
🏴☠️Shipping everyday. 👉🎮1st check VC @PressStartCap ⏪Previously: X-border @techstars, cofounder/CPO @primacinema, product @unitedtalent, growth&UX @divxllc
🌎
Joined May 2013
- Tweets3K
- Following1.7K
- Followers2.4K
- Likes7K
Steven Meets 👉🎮 retweeted
The new moats are the same as the old moats
Every few years, we fall in love with shiny new tech and forget the basic physics of consumer software.
We’re doing it again with AI.
The new moats aren't new at all. They're the exact same as the old moats: network effects, marketplaces, and platforms.
Right now, consumer AI is booming.
New agents like Instinct, Bot, and Tomo are dropping mind-blowing experiences. The underlying tech is incredible, but almost every product being built today shares the exact same challenge:
They are completely single-player.
Single-player products are 100% tied to value - and in this case mostly agent : model performance.
If a competitor drops an agent tomorrow that books travel faster, tracks habits better, or handles life admin more reliably, everyone can switch overnight because leaving is easy and has nearly zero friction. Especially when it is so easy to onboard with just a new message.
The legendary consumer tech giants didn't win because their underlying technology stayed marginally better forever.
They won because of structural lock-in:
Social Networks: You don't abandon WhatsApp for a prettier UI if your friends aren't there.
Marketplaces: Airbnb, Doordash, and Uber hold supply and demand in a tight loop.
Platforms: Apple and Android deliver you a complete device so you take advantage of the software on top of it (though this creates opportunities too)
Novelty gets you initial distribution.
Multi-user dynamics give you long-term retention.
If your consumer AI product doesn't become exponentially more valuable to User A when User B joins, you don't have a moat, just a temporarily superior feature set.
We are seeing this in the coding agents as people jump from tool to tool based on the best performance.
But… all is not lost. There are huge opportunities here. Agents will get better when more of our friends are on them and can help us coordinate and communicate to do more together. Agents that help us improve and strengthen our habits can get better as we add friends and hold each other accountable.
Data flywheels are great, but social and marketplace flywheels are what actually build enduring tech giants.
It’s time to stop building isolated AI tools and start building the platforms where people connect, transact, and coordinate together.
Steven Meets 👉🎮 retweeted
Today we're standing up XBOX LABS (labs.xbox.com). Here is the note that I sent to the team:
Team,
The first video games emerged some 75 years ago. In the time since, there have been booms and busts, but every year there are more great games to play, more devices to play them, and best of all, more people than ever playing. That growth helped make XBOX what it is today, and we've helped shape the industry in return, from bringing hard drives to consoles and online gaming through Xbox Live to Game Pass and cloud gaming, alongside franchises that have brought millions of people together.
In recent weeks, we've seen games rapidly decompiled and rebuilt to run on hardware they were never originally designed to support. Windows PC builds have been translated to run on Apple Silicon or ported to run inside a browser through WebAssembly and WebGPU, the latter now approaching 90% global browser support. Perhaps more surprisingly, we've seen many of the biggest games in the world have been remixed into the source code of another.
These experiments challenge long-held assumptions about our industry: the tether between software and hardware, the boundary between creation and play, and how people discover and experience games. While it is hard to predict the future of gaming, it is easy to see the possibilities in making great games easier to access, giving old games new life and allowing more players to become creators and co-creators. These are unmistakably good outcomes for players, even when (and sometimes because) they challenge our existing business models.
To explore these possibilities, I’ve asked Scott to stand-up XBOX LABS, a small group of game makers, engineers and scientists whose job is to turn emerging ideas into things our players and developers can experience. We'll build in the open, learn from what people do, and measure success by whether more people are playing and creating.
I think XBOX has an important role to play here. Coding became the first major workload for agents because they can write, run, and test software. Games share many of those same properties, and people spend more than 72 billion hours a year playing XBOX games, roughly five times the estimated time spent writing code worldwide. We've spent 25 years learning how to make great games, and I want our game makers to help shape what these new technologies make possible. As we learn, we’ll share the tools we build with developers across the industry, just as we always have.
Our priorities aren't changing. We remain committed to the 4Cs, to making great games, to our hardware and to being responsible stewards of IP and the communities built around it. LABS gives us a way to explore new technology that is game design led without abandoning the work already underway.
Asha
Steven Meets 👉🎮 retweeted
Absolutely love all these new tutorials on how to create games using AI.
So much of our future of “work” is about to be creating amazing experiences for others.
Games, anime, educational content, shows, books, etc.
here's how to make a cozy fishing game solo with Claude Opus 5.5 + Blender + 3D AI + Unity 6...
the trick is giving every tool one job, but there's a smart way to set it up:
- step 1: generate every 3D model with Tripo Smart Mesh P2: palms, rocks, the pier, the boat, the hut, the character
- step 2: connect Claude Code to Blender through MCP
- step 3: Opus 5.5 sets up each model in Blender: scale, pivots, materials, clean export
- step 4: Opus animates in Blender too: the character's walk, the cast, the rod, the boat on the water
- step 5: bring everything into Unity 6 and build the world: forest, river, waterfall, beach, pier
- step 6: add the systems one at a time: walking, fishing, bait choice, a time of day
- step 7: play it after every step and fix one thing at a time
who does what:
> Tripo: the 3D models
> Opus 5.5 + Blender: setup and animation
> Unity 6: the world and the game
one person, one stack, one game you'd actually want to play
every front end is now a free sample
consumers win: world class ui/ux everywhere from every app
companies adjust: assume every front end is compromised and keep the proprietary brain (data, workflows, know-how, etc) behind the api
the brain goes server side
Steven Meets 👉🎮 retweeted
I've finally invested in enough unicorns (at seed) that I have confidence in the traits unicorn founders have in common.
If you fail to hone these traits, you will fail to build a $1B+ company in my experience.
/ 1. Velocity consists of speed
Matt Loszak from Aalo showed me this the most: The best founders are viscerally uncomfortable with slow progress.
They feel it as a physical irritant, not an abstract concern.
They obsessively refactor how they’re pursuing goals to identify clever shortcuts and rethink their roadmap from first principles.
Speed leads to high momentum and a compounding returns on knowledge and product.
It’s necessary to maintain your headstart in a market, otherwise the faster competitor will beat you within a couple years.
/ 2. Velocity consists of direction
The best founders regularly surface from heads-down execution to ask whether their path is still the right one — whether a better route to the destination has opened up, or whether the destination itself has shifted.
Pathfinding prevents the common failure mode of executing brilliantly in the wrong direction.
It requires intellectual honesty and the willingness to kill plans that no longer make sense.
The best founders set a recurring quarterly calendar event to re-assess all their goals.
/ 3. Mission alignment
The journey to building a unicorn is long.
Without a mission that goes beyond financial outcome, most founders lose steam and start phoning it in. Then they get surpassed by competitors who are hungrier.
The mission doesn't have to be world-saving — but it has to be genuine to you.
/ 4. Asking for advice and integrating it
The best founders ask smart people for advice and implement the good advice immediately. The moment they’re shown a better way, they update their processes.
They don’t assume they’ll stumble into better ways organically; they set aside time each week to learn from others and shortcut their development.
They assemble a counsel of advisors who are the best in the world at what they do and they sell them on the mission.
/ 5. Brick-by-brick hiring
Adam Guild of Owner showed me this the most.
Unicorn founders treat each early hire as weight-bearing. They run a deliberate process to find the best person in the world for each role — not whoever is closest at hand ("hiring within arm's reach") from their existing networks. (Unless they are the best).
The foundation built in the first ten hires sets the ceiling for everything that follows. A single mis-hire in a key seat early on compounds. Getting this right means the team itself becomes a competitive moat.
Steven Meets 👉🎮 retweeted
read the SEC's new crypto assets FAQ
the securities laws are starting to look opt-in now, at least as applied by the SEC to crypto
if you raise money by selling a non-rights-bearing token, are careful about what you represent or promise, and have a functional crypto system, there is now an extremely broad path outside the securities laws--arguably 'functionality' is not even necessary but there's some equivocation on this
the buyback guidance goes further than I expected. once the system is functional, even announcing a token buyback *program* (which I guess even could be a 'perpetual program') does not, in the staff's view, constitute a promise of essential managerial efforts. same for promises to improve the system or grow its network effects
so you can retain enormous influence over the thing, keep developing it, support its price with buybacks (including under a permanent "program"), and get many of the benefits of having a public investment instrument, without giving holders the rights or protections that normally come with one
they have opened a loophole in a regulatory regime whose whole point was supposed to be that you couldn't draft your way around economic reality (see e.g. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…)
can't really say if this is good or bad, but VCs etc. got a lot of what they wanted & the market should absorb all the implications of this
among others, I am growing skeptical how much of a 'long tail' there will be for tokenized equity. . .if you can get people to buy a coin in the style of BNB, HYPE, PUMP, etc., with minimal regulation, why voluntarily take on the burdens of selling them equity? if you are not mag-7 level, it doesn't seem there would be much reason to focus on equity securities for your capital-raising. . . if you want to access 'traditional buyers' you can wrap the token in an equity instrument like an ADR for those institutions. . .
the obvious next question is how far this extends beyond crypto businesses. can an ordinary company attach a functional token to its business and apply 100% of its profits to discretionary buybacks, without giving holders any right to those profits or making representations about future business efforts that independently trigger Howey? the FAQ doesn't expressly resolve that, but it opens a pretty enormous door
equity still gives investors something a discretionary buyback token doesn't. . .the question is whether the market will pay enough for those rights to make granting them worthwhile. otherwise the incentive is to keep the equity for insiders and sell everyone else the coin
crypto's current focus on hyping tokenized equity may be misguided, the bigger trend is "get all the benefits of equity with none of the burdens"
of course this is SEC guidance, not a repeal of the statutes or a command to the courts. a private plaintiff or a future SEC could have other ideas
but did not think I'd see it in my lifetime. . .the securities laws are being "disrupted" in substantial part by incentivizing making fewer commitments to investors. and if Warren Dems eventually take control and try to undo all this, after an entire market has organized around it, the resulting chaos will be something to behold
sec.gov/about/divisions-offi…
“AI is not a mirror. It is a magnifier of your present state, moment by moment.
If you think clearly and prioritize shipping and learning, you get 10x of that.
If you keep thinking and not shipping, you get 10x of that.”
Steven Meets 👉🎮 retweeted
Amazon cuts off Muse.
While I am bullish Meta and Muse, I think many people are overlooking the digital knife fight that’s about to occur
Nobody wants to get commoditized or layered here. Let the games begin
Steven Meets 👉🎮 retweeted
I don't think the tokenization story is well understood - so let's break it down
Basically - the US Government is in vast, unprecedented amount of debt. And its long term debt is selling off a lot (40%+ over 5 years) - while Gold is up 140%. Gold has crossed US treasuries as the #1 asset held by other Central Banks.
The buyers for US debt - China, Japan and Europe are stepping away for different reasons. Geopolitical conflict. Currency related. Political difference.
The government is afraid of running out of buyers for its debt. And it's worried about the liquidity of markets. Historically, this concern is much worse when the Fed is hiking and there's high inflation. As typically the response to unstable debt markets is easing (buying debt).
Therefore, the US government is very incentivized to allow Stablecoins. Stablecoins hoover up US debt. Tether has different balance sheet behavior than banks and works closely with the US government.
Stablecoins used to be assumed to be criminal operations and were prosecuted by the USG. Now they're welcomed to Washington DC.
When you are worried about your reserve currency status, you also want to ensure the dollar is accepted in many places. So stablecoins not only serve as a buyer of US debt, but a promoter of the US dollar globally.
Enter CBDCs. Europeans see the US government promoting US dollar stablecoins as a matter of foreign policy. Visa and Mastercard going heavy in the space. And see Tether freezing Balances along with the DOJ and say, "We cannot have this. We don't want Trump to be able to use the US dollar in negotiations with us. Therefore we have to digitize our currency"
Europe and the UK also have fiscal and political problems. So the perverse incentive to digitize their currencies is not just to ensure 'monetary sovereignty' but also to potentially implement wealth taxes, or balance based transaction taxes. This is also the flip side of wide adoption of US dollar stables. We don't call it a CDBC, but its basically an extension of the government. Balances are frequently frozen. Other policies could be implemented under the left.
So rising global debt -> US support of stables -> pressure on Europe to do CBDCs to respond.
The US is then incentivized to grow the stablecoin market as fast as possible. Stablecoin's usage is primarily driven by speculation. Holding it as collateral for perpetual swaps. Keeping it on exchanges.
The problem: crypto doesn't have lots of good assets to trade. Bitcoin has been very volatile. Most altcoins collapsed. This slowed the growth of the Stablecoin market, which has basically flatlined year to date. Scott Bessent wanted us to be going at 40-50% CAGR not 0.
The question then, is how to create appealing speculative markets. The answer: on chain stocks, and prediction markets.
Big picture, if you want a lot of stablecoin balances. You need to have good things to trade. Over the past 6 months the 2x leveraged Micron ETF traded more than Bitcoin in dollar terms. Trade XYZ launched commodities, and stocks and commands a large % of volume on hyperliquid. Prediction markets are growing fast.
The losses incurred by retail investors in these markets are substantial. They are allowed for the same reason Casinos are allowed on Native American reservations. Necessary evil due to funding pressure and the geopolitical factors I described above.
This is, at a high level, why we are talking about crypto in the middle of a war with Iran. And why its' consuming the executive department's attention. The US Dollar is ultimately a matter of national security.
This is true regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are in power. Both have debt and spending addictions. Both are reliant on the US Dollar.
But now zoom out: what do you have? You have a bunch of governments adopting digital ledger technology in the middle of a war. Freezing peoples balances. People don't want their balances frozen. They don't want it to be subjected to a wealth tax.
Enter Z Cash. Over the past 5 years, ZK technology has improved substantially allowing fast, private transactions. Orchard and Halo since 2022 evolved from something Niche to something usable. The EU tried to ban Monero. Exchanges delisted it. Its price increased.
Z Cash is open source. Vitalik is also prioritizing adoption of ZK technology on ETH. You can move ETH relatively privately on Railgun already - but real private transactions are on the roadmap.
ZK proofs can be accelerated by GPUs. Due to the AI boom, the number of people with access to GPUs and agents capable of accelerating proofs has skyrocketed. Not only can this technology facilitate private transactions but also proofs of reserves that allow trustless accounting for portfolios. This tech is commonly used at crypto exchanges to prove reserves, and algo stables such as Ethena.
Thus - it's not just that we are set to own a bunch of shielded Z cash, as a base asset. It's that you can swap anything on ETH privately. Including stables. Relatively soon. And you can do so for provable reserves.
Privacy is incredibly important for large institutions doing financial transactions. They're not concerned with the tax authorities, but rather front running. Slippage. And people hunting their positions or slow moving exits.
Many big institutions own multiple days of volume in equities that could drop the price 30%+ if the market sniffed out they were selling. And intervene in FX markets, routinely interacting with banks fined billions of dollars for illicitly trading ahead of their flows.
So a meaningful increase in tokenized trading volume inherently will require privacy. As real institutional counterparties require it. Retail is a great market and is less privacy sensitive, allowing initial growth. But for the big players to enter -- you need that.
It's not just trading desks that care about privacy. You cannot run corporate treasury functions publicly. People could sniff out that you're doing M&A, or figure out what you're doing -- giving up competitive positioning unnecessarily. At the same time blockchains can offer corporations major cost savings for finance functions. It's estimated - for example, that a properly implemented CBDC could save companies in Germany billions of dollars a year in corporate finance banking fees.
There are three basic approaches to Privacy. Z cash style. Private, permissionless neutral chain. Canton style: basically segregated databases that interact with each other on chain as little as possible with a permissioned validator set. And private blockchains - which simply deal with the issue by not having a public ledger or bolted on cryptocurrency people are tracking
The argument for a permissionless neutral chain (aka a cryptocurrency) winning is that
1. there's no real reason to trust a banking consortium (i.e. what Canton does)
2. governments hate each other and are only doing CBDCs out of geopolitical pressure in a realpolitik environment. we wouldn't be here if Trump wasn't antagonizing Europe and Canada wasn't talking about joining the EU
3. the tech exists, so why would you want a counterparty in between things if you don't have to
The world in which crypto loses would be that governments come to an accord about how to do this. China and the US maybe resolve differences. Nationalism subsides. And people say, "You know what, the externalities of all this gambling and absurd crypto shit are not really worth it - we should just have a consortium of nations and corporations for a global CBDC"
There is another world where crypto loses. The debt problems go away bc we enter an age of productivity and abundance. In my opinion, the reason AI people hate crypto so much natively is that crypto is a bet AGI isn't the economic Hail Mary it's marketed as.
regardless, we are in neither of those worlds right now. But crypto hasn't done great either. Why?
The big problem with crypto, from a valuation standpoint, is that it has never been clear how you pay for all the validators or miners without a block subsidy. And the only coherent way that happens is that on-chain volume, swaps, and trading 5-10xes.
The way that you get there is that high quality assets get tokenized and traded. But probably less understood is that an entire swathe of new assets hit the blockchain, and defi functions like borrowing and looping create carry trade and FX trading opportunities. So rather than pendle looping Ethena, you have looping with RWAs. This already exists to some extent in niche markets like Brazilian credit card debt (looped 28%+ APY) but is relatively tiny.
Just on this example, you might immediately say "that has huge FX risk", and you'd be right. Which brings a natural demand for FX hedging. Which will hit after you get internationalized RWAs on chain. Which will occur naturally after corporate finance functions hit CBDCs.
So you have a sort of promethean progression:
0. bitmex and native perp yield
1. weird crypto yield / credit risk [low quality pre FTX era]
2. ethena (systematized perp yield)
3. defi/aave/ pendle etc (levered yield)
4. on-chain stocks
5. on-chain perps
6. leveraged stock vs perp yield
< we are here >
7. private stock trading
8. institutional lending
9. direct corporate bond or equity issuance (USD)
10. CBDC facilitated corporate finance (EUR, GBP, NOK)
11. permissionless private fx swaps
<the promethean explosion>
12. looped international corporate fixed income
Note that the entire time I've talked so far, AI hasn't really been mentioned. AI makes all of this easier. The most concrete example is that the Norgesbank is vibe coding their CBDC with Claude. But more profoundly - eventually agents will be able to trade assets directly on chain.
investment management is becoming increasingly agentic already, with every major lab launching finance products. And banks rapidly adopting AI across workflows.
By the time you get to step 9 on the table above, there will likely be investable AI agents. Perhaps in gated jurisdiction. But there will be a new primitive of an agent with a verified balance, and business model that you can buy. The same way you'd buy a stock or subscribe to a vault, or hedge fund.
I think Step 9 (companies choosing to issue straight on chain) is therefore the most important thing to monitor given the sh1t show with Robinhood's CEO and AMC. Tokenized representations of stocks have major legal risk, and ADRs (American Depository Receipts) as an asset class have quite an ugly history of being banned or depegging (most recently YNDX just straight up went to 0 when Russia went into Ukraine). For you to get really clean on chain stocks, and fixed income that can be effectively looped for yield, you need the credit risk of the actual underlying legal structure to be very low.
You'll also want to see a proliferation of privacy and ZK accounting products take hold that interact with OTC trades, portfolio swaps, and FX as CBDCs come online. That's the boring bridge to the eventual wild future everyone was envisioning in 2023 where we have a bunch of Accelerando esque corporations existing entirely on chain, compounding capital and investing in their own training
The Track to Financial RSI is paved with Fomo, hyperliquid, gambling on Robinhood and seemingly irresponsible regulatory actions. At least, it seems mad until you consider the alternative. Illiquidity. And currency failure.
You can complain about Trump's ethics. You can stop Clarity. But the crazy train has already left the station. All aboard! It's not like you have a choice.
Steven Meets 👉🎮 retweeted
One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that the startup everyone expects to win often doesn’t. A lot of the time, the winner is some team nobody was paying attention to. Probably why venture is so humbling.
Make something agents want
introducing anydoc
now your agents get 100x faster local parsing for pdf, docx, pptx & 10 more formats
- sub-5ms md conversion
- 500 docx files in 1.7s
- top quality across all 13 formats
- rust-based
- open source
already powering @firecrawl /parse
github.com/firecrawl/anydoc
Steven Meets 👉🎮 retweeted
Replying to @petergyang
I'd say that anything that falls under the "Entertainment" category fits this. And given the blending of what is a show/movie and an interactive experience, combined with personalization - that AI enables...I think there's going to be new formats that are a blend of where the lines have traditionally been drawn - but as long as it entertains a person, that won't delegate.
Steven Meets 👉🎮 retweeted
AI transformed coding, science is next
@ReactorfieldAI makes scientists and deep tech startups AI-native
Built by me and @berkbuilds to accelerate science with frontier AI
Steven Meets 👉🎮 retweeted
Replying to @jarradgrigg
The getting the three-ball, not being able to handle it, and going straight back to a single ball is so painfully relatable.
Steven Meets 👉🎮 retweeted
“Social networks created a big-bang moment in sociology.”
@Tim_Roughgarden on why blockchains could do the same for political science:
“You could study these age-old questions in sociology at a completely different scale and in a completely more automated way than you could previously.”
“I think blockchains, on the political science side, are doing that same kind of unlock — where you can study different voting systems and get data about them at a scale and with an ease that was never before possible.”
@MTSlive






















