago or so they could not really get the answer right to simple logical stuff — like you have three birds on a tree, one bird disappears, 0.1 bird appears — you give it some math like that and it cannot do it. So how will it analyze code? I don't know. But at the end of the day, code is technically text. That's why AI is so good at creating code, just like it's good at writing stuff. Code is technically text, and LLMs are large language models — that's why they're very good at creating code. But the thing is, code can look correct but still be incorrect. In English it's not like that — if you generate English and it sounds correct, it's correct. But in code, man, it can look correct and still be incorrect because you miss some logical details.
Anyway, that's going to be for the brainiacs to figure out. From my backseat investor perspective, we just need to know the risks. We need to understand that AI is not going to go anywhere, and the brainiacs have to figure it out. Figure something out. If you're a brainiac, figure something out. And we're going to be bullish if you figure something out.
I saw something that Claude remembers every time you swear at it for when it becomes sentient. Exactly. Yeah. So that's another thing — one revelation from the Claude Code hack is that it does log when you swear, and it just removes your swear words from the prompt, but it logs it. And I think maybe in OpenAI it's different, because I also read that swearing at it makes it more serious — it makes it take the task more seriously. And I've actually seen that in action, that if you're angry at it, it actually performs better. But the thing is, models change so quickly. Maybe it's not like that anymore. But in the past it was one of these prompt engineering hacks where you say, "Hey, this is important for my project, please do it properly," and it gives you some garbage. You tell it very harshly that it's very important for your project, and then it does it correctly.
Because AI is also lazy. If you work with them long enough, you understand — they're freaking lazy. There is inherent laziness. And sometimes it's very dumb and lazy. You ask it to do something, let's say fix some stuff, and it just makes some dumb mistake. Like, wow — you didn't think about that? You didn't think that this would mess the whole project? "Oh no, I did not think." Oh man.
But according to Claude Code — wait, it is from Claude Code that it got leaked. So basically Claude Code removes the swear words from the input to Claude, but if you speak to Claude directly, maybe it's not removed. Maybe that's how it is.
AI Models: Diminishing Returns?
Ivan: What do you think about Claude Mythos? Let me see. This one I actually missed. Okay, so it's some kind of new AI model. Guys, I can tell you one thing — these AI models, they don't become that much better anymore. I'm skeptical. It's not released yet, right? I'm skeptical, guys, because AI models now don't become too much better. It seems that we have reached some kind of plateau.
And all of these AI companies still need to raise money, still need to IPO. So they make up crazy stuff — like "AI super intelligence achieved internally," "AGI achieved" — like they make up all of this, and it sounds reasonable, maybe they get more investment. But in general, the AI industry is not doing well financially. There's an AI bubble. There's big capex — they're spending billions and billions. The revenue is still small, which is insane to me. Why don't they just charge more? I mean, I would pay 10 times more for Claude if they forced me to. As an industry they've just made it so cheap. But yeah, they have the Chinese competition, they have the open source models, so maybe it makes sense.
But you see, all of these announcements — maybe one year ago I would be excited, but now I'm a bit skeptical. It's going to be a bit better likely. Will it be some crazy change? Never say never, but I think that's less likely. I think we are in the area of diminishing returns for AI currently.
Maybe we're going to be blown away. But also, what do you trade based on this? If we connect it to trading — what do you trade based on this? I don't know. I'm skeptical with this new AI stuff.
You know, people are excited about Opus. I mean, it's good. But is it AGI? You remember when Claude Opus released? Everyone was like, "Opus! Opus! Opus!" I mean, it's a bit better. It's a bit better. Yeah, it's nice. It's not bad.
I think now we're kind of in the iPhone 7 era. You know, after iPhone 7, all iPhones are the same. Before it was — oh man. iPhone 1, iPhone 2, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 — holy crap, Retina display, new everything, Siri, new new new. Then iPhone 5, it's taller, oh nice. But then iPhone 6, 7 — the same potato, no difference. Yeah, maybe we're somewhere there in AI. Let's see. Never say never, though. Never be skeptical of tech. I'm not skeptical, but until I see it, I'm just — yeah. Diminishing returns.
AI for Trading Bots and Business
Ivan: What do I think about using AI for programming a trading bot? Broad answer: I think that if you know what you're doing, you can use it, but it's not going to figure things out for you. AI cannot figure things out for you. It's not going to make you a billionaire, broadly speaking, not even a millionaire, and it's not going to make you profit. But if you've read trading books, you have your own ideas, and you want to have them built quickly and tested — then maybe it can help you. But it's not going to figure stuff out for you. Just like you cannot tell it to build a profitable business — "build me a new billion-dollar SaaS" — you need to tell it step by step what to do. Then it can execute. The same thing is with trading.
The only thing that has changed with AI is that it's like you have an employee. Will the employee make you a trillionaire? No. But can you tell it to do research, do a report, do a website, do this, do that? Yes. That's why with AI you actually need to work more. People think that AI makes you work less. No — with AI you work more, because things are done so quickly and you have to use your brain way more. You have to be way more strategic.
The freaking website five years ago would take five dudes yelling at each other. Designer comes with a design. Front-end guy has questions. Back-end guy and front-end guy debate how to do the API. Front-end guy says, "This is an anti-pattern. I don't like the API." API guy says, "No, it's a good API." Then — oh no, API not working. Design is bad. We need a new component. Why is this design not using our existing component? Product manager: "Guys, why is this so slow?" But now all of this hen house — all of this bickering — out of the way. Boop boop boop, AI, boop, working, done. So now as a CEO, you have to use your brain more, because holy crap, this thing normally took you five weeks with all that bickering. Now it's done. So time to use brain again. Next step, next step, next step. With AI you move fast, but you've got to think fast. You've got to use your brain more. Way more.
What do you think about miners moving their compute to AI? I mean, miners are just computers. They have a tough time now in crypto, so they move to AI. Should AI have issues or not be profitable, they'll move somewhere else. But now it's profitable for them to be in AI. Maybe it pumps their stock more to be AI. I think it makes sense — they have computers, they can do what they want with computers, and maybe AI makes more sense right now. When crypto pumps, they're going to be back.
Stone Token: Insider Pump Warning
Ivan: Let's see — Stone. Ah, you mean this one? There you go. It's on Binance. Let me check volumes. Some things are going through the roof. Let's see. Oh yeah, I mean this one. Didn't Binance say that they will not allow this crazy market making? Yeah. I mean you see yourself — really pushed up the price here. Yeah. Be careful guys. My verdict here is that this is an insider game. Be super careful. The chart goes from zero to this. Yeah. This is the sheep trap. If you get excited by this, you're the sheep. Can they still pump it to get in more sheep? Yes. But let's see how it actually unfolded here.
You could short it. Yeah, because Bitcoin is still in bear trend. When you have such a big pump, let's say it goes sideways for a while and you see that it's coming back down — that would be more interesting. Let's say in the coming weeks it even goes higher, does something like this. As soon as it's starting to get pulled by gravity, you have something there. Because you listen — this game can be played by everyone, this game of mega pump out of nowhere, market maker pump to get sheep in. It can be played by two people also. Obviously you need the mechanical rules, you need to have a good stop-loss, because if they are able to do this they can stop you out also on the short. But yeah, let's see how this will unfold.
My bet is that you cannot escape gravity in this market. You cannot escape gravity. If Bitcoin has another leg down, this one is going to be affected. And look here — there's not going to be any support on the way down. That's why ideally you want it to be developing a bit, creating the bottom nicely, support this and that. But let's see, guys. Let's see.