Fintech & Personal Finance enthusiast. Head of Product @ Rivo, ex-Yahoo! Finance, Facet, Mint, Personal Capital, Yahoo! , E-Trade & more. DM's open.
California
Joined November 2006
- Tweets4.5K
- Following2.6K
- Followers982
- Likes30K
Pinned Tweet
This is what we are building @TryRivo would love to show it you @chadjanis
Whoever builds this idea first is guaranteed a $1B exit in two years.
@chadjanis just sold Gruns to Unilever for $1.2B. Here is his next top-tier idea that he's giving away for free:
The problem: your paycheck hits your checking account, then you need willpower to allocate it. Put 10% in savings, pay bills, invest, whatever.
Most people FAIL.
The solution: become the distribution layer between direct deposit and your bank account.
Before the money hits your account, it automatically splits:
20% → taxes (sitting in money market until tax season)
25% → rent/car payment/bills
15% → investments
10% → savings
What hits your checking? $500 for groceries
You never see the full amount. You can't fail at budgeting because there's nothing to budget.
This works for businesses too. Founders want guaranteed profit extraction. VCs want forced financial discipline. Everyone buys.
The infrastructure exists and the market is waiting. The first person to build this is getting acquired in 24 months.
@thesamparr @ShaanVP
Vince Maniago retweeted
give a man a fish and you feed him for a day
teach a man to Claude Code and you financially ruin him with distracting side projects for the rest of his life
Vince Maniago retweeted
black pill: enterprises are putting their AI transformation (and the most existential business risk/opportunity of a lifetime) in the hands of their IT department
Vince Maniago retweeted
SF’s Bottom of the Hill will live on under a new owner in 2027, with a longtime patron taking over the business and pledging to preserve its independent spirit, while the original owners will keep the building to help ensure it remains a music venue.
buff.ly/tMHwiZl
Vince Maniago retweeted
Yaxel Lendeborg on his NBA debut:
“That was interesting. I got to see what the NBA’s like, man. Lot of flopping, lot of foul-baiting, lot of crying to the ref. Interesting first game for me, for sure.”
Vince Maniago retweeted
The winners in consumer AI will be whoever solves the highlighted sections on this chart 👇
Privacy and trust concerns usually fade as people find products that add value to their lives
The primary battle right now is against apathy
Vince Maniago retweeted
Niko (my eng partner) and I have been building this out for the past couple of months. One page for the work you're proud of, without the LinkedIn noise. It's simple, it's free. If you make one, we'd love your feedback 🙌
Vince Maniago retweeted
If someone asked me 6 months ago 'what should kids going to uni today study', I wouldn't have a clue.
I now have a clear answer: electrical or mechanical engineering.
There are going to be billions of intelligent robots, sensors and devices of all shapes and sizes, for different purposes.
The diffusion will take over a decade.
The only other field that I would say is worth it is biotech or materials sciences, keeping in mind pretty much all research in the future will be done by AIs.
For everyone else, just go into sales. People like people. You'll get a good skillset anyway.
Vince Maniago retweeted
One falls in love with feeling smart and with the virtue points that come with proclaiming “all I want is to serve my users”.
Vince Maniago retweeted
This is why I don’t think consumer agents will work
The average person could care less about “being more productive”
"Most people aren't looking to save time, they're looking for ways to spend their time."
9 of 15 consumer internet categories have zero AI products in the Top 100. These built some of the biggest companies of the last two eras:
- Streaming
- Social
- Dating
- Gaming
- Travel
- Retail
- Finance
- Real estate
- Jobs
More charts in our Top 100 Consumer AI Apps breakdown: a16z.news/p/top-100-consumer…
Vince Maniago retweeted
my prediction:
personal ai agents won’t monetize through monthly subscription fees.
they’ll monetize by owning the fintech stack and earning revenue every time their users spend money.
Instinct already measures internal performance based on monthly payment volume.
to monetize this they can:
> issue their own Visa credit card
> earn 2-3% interchange on every transaction
> negotiate bulk discounts directly with merchants
> take a percentage of the savings they generate
> earn yield on balances sitting inside the ecosystem
instead of charging you $20/month to use your personal agent, the agent becomes the interface through which you spend thousands of dollars every month.
if your agent books your flights, hotels, restaurants, and everyday purchases, owning the payment layer underneath becomes far more valuable than a $20/month subscription.
the biggest personal ai companies will end up looking less like software companies and more like fintechs.
personal ai agents + fintech will eventually blend into an entirely new category:
agentic finance.
Vince Maniago retweeted
The nation owes a debt to @JGebbia and his excellent team. They worked incredibly hard, with no compensation, to make government services work better for all Americans.
🫡 🇺🇸
Imagine seeing your work announced on the national stage by the world's most gifted speakers, like @SecRubio who introduced our new design for the U.S. Passport, in collaboration with the State Department. National Design Studio is growing! ndstudio.gov/jobs
Vince Maniago retweeted
Built a custom app to manage our family’s to-do’s, meal planning, shopping and general household tasks
I realize now that I’ve built a system for my wife to assign tasks to me and trigger push notification reminders repeatedly until they’re complete
Vince Maniago retweeted
"McConnell would never be allowed to drive a car, babysit young children, or file his own taxes. Why, then, should a cognitively incapacitated 82-year-old retain one of the most important positions of power within the national government," per PublicNotice
Vince Maniago retweeted
The Clarity Act was destroyed by one thing:
-Trump’s greed and corruption.
18 months of bipartisan progress with Dems ready to sign.
Dems wanted an ethics clause.
GOP wanted it only enforceable by Trump’s appointed AG with subjective authority.
That was it.
The one remaining issue.
And ask yourself:
“Should the industry be able to sell to the public under the crypto safe harbor if we can’t agree on a basic corruption clause?”
The answer to any honest person is: No.
Vince Maniago retweeted
Clarity didn't pass because Republicans refused to amend the bill to meet the following requests from Democrats:
1. Make presidents divest large crypto interests or genuinely separate themselves from them. The purpose was to prevent a president from regulating an industry while personally profiting from it. A version of this was backed by both Democrat Ruben Gallego and Republican Thom Tillis.
2. Let state attorneys general enforce the ethics rules against the president. Democrats did not want enforcement to depend entirely on the president’s own Justice Department. The final Republican proposal gave states some power, but Democrats said it still did not clearly let them take direct action against the president.
3. Don't let the Office of Government Ethics simply waive the restrictions. Democrats objected to language that could allow senior officials to keep crypto-business relationships after receiving an ethics-office exemption.
4. Stop presidents and other senior officials from launching or profiting from new crypto tokens while in office. This was aimed at conflicts like a president simultaneously holding office and benefiting from meme coins or crypto businesses affected by government policy. Republicans ultimately accepted substantial restrictions in this area.
Context: Trump’s 2025 financial disclosure reported more than $1.4 billion in income from crypto ventures. The White House says his finances are managed by his children, although Trump remains the beneficiary. So Congress was writing crypto rules while the president had major financial interests in that same industry.
In a nutshell, the argument for Dem's demands was straightforward: someone making the rules shouldn't have a large personal financial stake in the industry being regulated, and the rules shouldn't depend on that person's own administration for enforcement.
So instead of just pointing fingers at Democrats for not passing the bill, why aren’t we asking why Republicans refused to agree to these terms?