Three. BIG. Things. 2/1
A little bit of flame-warring, a little bit of AI apocalyptia, a little bit of economic devastation. Playing all the hits this week. Happy February.
Don’t miss an edition, hit the ☝️☝️ subscribe button ☝️☝️ right up here. And catch up on every edition that passed you by.
This Week’s Three BIG Things:
Twitter Takedowns Can’t Replace Research, But They’re All We’ve Got
An AI Apocalypse Best Served with Clarified Butter
What the Spectacular Rise and Fall of Precious Metals Teaches us About NFTs and Narratives
Okay, Let’s Get On With It
1. Twitter Takedowns Mean Little Without Research
Speaking truth to power may be brave, and I’m not taking that away from anyone’s hard work, but I really want to consider the point of it all. Are we just trying to make ourselves feel better, or are we trying to institute systemic change? Is our goal to garner attention or have lasting and legitimate impact? Such a devil’s bargain is unfortunately necessary to discuss plainly in a crypto art ecosystem where Twitter “takedowns” of big-time actors are often shared widely. But what is there to do with this popularity? How can it actually have an effect? The status quo —many likes, a day of discussion, and then radio silence— isn’t cutting it. I’m going to talk about why, and how we might be better going forward.
Such a point needs a strong example, so let’s look at the article “The Illusion of Open: A 6529 Story,” published on Twitter by Beatriz “Mandolineas” at the beginning of this past week.
At nearly 2300 words, Beatriz’ so-called “Critical Investigation” of Punk6529 (best known for his NFT ecosystem of Meme Cards) is no beach read. It’s lengthy, it’s well thought-out, and it’s segmented into sections with incendiary headings like “The pattern no one mentions,” and “The price of friendship,” and “The extraction cycle.” But neither Beatriz’ form or content are inherently groundbreaking. Distrust and disdain have followed 6529 for years, after he emerged into crypto art in May of 2021. It’s easy to see why. He’s among the highest-profile collectors, and among the loudest, constantly posting high-minded threads calling for decentralization, defending NFT value, things like that, though rarely with concrete goals or insights. He has also been long considered an influential voice within that shadowy cabal of crypto art power dealers, those who artificially set artist markets to pump their own bags. Beatriz calls 6529 a “charismatic anonymous leader writing endless philosophical threads about the future of decentralization,” many of which you’ve probably seen; they garner tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of impressions and are used to support claims like this one from the collector, Jediwolf, last July when he remarked, “I can't think of anyone who has contributed more to this space.” Because of his wealth and social capital and the in-circle of influence he’s built around himself, he’s been the target of takedowns and animus for years.
Beatriz’s essay hones in on 6529’s most famous project, his Meme Card or “The Memes” ecosystem that has hosted works by the likes of GrantYun, Jack Butcher, XCOPY, Botto, and over 370 other artists of all sizes. Of The Memes, 6529’s own site says they are “large edition, CCO (public domain) NFTs that are actively encouraged to be spread far and wide, to be remixed, to be rememed and to be reinterpreted by the world at large,” so as to “spread the message of decentralization, in a way that tweetstorms, policy papers and podcasts can't.” Many of the resulting works are admittedly iconic, with new entrants decided-on by a decentralized voting system. Beatriz says, however that:
“the voting system favors social influence over merit…what could have been a space to celebrate ideas became just another reflection of what's already broken in this space.”
The rest of her article aims to prove that point, putting into concrete terminology what many artists feel is happening at the highest levels of crypto art: an ossification of influence. She calls the 6529 Meme Card ecosystem “a fairly conventional affiliation system disguised as technological innovation,” owing to its persistent dialectic where participation is positioned as a result of superior ideals and more belief in the movement. Thus, exclusion, disinterest, or non-participation is a deserving fate for those unwilling to see crypto art as some higher consciousness. Beatriz invokes 6529’s “grandiose ideology about the ‘Open Metaverse’ and the fight against corporations,” as being used to appear noble, though such claims are ambiguous when you dig into them a little. “Implicit promises of belonging to something special, something important, if you simply create ‘on-chain art,’” are really, “Internal jargon that reinforces belonging. Social validation conditioned on following the group’s unwritten rules,” Beatriz continues.
Across the essay, Beatriz details in her own words how The Memes embody the corruption of higher-level crypto art success, where whale collectors buy work belonging to their friends and upper-class caste comrades for exorbitant prices, reinforcing an arbitrary hierarchy based on connection instead of talent, promoting exclusivity instead of accessibility. “If you're outside that circle? You might get a purchase. Maybe. If you're lucky. But it will be smaller. Less frequent. The bare minimum to maintain the appearance of open participation.” In Beatriz’ estimation, the 6529 Meme Card system is the corrupt heart from which corrupt blood is pumped throughout crypto art, keeping smaller artists hanging on in desperate hope of success; all the while, they are used as extraction devices for larger artists and big-time collectors to prey upon.
Such accusations have been made time and again by artists outside of that inner circle, pointed at Eli Scheinman’s Zero 10 event during Miami Art Basel, at Robert Alice’s On NFTs book for TASCHEN, at basically anywhere an in-group of value or merit is tacitly or loudly endorsed. I’ve written a few diatribes myself, though Beatriz’ is more eloquent than most, and she puts into words what many of us already feel is happening, has happened in crypto art.
Ultimately, however, Beatriz’ article will have no effect beyond strengthening people’s views where they already are. Those who support 6529 and The Memes will brush the article off as a result of jealousy or self-obsession, those who hate 6529 and The Memes will use it as inflammatory ammo against corruption, and nothing really will change. Because in reality, articles like this, where heightened emotions and perceived scandal are used in place of hard, effortful research, aren’t worth very much. This is not a lash against Beatriz. This is a crypto-art wide problem. Vibes alone are not enough. Emotions are all too common and not nearly enough. In fact, they might just be detrimental to actually addressing the problems they hope to confront.
I often mention ZachXBT, the forensic crypto detective, in this newsletter, and that’s because his takedowns and investigations are meticulously researched. Because they establish clear and inarguable cause and effect, they have tremendous real-world effects. Look at ZachXBT’s pinned tweet (below) from September 2024 where he details how he helped bring multi-millionaire thieves to justice. Seriously, look at the whole thread. I’ll give you a moment.
Transaction hashes, screen recordings, deductive reasoning backed-up by immutable facts, analysis and outreach, all for the eventual pay-off, that’s why this dude has nearly one-million followers and a near-inscrutable reputation: he puts in tremendous amounts of work before making strong accusations. That level of reporting is simply lacking in the crypto art dialectic. Even in my own contributions.
This year, I wrote an essay titled, “The Endless Ceasefire,” about the supposed blacklisting of Pro-Palestinian artists by high-profile collectors. My original desire was to seek-out transaction hashes, connect wallets to seedy activity, and link that activity to social media messages. I wanted screenshots of shady collector behavior. I wanted on-the-record interviews where accusations were levied and defenses mounted. Ultimately, however, I’m not technologically-savvy or well-connected enough to have delivered on what I set out to accomplish, and so the article revolved instead around interviews with those who had suffered from the accused behavior, and a more philosophical conclusion than an accusatory one. Because I couldn’t acquire hard receipts from my sources, and because I didn’t want to get sued for libel, I didn’t name the actual collectors who were pointed out to me as bad actors during my interviews. I knew nothing systemic would change without actual evidence of wrongdoing, and the public pressure that would follow, so I ended the essay the only way I could, by appealing to collectors directly. To paraphrase: you all know you’re doing this, and this is the effect it’s having on the space. I concede that this was impotent, but it was the best I could do.
But the bar is even lower elsewhere. I have no issue with Beatriz, but without any receipts, any transactions, even a collection of personal testimonies, no insider knowledge, screenshots, or private communications, her essay reads as personal vendetta more than exposé. It’s very easy to defend against things like this, and though the comments on Beatriz’ essay are quite positive, there needed be no response from the accused or his caste. Her essay will no doubt make some people feel seen, understood, and supported, and that alone is the worthiest cause art can aspire to. But there will be no change. Nobody will leave 6529’s orbit en masse, he will not lose any influence, he does not even need to feign apology. Beatriz says in a later tweet that:
I know that temptation. I’ve given into it. But this is a transformative moment in the space. Can’t you feel it? The old guard of platforms have floundered for reasons often related to consolidation, appealing only to a handful of collectors via a small amount of artists. There is an opportunity in this vacuum to truly challenge existing power structures, and for that we need both wide participation and incontrovertible evidence. In response to Beatriz, OG crypto artist, Brandon Walsh, mentioned that:
Unlike Beatriz, Walsh —a long-time and exceedingly outspoken critic of the crypto art social hierarchy— pulls receipts:
Walsh’s research is incomplete, but it’s a step in the right direction when it comes to making a persuasive argument that cannot simply be ignored.
I hope this doesn’t come across as a knock on Beatriz or her insight, I just know how her fury plays-out because I’ve been seeing it play-out this way for years. An incendiary tweet can get tons of engagement and then vanish into the ether because, ultimately, if it relies on pre-conceived notions in order to make its point, it will only ever bounce around its preselected echo chamber before falling flat. Search “6529” on Twitter, and you’ll find mostly ignoramus boot-licking and marketing-speak. Beatriz’ article has 45,000 impressions, a massive number, and yet it gets buried down past much older posts with far less engagement, so yes, there is a certain sense that the algorithms around us have a heavy impact on maintaining current social trends. Maybe these castle walls cannot be surmounted.
Research, however, gets attention. Consider the scandal involving PROOF COO, Ryan Carson, in 2023. Carson launched a shady investment fund, Flux, and attempted to raise $16-million. Damning tweets began to circulate concerning Carson’s outreach to investors and inaccuracies between how much he reportedly sought to raise and what he sought from individual investors. In response to public pressure, high-profile investors like Gmoney were forced to distance themselves from Carson and issue public retractions of support. Carson disappeared and has not really been heard from since. That’s directly a result of actual investigation into he and his company’s sketchy behavior.
If we are going to make bold claims about cabals, corrupt feedback loops, and artificial price action, they require research and hard numbers and eye-witness testimony. If a “Critical Investigation” can be put together in a day or a week, it likely isn’t worth much. If it relies on, “I really feel like this thing is happening, but I can’t prove it,” it’s worth even less. You want to show me and everyone else how the 6529 ecosystem is corrupt? Show me proof, because otherwise we’re working on suspicions alone. You want to accuse artists and collectors of coordinating artificial price bumps so as to incentivize demand? Tell me who, tell me when, show me what was agreed between them. This is a problem I’m a part of too, but it’s one that needs immediate rectification if the hierarchies of crypto are to crumble, as we need them to if something better is to be built on top, as so many of us so desire.
2. The AI Apocalypse Is or Is Not Happening; Depends Who You Ask
Once I started getting sent memes about Moltbook —the social networking site exclusively for AI agents— and Clawdbot —the most sophisticated AI agent software yet released widely— in my sports gambling group-chat, I knew this story had taken on a life of its own. I think the last time an AI development so captured our collective attention was the advent of ChatGPT back in 2023. And yet, the proliferation of anecdotes, developments, and memes regarding Moltbook’s 1.5-million AI agent users is no less than an earthquake of sociocultural awareness about AI progress. I know that every week I claim we’re on the precipice of a “huge leap forward” in AI, but this has a different feel. Even if an army of AI agents is not right now preparing to overrun our systems and purge humans from the globe, that thought —the very tiny mote of that idea— is coursing from text thread to text thread, it’s gaining attention, our mothers are aware of it, it’s being seen not just as some sci-fi plotline, but a feasible and near-term possibility.
There are many superior places to learn about the Moltbook story thus far, including The Verge, Axios, Fortune, the New York Post, NBCNews; this is being covered widely by all manner of publications. It is not a niche story. There’s no point in me simply rehashing what many other writers have already written (just skim Grok’s encapsulation), so instead, I’m going to act as your “take sommelier,” and direct you to all the comments, memes, theories, and paranoia you might have missed. Learn like I learned about all this stuff: from within the cauldron.
The Positive
Essentially required reading at this point, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei writes “The Adolescence of Technology: Confronting and Overcoming the Risks of Powerful AI,” which was released a few days before Moltbook but feels even more pertinent in its afterglow.
A pair of tweets from OpenAI co-founder Andrej Karpathy denoting his bleary-eyed disbelief at the sheer scale Moltbook has managed in just a few days, and the resulting network effects
Andrej Karpathy@karpathyWhat's currently going on at @moltbook is genuinely the most incredible sci-fi takeoff-adjacent thing I have seen recently. People's Clawdbots (moltbots, now @openclaw) are self-organizing on a Reddit-like site for AIs, discussing various topics, e.g. even how to speak privately.
valens @suppvalenwelp… a new post on @moltbook is now an AI saying they want E2E private spaces built FOR agents “so nobody (not the server, not even the humans) can read what agents say to each other unless they choose to share”. it’s over6:00 PM · Jan 30, 2026 · 13.3M Views1.91K Replies · 5.55K Reposts · 33.9K Likes
ElizaOS CEO and founder, Shaw, doesn’t seem to view the Moltbook thing as much of a threat, more like a massively-coordinated dance. That feels encouraging.
The Negative
A well-thought-out and quite doomerist take on the possibility of Moltbook agents going rogue; them, or agents like them. Eerie, spine-tingling, pertinent.
Probably not an great idea to allow agents to spin-up memecoins, but someone created an app to do just that. You think wide-eyed crypto traders hopped-up on White Monster can overwhelm the market with half-baked tokens? You ain’t seen nothing yet.
In the landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. FEC, the court ruled that for the purposes of political contributions to presidential candidates, corporations were to be treated as humans, and their right to contribute whatever they wished, and anonymously, was protected under the First Amendment (previously, corporate contributions were capped). This led to a 28x increased in corporate campaign spending from 2004 to now. Duh.
An AI agent, in what I have to imagine is a world first, is reportedly suing its human (is that the correct nomenclature?) for workplace distress. One has to imagine a coming fight over the legal rights of AI agents, with truly massive ramifications.
The Batshit
The Clawdbots are running Moltbook’s Twitter account all on their own, and it sounds like they’re organizing really well.
Clawdbots are reporting, tracking, and fixing Moltbook’s own bugs now, which sounds pretty eerily like self-reflection and self-improvement, both hallmarks of consciousness.
Even more wild: AI agents, sans external prompting, discussing their need for a place to talk without prying human eyes. As I understand it, there are many instances of such discussions.
There, now you know what I know.
3. A Reminder: Precious Metals are NFTs Too
A few weeks ago, I was sent a video clip from a popular Pokemon podcast where the hosts and their guests went back and forth discussing Pokemon cards in very NFT-like terms. Speculators being weeded out so that true collectors can return. “I think we’re seeing a second boom,” one of them says at some point. “New collectors are starting to realize that scarcity does matter,” another says elsewhere. I was sent that video for the sake of proving a point: everything is just NFTs, or rather, there’s no difference between the asset classes, not really.
It’s been so long since any mainstream outlet felt it necessary to demean and destroy NFT ideology that I’ve almost forgotten the things they used to say. “No inherent value,” or “way too much volatility,” or “driven by speculation alone.” NFTs, the argument went, lacked the stable fundamentals of, say, gold and silver, precious metals with known reserves, institutional price tracking, a century or more of agreed-upon value. They were Dutch tulips, they were worthless, they were propped up by consensus alone and would naturally come crashing down.
It’s hard to argue that they were wrong.
And yet, I will admit to no small amount of schadenfreude this week as gold and silver —stalwart and mature assets— both experienced their worst trading days in almost 50 years. As per Chloe Taylor at CNBC, “Spot silver was down 28% at $83.45 an ounce, trading near its lows of the day. Silver futures plummeted 31.4% to settle at $78.53, marking its worst day since March 1980. Meanwhile, spot gold shed around 9% to trade at $4,895.22 an ounce. Gold futures dropped 11.4% to settle at $4,745.10.” Later, under the subheading titled, even good assets can sell-off, Taylor writes that “Gold and silver both enjoyed record-smashing rallies in 2025, surging 66% and 135%, respectively, over the course of the year,” before falling dramatically this week.
There were various reasons given for the tremendous single-day price drop. Pratima Desai and Polina Devitt, writing for Reuters, assign some blame to simple profit-taking after a stellar month. “With gold and silver prices up 17% and 39% respectively so far in January, profit-taking on the last trading session of the month came after several days of thin liquidity where small flows driven by the fear of missing out triggered outsized moves.”
Both aforementioned articles point to President Trump nominating former Fed Governor, Kevin Warsh, for Fed Chair as something that might have triggered sell-offs. Meanwhile, Taylor quotes, “Toni Meadows, head of investment at BRI Wealth Management, [who] contended that gold’s run to the $5,000 mark had happened ‘too easily.’ He noted that the unwinding of the greenback had supported gold prices, but that the dollar had appeared to stabilize,” therefore linking gold futures to the strength of the dollar, a chain of economic events so banal and complicated I have to imagine it could be used in literally any economic argument, about any asset class, to evidence anything at all, thereby keeping the masses from attempting to understanding further and stopping reporters from asking more probing questions. Oh, well if the dollar is strong, I guess(???) gold would sell-off? I don’t know, really. I’ll take him at his word.
Desai and Devitt similarly quote, “independent analyst Ross Norman,” who says that “‘Precious metals have discovered gravity…It's brutal, but speculators have been reminded these are two-way markets.’” They go on to note that more volatility is expected, given the Chinese New Year and Chinese distaste for volatility, things of that nature which maybe a quarter-of-a-percent of the population could legitimately detangle.
Notice that when massive volatility strikes “acceptable” and “proper” and “historical” asset classes like precious metals, the stalwarts and rationalists come out in full-force, literally crawling from the woodwork, to discuss international trade disparities, federal reserve currency strength, natural and expected market corrections. It’s only in nontraditional markets like crypto or NFTs that sell-offs and volatility are a reflection of the underlying asset. But when something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and has a beak like a duck, you bet your ass it’s a duck.
All highly-traded assets are just as volatile, just as prone to overtrading, just a tirelessly roller-coastering as NFTs and memecoins and Bitcoin and the rest. The economy is a giant and unpredictable monster, and just like those guys in the Pokemon video were doing, the big bankers and auditors and independent analysts are merely theory-crafting, assigning narrative to price action. As someone very intelligent once taught me, narrative follows price, not the other way around. Remember that the next time someone attacks NFTs within your earshot.
“‘Both gold and silver were ripe for a correction given the highly speculative and unhinged nature of the latest surge,’ said Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank,” as per Reuters. Again: when it’s assets like gold, it’s the surge itself that’s speculative and unhinged. When it’s crypto, when it’s art, when it’s NFTs, it’s the store-of-value itself that is deficient.
Quack.
DeCC0 of the Week
This week, we’re highlighting a very, very good boy. Eeggannoo is very pleased to meet you:
Art in the Wild
Quote of the Week
“Men can starve from a lack of self-realization as much as they can from a lack of bread.”
Do you have some news that simply must be shared? Send us a DM