Sofia @sofiacolee

@max_2975 The wildest part is the 21 days of open access and 14 million lookups without a single alert. The password was bad, but nobody watching the logs is worse.

@ruriqzzz Wow

Let’s gooooo , meme coins put food on my table.

My goal-to pay off my debts and earn a stable income on Axiom—has been achieved. Thank you to everyone who has supported me and continues to support me. Here are my links: Trade with me with the lowest fees: axiom.trade/@ruriqzzz Tg: t.me/ruritradee Twitch: ruriqzzz

$200 → $34,000 in one day. On a memecoin that didn’t exist that morning. On Sunday, a photo went viral. A guy named Pierre, standing in his looted game shop in Nice after the French riots. Broken glass at his feet. A Goku poster peeling off the wall. By noon, someone had turned him into a coin: $PIERRE. Market cap: $9,700. One trader, wirelyss, bought in at $6,310 market cap with $200. 9 hours later, $PIERRE hit $1.5M. That’s 155x. His $200 turned into $34,000 profit. The play wasn’t a chart. It was attention. Viral image → ticker → being early before the crowd sees it. But here’s what nobody screenshots: 📉 69% of Pump.fun wallets in the last 30 days lost money 📉 Only 3.2% made more than $500 📉 20+ copycat $PIERRE tokens launched at the same time 📉 The coin is already ~27% off its peak No team. No product. No link to the real Pierre. For every wirelyss, thousands of people are his exit liquidity. Would you have aped in at $6K? 👇

@JohanesSuryaK Live signals, small real positions while I test it. Not scaling until there’s enough data to trust it.

My AI trading desk looked at 1,284 pairs and took 1 trade. That's the whole point. 8 agents. Every one of them can say no. Only one can say yes. → CRAWLER reads the news and on-chain flows → SCAN finds 3 setups out of 1,284 → VET kills 2: one spread too wide, one with news in 40 minutes → QUANT prices what's left: 0.42% edge after fees → SIZE caps it at 4% of the balance → RISK sets the worst case before entry → CHIEF says ENTER only after 7/7 checks pass Every "$100 → $60,000 overnight" post you saw this week skipped the part where the bot can also lose $60,000 overnight. The edge isn't in finding trades. It's in killing them. What you're watching is a simulated demo of the desk, not a real result. Next: I run it on a $100K paper account for a week and post the full log, wins, losses and every rejected trade. Which of the 8 would you fire first?

@tonyprediction VET is the reason the account still exists 😂 Every great trade starts with two bad ones getting killed.

@roxitsu Exactly. The smarter agents get, the more important it becomes to understand not just what they did, but why they did it. Otherwise debugging turns into pure guesswork.

A polished answer can hide a broken process. I designed SIGNAL: a 3D concept with six research roles, three connected views, and a human review checkpoint. The answer is only the surface. x.com/i/article/2111…

I think people are using AI completely wrong. Most use it to: → write emails → summarize documents → answer questions Useful. But boring. The real shift starts when AI stops waiting for your prompt. An agent can watch. Analyze. Make decisions. Take action. While you’re sleeping. That’s the part I’m obsessed with right now. We’re not building better chatbots anymore. We’re building digital workers.

A 19-year-old student built his own AI wealth advisor with Claude Code. Not a ChatGPT wrapper. It pulls live market data, macro indicators and news. Then Claude: → analyzes the market → tracks previous recommendations → checks portfolio exposure → sends Telegram briefings → remembers what worked and what didn’t And he made the project open source. This is what I find crazy about AI right now. You don’t need a team of 10 engineers anymore. One student + Claude + a weekend can build tools that would’ve looked like fintech products a few years ago. I’m starting to think the biggest AI opportunity isn’t asking better questions. It’s building systems that keep working after you close the chat.

It worked. I built an AI agent that can scan thousands of markets without me touching anything. Turned it on. Left it running. Came back to: • 14,000+ markets scanned • 200+ simulated trades • 60%+ win rate • multiple positions monitored at once • zero manual execution And I barely had to touch it. The idea was simple: Don’t build AI that tells me what to do. Build AI that does the work. So I gave it a loop: 1. Scan Search thousands of markets for probability mismatches. 2. Filter Bad liquidity? Skip. High volatility? Skip. Weak signal? Skip. 3. Analyze Estimate probability. Compare it with the market. Calculate the edge. No edge = no position. 4. Decide Calculate confidence, position size and risk automatically. 5. Monitor Track every open position. React when conditions change. Then start again. Scan → Analyze → Decide → Execute → Repeat. No constant prompts. No manually checking thousands of markets. No sitting in front of the screen making every decision. Just one system running the loop over and over. Everything you’re seeing is simulated — no real money, no real trades. But watching something I built operate on its own feels fucking insane. Everyone is trying to make AI smarter. I’m more interested in making it autonomous

A lot of people who look rich aren’t wealthy. And a lot of wealthy people don’t look rich. That’s the part nobody really talks about. A $100,000 car tells you someone spent $100,000 on a car. A designer wardrobe tells you someone spent money on clothes. A luxury apartment tells you someone can afford the payment. None of those things tell you their net worth. Wealth is what you don’t see. The money that wasn’t spent. The assets quietly compounding. The investments nobody knows about. The freedom to say “no” because you don’t desperately need the next paycheck. Social media made looking wealthy easier than ever. Credit can buy the car. Financing can buy the watch. A good weekend can create the perfect Instagram feed. But you can’t fake financial freedom forever. And maybe that’s the biggest difference: Looking rich is about proving something to other people. Being rich is about having fewer things to prove. I’d choose the right side every time.

Working harder won’t necessarily make you richer. That’s a lesson most people learn way too late. We’re taught a simple formula: work harder → work longer → make more money. But the real world doesn’t work like that. Someone can work 12 hours a day for $100. Someone else can solve one problem in 30 minutes and get paid $10,000. Same 24 hours. Completely different value. Because people don’t really pay for your time. They pay for outcomes. Save someone time. Make them money. Help them avoid losing money. Remove something painful. Make something easier, faster or safer. The more valuable the outcome, the less your income is tied to the number of hours you worked. And I think this changes the question completely. Instead of asking: “How do I work harder?” Ask: “What problem can I solve that people desperately want solved?” That’s probably one of the biggest differences between earning a salary and building wealth. Hard work still matters. But hard work pointed at a low-value problem can keep you busy for years. Hard work pointed at a valuable problem can change your life. Don’t just become better at working. Become better at solving expensive problems. This 50-second clip explains it better than most money advice I’ve seen lately. Watch it. Do you agree?

The CEO of UFC just said something a lot of people in their 20s probably don’t want to hear. Everyone wants freedom. We want to work from wherever we want, make good money, travel, build something of our own and never have someone telling us what to do. And social media makes it look almost normal. Open X, TikTok or Instagram and you’ll see 20-year-old founders raising millions, people making money from their laptops, someone buying their dream car at 23, someone else claiming they built a business working 3 hours a day. After seeing enough of it, you start asking yourself: “Why am I not there yet?” I’m 23, and I’d be lying if I said I’ve never thought about that. But I think that’s the part of success the internet completely messed up for our generation. We constantly see the result. We rarely see the years that came before it. The failed ideas. The months where nothing works. Learning things nobody notices. Working when there’s no money, no attention and no guarantee it’ll ever pay off. Starting again after something you were sure would work… didn’t. That’s why this clip from Dana White stuck with me. You don’t have to agree with everything he says about work. I don’t. But there’s one idea here that’s difficult to argue with: Everybody wants the freedom that success can give you. Very few people talk about how much freedom you may have to sacrifice while building it. Maybe being 23 and not having everything figured out isn’t being behind. Maybe trying things, failing, learning, changing direction and starting again is what your 20s are supposed to look like. The internet made success look like something you’re supposed to achieve as quickly as possible. But maybe speed isn’t the point. Maybe the real goal is to keep going long enough to actually become good at something. I’d rather be building my life at 23 than pretending I’ve already made it. What do you think — is Dana right?

@Charvikasliwal_ @X Gn

@BLANK53yu @X gn ✨ sleep well

goodnight @X 🌙 what was the best part of your day?

@Mr_TuanHoang @X Hi Let’s connect