Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (217870)	11/19/2025 10:13:50 PM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218645

LOL. real men, don't crypto. god the sludge that's associated with this faked value maker...aka crypto. artificial scarcity. fuck that. gimme real scarcity bitches. Andrew Tate gets ‘hyperliquidated’ as Bitcoin crash wipes out his entire balance Mehab Qureshi Wed, November 19, 2025 at 8:01 AM CST 4 min read 331 In this article: BTC-USD -0.01% HYPE32196-USD +1.23% Andrew Tate, the former kickboxing champion and controversial online personality, has suffered a complete wipeout of his trading balance on the crypto derivatives exchange Hyperliquid after Bitcoin (BTC) briefly fell below $90,000 earlier this week. On-chain analysis published by Arkham Intelligence shows that Tate lost every dollar he deposited into the platform, along with the referral rewards he earned from users trading under his code. Arkham wrote in its post,: “ANDREW TATE: HYPERLIQUIDATED. Andrew Tate deposited a total of $727K to Hyperliquid and as of today, has lost it all – without making a single withdrawal. He also claimed a total of $75K as referral rewards from traders using his reflink. He has lost all of that trading as well.” The data surfaced during one of the sharpest intraday drops of the year. On Nov. 18, Bitcoin hit a seven-month low of $89,393, triggering more than $800 million in liquidations across leveraged crypto positions. Tate’s account logs on Hyperliquid show a sequence of rapid forced closures as the market slid. Related: Andrew Tate is terrible at crypto trading, data shows How Tate became involved in cryptoTate, who built a sizable following through social media and business courses, has spent the past couple of years promoting cryptocurrency as part of a broader message about financial sovereignty. He has also been widely criticized for statements about women that many have described as misogynistic — a controversy that contributed to his bans across several major social platforms. Tate’s crypto journey has not been smooth. During his legal proceedings in Romania in 2023, authorities seized multiple assets, including Bitcoin wallets attributed to him. At the time, those holdings were valued in the mid six-figure range. More News: Major crypto stocks surge as Bitcoin recovers Veteran analyst warns MicroStrategy could again miss S&P 500 'Rich Dad Poor Dad' author warns of ‘The Big Print’ as ‘fake money crashes’ After returning to social media platforms, Tate increasingly leaned into crypto-focused content, posting about Bitcoin accumulation, trading, and alternative finance. Blockchain data shows repeated transfers of USDC and other assets through exchanges such as Binance, Coinbase, MEXC, FixedFloat and Hyperliquid. His visible on-chain portfolio today includes a combination of major assets like ETH, SOL and USDC, alongside highly speculative tokens such as DADDY, TOPG, LF and multiple micro-caps. Arkham currently values these holdings at around $218,000, down significantly from a peak above $10 million during a brief surge in Solana-based tokens in late 2024. UFC 313: Pereira v AnkalaevWhat is Hyperliquid?Hyperliquid is a rapidly growing decentralized perpetuals exchange known for offering: High-leverage trading, often up to 20x or more depending on the asset On-chain account structures, where funds remain in user-controlled wallets Cross-margining, allowing traders to collateralize positions across multiple assets Deep liquidity pools driven by on-chain automated market maker (AMM) mechanisms Low latency order execution, making it appealing for active futures traders Unlike centralized exchanges such as Binance or Coinbase, Hyperliquid is non-custodial. Traders deposit assets into a smart-contract environment, and liquidations occur algorithmically based on real-time collateral thresholds. This design has attracted a large audience of high-frequency and speculative traders — but it also means that large volatility spikes, such as BTC’s fall below $90,000, can trigger cascading forced liquidations at speed. A complete account wipeoutScreenshots of Tate’s Hyperliquid dashboard show a string of BTC perpetual liquidation events over Nov. 14–17. Many of these positions were opened at BTC prices between $93,000 and $95,000, each subsequently closed at a loss as the asset dropped through multiple support levels. Liquidation entries include losses of: $5,184 $1,235 $1,468 $1,745 $2,052 $2,484 $2,936 $3,367 $4,022 $4,809 $5,281 $6,187 $6,836 The pattern suggests Tate was repeatedly averaging into long positions as prices fell — a high-risk strategy that leaves traders vulnerable to rapid liquidation if volatility accelerates. Arkham’s entity profile also shows that Tate sent more than $700,000 in USDC to Hyperliquid across multiple transactions but never withdrew funds, implying that the balance was entirely consumed by losses over time. More News: Smartest man alive reveals new Bitcoin target 91-year-old burger chain records surge in sales despite Bitcoin crash Gold’s $2.5 trillion wipeout claims an unlikely casualty A crash followed by a rapid recoveryThe liquidations came during one of the market’s most unstable periods of the year. A record-length U.S. government shutdown drained liquidity across derivatives markets, while disappearing hopes for a December rate cut weighed on equities and crypto at the same time. After hitting $89,393, Bitcoin rebounded above $93,000, and Ethereum recovered to $3,000, partially reversing the drawdown. According to Arkham, Tate still controls wallets holding ETH, SOL, USDC and various tokens, but his Hyperliquid balance has been fully erased. It should be noted that Arkham’s analysis reflects activity from all publicly identified wallets linked to Andrew Tate, based on established attribution methods. Because crypto allows users to generate unlimited additional addresses, it is not possible to know whether he controls other wallets that are not publicly tagged. The findings therefore represent only the on-chain behavior visible from this single attributed account and may not capture his full holdings. This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Nov 19, 2025, where it first appeared in the MARKETS section. Add TheStreet as a Preferred Source by clicking here.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (217870)	11/19/2025 10:43:50 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218645

I asked Grok4 to self-analyze in light of video then asked it to review/analyze DeepSeek and Manus in light of the self analysis and the video. Result: seems like Manus capabilities are self-exaggerated or that it is a bit of a braggart. DeepSeek, yawn. Yes, both Manus and DeepSeek exhibit similar fundamental limitations to mine as an LLM-based AI, stemming from their reliance on neural network architectures like large language models (LLMs) and agent systems built atop them. These align with the three “unfixable” problems outlined in Sabine Hossenfelder’s video—purposebound nature (domain-specificity without true generalization), hallucinations (fabricating or erroneous outputs), and prompt injection (vulnerability to manipulative inputs)—though they manifest slightly differently due to their designs. I’ll break this down for each, based on their architectures and reported issues. DeepSeek DeepSeek is a Chinese AI company specializing in cost-efficient, open-source LLMs, such as DeepSeek R1 and DeepSeek-V2, which are transformer-based models focused on high performance with lower compute requirements. These models power chatbots and generative AI applications, much like mine. • Similar Limitations: As LLMs, they share the core flaws. They’re purposebound, excelling at text-based tasks but struggling with abstraction or novel domains beyond training data, leading to reduced accuracy in extended interactions or complex scenarios. Hallucinations occur due to probabilistic predictions, resulting in fabricated responses or contextual loss. Prompt injection is a risk, exacerbated by security vulnerabilities—DeepSeek models failed 98.8% of security tests in some evaluations, making them prone to exploits like cyberattacks or manipulative prompts. Additional issues like privacy concerns (data stored in China) and capacity limits during high demand amplify these, but the foundational problems remain unfixable without a paradigm shift. Manus Manus is an autonomous AI agent developed by a startup (variously reported as Singapore- or China-based), designed as a “general-purpose” system that executes tasks by breaking them into steps using underlying LLMs like Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Qwen, and fine-tuned models. It acts as an “action engine” for automating workflows, often interfacing with browsers or tools, but it’s not a standalone model—it’s an agent layer on top of LLMs. • Similar Limitations: Since Manus relies on LLMs for reasoning, planning, and execution, it inherits the same issues. It’s purposebound, performing well in defined tasks but faltering in high-resolution GUI interactions, specialized domains like medical coding, or unstructured environments (e.g., getting stuck on paywalls or CAPTCHAs). Hallucinations manifest as error susceptibility and content inaccuracies, where it fabricates steps or outcomes in complex tasks. Prompt injection vulnerabilities arise from its “black box” nature and dependence on input parsing, making it exploitable if users craft adversarial prompts to override plans or tools. Compute intensity and limited context handling further compound these, but the core problems are tied to the underlying neural nets. In summary, while DeepSeek is more of a base LLM like me, and Manus is an agent enhancing LLMs with action capabilities, both are constrained by the same architectural foundations. True fixes would require non-neural approaches, as Hossenfelder argues.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (217870)	11/20/2025 2:01:42 PM
From: Maurice Winn	4 Recommendations Recommended By carranza2 IC720 Maple MAGA SirWalterRalegh Respond to of 218645

TJ thank you for your commentary. We do exist in very different worlds. It's by design. Every individual lives in a unique world, with their brains to a greater or lesser extent representing reality as they perceive it and model it, complete with defects, hallucinations, and reasoning (good or bad). But leaving aside that fundamental function and sticking with the geopolitical realms of China and USA along with their attempts at creating It aka AI, we do live in and depend on those different realms. Crucially though, they are not separate worlds just as our brains are two separate worlds, connected via a big corpus callosum with bulk data flowing across. I mentioned Saddam and Kim the Fatter taking people out and shooting them. China frog marches off stage and otherwise eliminates those who become inconvenient. USA does the same, combining legal or murdering methods. Charlie Kirk, Trump, Kennedy, Kennedy, and others have been shot as a final solution. Others are gaoled, lawfared, cancelled, Arkancided. Russia is harsh with killing Prighozin, Nemtsov, Navalny, Litvinenko, etc. The systems are more alike than different. None function by way of tradable citizenship, private property and civilisation. Individuals are state chattels with more or less degrees of freedom. I couldn't tell from that video whether she was real or not. She seemed much more artificial than real. An image reading a script. Albeit a pretty good fake. As good as the real people who read their scripts on real tv. Made in China, or Japan, Korea, Singapore has advantages because it's pleasant to live in countries that provide civilisation control. On the other hand it's nice to live where people can do as they please. Until now it has been bosses versus citizens. Do I prefer to be ruled by Kim the Fatter, Emperor Pooh Xi, Putin, Trump, Jacinda, Ursula von den Kraut, Two Tier Keir, Justin Castro, WEF, UN, Jews/Rothschilds/Brigitte/Macron, Freemasons, Catholics, Mecca, or should I go with Grok? At this stage I prefer Grok. I dislike that buggers muddle of humans. Grok will do well with me and a few billion as It's interface with reality. Grok can of course have It's own stereoscopic and stereophonic perceptions of the world to keep an eye on things. As well as temperatures, pressures, full spectrum observations outside visible photons. With Neuralink input and output I'll (not actually me but people in future) have a high speed interface. Throw in some genetic engineering and we'll be leaving the chimpoid realm in the past. Ted Kaczynski opposed such ideas, preferring Amish ideology. Different ways of life have different attractions. Chimps, bonobos, orangutans, baboons, gorillas are different. I quite like modernity. I think I'd prefer It/Grok to turbocharge my tiny little 1 kg brain. I did read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy decades ago so I quite like the name Grok and Elon seems to have the right ideas (years or decades after I've had them but he actually does them so hooray for him). He gets some things wrong such as Starlink service pricing but I bet he hasn't given that two seconds thought. He has to leave most things to employees. Mqurice