So far, he’s shown incredible productivity (with Claude Code). I integrated his vcad into my toy project here, and it worked on the first try, which is quite impressive for such a young project:
https://github.com/darwin/supex/tree/dev
Working on a house renovation project in SketchUp, I wanted the same workflow I use with Claude Code: describe what I need in natural language, let AI write and execute the code, iterate quickly.
So I built a bridge. Python MCP driver talks to a Ruby extension inside SketchUp via JSON-RPC. Claude Code can now write Ruby scripts, execute them directly in SketchUp, take screenshots to verify results, and introspect the model - all without leaving the conversation.
Still very early (macOS only, requires SketchUp 2026), but it's already useful for repetitive tasks and parametric designs. "Create a spiral staircase with 15 steps at 18cm rise" is more fun than drawing it manually.
What about buying a dedicated machine for running agents? One macbook for agents and one for personal/private work plus a good KVM switch maybe or remote desktop.
According to the article it took him 15 years. Had been frequently visiting a single bank in Prague center (Raiffeisenbank) only with a briefcase exchanging EUR into USD in cash. Doing each time 2+2 hour round trip by train from his home town Usti nad Labem (sometimes carring up to 5M USD) .
Blockchain might be a relevant tool for a group of strangers to maintain books (a database) which cannot be easily tampered with (or it is virtually impossible). Prime example is sound money. But it could go beyond that. Say you can run a land registry or domain name system this way.
Back in the old days if the Internet, there was no cryptocurrency. I strongly believe (crypto)payments can be used as a pretty effective anti-spam measure in the future.
Doesn't really matter how you spend the money. It is a signalling thing. The money must be burnt. With limited resources it ensures you can't repeat engagement with multiple women...
Who is claiming that bitcoin transactions will be used by average person for everyday payments?
Making a bitcoin transaction is like recasting gold bars - not something you want to do often with small amount of gold. This will be done only for large individual payments or for large settlement payments aggregating thousands or millions of normal payments. Everyday payments will be performed on second or higher layers (e.g. Lightning Network)
IMO, UX is a minor issue. Why would anyone spend hard money before fiat money? (Gresham's law) Also each spending could trigger a separate taxable event (depending on your jurisdiction) and that would be a serious accounting nightmare if done willy-nilly for casual payments.
Bitcoin is a store of value and a payment rail for significant sums. Currently it is not suitable for casual/small retail payments.
In near/mid-term future I expect new banking services to allow people to stay in bitcoin for "savings accounts" and offering traditional fiat credit in "current account" for daily spending (backed by bitcoin in savings account as a collateral). Settlement and transfers between savings and current account to be less frequent and easily trackable for tax purposes. This would allow a person to completely stay out of fiat while still having access to fiat payment infrastructure - this would cost some interest on borrowed fiat which I expect to go pretty low thanks to collateral (bitcoin) liquidity. See companies like BlockFi which are getting close to this model.
To truly understand how bad it is, we would have to analyse the 250T figure in more detail.
There is a "free debt" component to it which was generated via seigniorage[1] and "real debt" to people, companies and other economic actors. It seems to me that many commenters here see only one part of it.
To illustrate it, let me give you an example how "free debt" can be generated by a government. Imagine for a second that we have one world government (WG) and one world currency. And assume that we are in a peace time when collective world productivity grows 3% every year. World's central bank (WCB) targets 2% inflation. Also assume that velocity of money[2] is constant and in general people's behave the same in time. This effectively means WCB can "freely print" 5% of new money without causing any real problem. But who should get the new money? Instead of simply printing it and directly giving it to someone, they have pretty sophisticated/obfuscated mechanisms how to introduce the new money to the system. Typically part of that new money is given to the WG in exchange for WG's bonds. The new money is effectively introduced as an interest-bearing debt. But please note that this debt is "free" for WG. WCB will never want to repay the debt (by allowing WG's debt to always roll over). And also note that WCB is part of WG. That means the collected interest WG formally paid to WCB is then given back to WG.
Of course WG can also sell bonds to people, companies and other actors. This debt is the "real debt" which must be paid back. But let's assume WG is prudent and does not do that.
You can observe that WG can continue this as long the world productivity is growing better than -2%
The problem with "free debt" comes when the growth is even worse (e.g. in war times) or when velocity of money gets faster suddenly (or there are other inflation pressures or shocks). WCB should reverse this mechanism in this bad case. It has to "pump excess currency out of the system" by selling its bonds and destroying the currency to hit the 2% inflation target (technically it would do it by not allowing complete rotation of WG's debt).
Of course real world scenario is much more complex than that. And real governments additionally take "real debt" where usual rules apply. The question for us is how big part of those 250T is the "real debt".