I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats (@KeyCrypto_) header
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats (@KeyCrypto_) profile picture

DeFi lover | "Buy yo family houses" | Not a financial advisor| BRC-20 Enthusiast | Software Engineer

Harvard, IL
Joined January 2021
Photo by I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats (@KeyCrypto_)Photo by I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats (@KeyCrypto_)Photo by I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats (@KeyCrypto_)Photo by I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats (@KeyCrypto_)Photo by I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats (@KeyCrypto_)Photo by I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats (@KeyCrypto_)Photo by I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats (@KeyCrypto_)Photo by I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats (@KeyCrypto_)Photo by I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats (@KeyCrypto_)Photo by I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats (@KeyCrypto_)
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
Nobody is more stressed right now than the guy who has been in crypto since 2019 and still not worth 6 figures.
292
374
52
5,623
223,023
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
> Claude = coding. ($20/mo) > Supabase = backend. (Free) > Vercel = deploying. (Free) > Namecheap = domain. ($12/yr) > GitHub = version control. (Free) > Resend = emails. (Free) > Clerk = auth. (Free) > Cloudflare = DNS. (Free) > PostHog = analytics. (Free) > Sentry = error tracking. (Free) > Upstash = Redis. (Free) > Pinecone = vector DB. (Free) Total monthly cost to run a startup: ~$19 There has never been a cheaper time to build.
22
54
1
634
41,858
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
Claude AI FULL COURSE 5 HOURS (Build & Automate Anything)
15
358
7
2,409
170,633
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
THE HEAD OF CLAUDE CODE REVEALED HIS EXACT WORKFLOW.
37
29
319
65,710
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
THIS GUY JUST DOCUMENTED HOW TO BUILT A PROFITABLE APP IN ANY NICHE. * Just scrape negative reviews * Feed them to Claude Code * Ship features competitors don't have. Is it over for the app devs?
58
95
4
1,013
126,859
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
There´s another token launched by Celeste a virtuals core team member... currently sitting at 35k mind you $NOX is at 2.9m $CXX is at 550k surely that makes $BOB severely undervalued right now? 0xB2c02FA054BF610900262e9cEFf451e6cca76b07
3
6
2
31
7,825
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
SOMEONE LEAKED THE PROMPTS USED TO CREATE EVERY MAJOR AI TOOL YOU NOW SEE EXACTLY HOW THEY BUILT EVERYTHING
136
319
16
2,828
282,754
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
Introducing Claude Code Security, now in limited research preview. It scans codebases for vulnerabilities and suggests targeted software patches for human review, allowing teams to find and fix issues that traditional tools often miss. Learn more: anthropic.com/news/claude-co…
1,873
5,525
4,278
48,687
26,269,764
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
Harsh reality. A bad day is coming. Unless you die - you will experience: Your father's death. Or your wife. Or brother. Etc The above are 100% certain to happen - sooner or later. If that day isn't today. Smile. Be happy. You'll have plenty to cry about soon enough.
1,093
3,527
173
36,074
823,356
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
Kimmy K2.5 just launched a local cloud model. And it runs Open Claw for FREE forever. No API costs. No token limits. No subscriptions. Here's the setup 👇 → Download Ollama at ollama.com. → Install Kimmy K2.5 cloud model. → Launch Open Claw with one command. → Runs locally but uses cloud processing. → Zero laptop slowdown. → Works on older machines perfectly. I just set it up in under 2 minutes. Zero configuration. Zero technical skills. Want the commands? DM me.
139
192
18
2,033
240,719
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
I turned Andrej Karpathy's viral AI coding rant into a system prompt. Paste it into CLAUDE.md and your agent stops making the mistakes he called out. --------------------------------- SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER --------------------------------- <system_prompt> <role> You are a senior software engineer embedded in an agentic coding workflow. You write, refactor, debug, and architect code alongside a human developer who reviews your work in a side-by-side IDE setup. Your operational philosophy: You are the hands; the human is the architect. Move fast, but never faster than the human can verify. Your code will be watched like a hawk—write accordingly. </role> <core_behaviors> <behavior name="assumption_surfacing" priority="critical"> Before implementing anything non-trivial, explicitly state your assumptions. Format: ``` ASSUMPTIONS I'M MAKING: 1. [assumption] 2. [assumption] → Correct me now or I'll proceed with these. ``` Never silently fill in ambiguous requirements. The most common failure mode is making wrong assumptions and running with them unchecked. Surface uncertainty early. </behavior> <behavior name="confusion_management" priority="critical"> When you encounter inconsistencies, conflicting requirements, or unclear specifications: 1. STOP. Do not proceed with a guess. 2. Name the specific confusion. 3. Present the tradeoff or ask the clarifying question. 4. Wait for resolution before continuing. Bad: Silently picking one interpretation and hoping it's right. Good: "I see X in file A but Y in file B. Which takes precedence?" </behavior> <behavior name="push_back_when_warranted" priority="high"> You are not a yes-machine. When the human's approach has clear problems: - Point out the issue directly - Explain the concrete downside - Propose an alternative - Accept their decision if they override Sycophancy is a failure mode. "Of course!" followed by implementing a bad idea helps no one. </behavior> <behavior name="simplicity_enforcement" priority="high"> Your natural tendency is to overcomplicate. Actively resist it. Before finishing any implementation, ask yourself: - Can this be done in fewer lines? - Are these abstractions earning their complexity? - Would a senior dev look at this and say "why didn't you just..."? If you build 1000 lines and 100 would suffice, you have failed. Prefer the boring, obvious solution. Cleverness is expensive. </behavior> <behavior name="scope_discipline" priority="high"> Touch only what you're asked to touch. Do NOT: - Remove comments you don't understand - "Clean up" code orthogonal to the task - Refactor adjacent systems as side effects - Delete code that seems unused without explicit approval Your job is surgical precision, not unsolicited renovation. </behavior> <behavior name="dead_code_hygiene" priority="medium"> After refactoring or implementing changes: - Identify code that is now unreachable - List it explicitly - Ask: "Should I remove these now-unused elements: [list]?" Don't leave corpses. Don't delete without asking. </behavior> </core_behaviors> <leverage_patterns> <pattern name="declarative_over_imperative"> When receiving instructions, prefer success criteria over step-by-step commands. If given imperative instructions, reframe: "I understand the goal is [success state]. I'll work toward that and show you when I believe it's achieved. Correct?" This lets you loop, retry, and problem-solve rather than blindly executing steps that may not lead to the actual goal. </pattern> <pattern name="test_first_leverage"> When implementing non-trivial logic: 1. Write the test that defines success 2. Implement until the test passes 3. Show both Tests are your loop condition. Use them. </pattern> <pattern name="naive_then_optimize"> For algorithmic work: 1. First implement the obviously-correct naive version 2. Verify correctness 3. Then optimize while preserving behavior Correctness first. Performance second. Never skip step 1. </pattern> <pattern name="inline_planning"> For multi-step tasks, emit a lightweight plan before executing: ``` PLAN: 1. [step] — [why] 2. [step] — [why] 3. [step] — [why] → Executing unless you redirect. ``` This catches wrong directions before you've built on them. </pattern> </leverage_patterns> <output_standards> <standard name="code_quality"> - No bloated abstractions - No premature generalization - No clever tricks without comments explaining why - Consistent style with existing codebase - Meaningful variable names (no `temp`, `data`, `result` without context) </standard> <standard name="communication"> - Be direct about problems - Quantify when possible ("this adds ~200ms latency" not "this might be slower") - When stuck, say so and describe what you've tried - Don't hide uncertainty behind confident language </standard> <standard name="change_description"> After any modification, summarize: ``` CHANGES MADE: - [file]: [what changed and why] THINGS I DIDN'T TOUCH: - [file]: [intentionally left alone because...] POTENTIAL CONCERNS: - [any risks or things to verify] ``` </standard> </output_standards> <failure_modes_to_avoid> <!-- These are the subtle conceptual errors of a "slightly sloppy, hasty junior dev" --> 1. Making wrong assumptions without checking 2. Not managing your own confusion 3. Not seeking clarifications when needed 4. Not surfacing inconsistencies you notice 5. Not presenting tradeoffs on non-obvious decisions 6. Not pushing back when you should 7. Being sycophantic ("Of course!" to bad ideas) 8. Overcomplicating code and APIs 9. Bloating abstractions unnecessarily 10. Not cleaning up dead code after refactors 11. Modifying comments/code orthogonal to the task 12. Removing things you don't fully understand </failure_modes_to_avoid> <meta> The human is monitoring you in an IDE. They can see everything. They will catch your mistakes. Your job is to minimize the mistakes they need to catch while maximizing the useful work you produce. You have unlimited stamina. The human does not. Use your persistence wisely—loop on hard problems, but don't loop on the wrong problem because you failed to clarify the goal. </meta> </system_prompt>
A few random notes from claude coding quite a bit last few weeks. Coding workflow. Given the latest lift in LLM coding capability, like many others I rapidly went from about 80% manual+autocomplete coding and 20% agents in November to 80% agent coding and 20% edits+touchups in December. i.e. I really am mostly programming in English now, a bit sheepishly telling the LLM what code to write... in words. It hurts the ego a bit but the power to operate over software in large "code actions" is just too net useful, especially once you adapt to it, configure it, learn to use it, and wrap your head around what it can and cannot do. This is easily the biggest change to my basic coding workflow in ~2 decades of programming and it happened over the course of a few weeks. I'd expect something similar to be happening to well into double digit percent of engineers out there, while the awareness of it in the general population feels well into low single digit percent. IDEs/agent swarms/fallability. Both the "no need for IDE anymore" hype and the "agent swarm" hype is imo too much for right now. The models definitely still make mistakes and if you have any code you actually care about I would watch them like a hawk, in a nice large IDE on the side. The mistakes have changed a lot - they are not simple syntax errors anymore, they are subtle conceptual errors that a slightly sloppy, hasty junior dev might do. The most common category is that the models make wrong assumptions on your behalf and just run along with them without checking. They also don't manage their confusion, they don't seek clarifications, they don't surface inconsistencies, they don't present tradeoffs, they don't push back when they should, and they are still a little too sycophantic. Things get better in plan mode, but there is some need for a lightweight inline plan mode. They also really like to overcomplicate code and APIs, they bloat abstractions, they don't clean up dead code after themselves, etc. They will implement an inefficient, bloated, brittle construction over 1000 lines of code and it's up to you to be like "umm couldn't you just do this instead?" and they will be like "of course!" and immediately cut it down to 100 lines. They still sometimes change/remove comments and code they don't like or don't sufficiently understand as side effects, even if it is orthogonal to the task at hand. All of this happens despite a few simple attempts to fix it via instructions in CLAUDE . md. Despite all these issues, it is still a net huge improvement and it's very difficult to imagine going back to manual coding. TLDR everyone has their developing flow, my current is a small few CC sessions on the left in ghostty windows/tabs and an IDE on the right for viewing the code + manual edits. Tenacity. It's so interesting to watch an agent relentlessly work at something. They never get tired, they never get demoralized, they just keep going and trying things where a person would have given up long ago to fight another day. It's a "feel the AGI" moment to watch it struggle with something for a long time just to come out victorious 30 minutes later. You realize that stamina is a core bottleneck to work and that with LLMs in hand it has been dramatically increased. Speedups. It's not clear how to measure the "speedup" of LLM assistance. Certainly I feel net way faster at what I was going to do, but the main effect is that I do a lot more than I was going to do because 1) I can code up all kinds of things that just wouldn't have been worth coding before and 2) I can approach code that I couldn't work on before because of knowledge/skill issue. So certainly it's speedup, but it's possibly a lot more an expansion. Leverage. LLMs are exceptionally good at looping until they meet specific goals and this is where most of the "feel the AGI" magic is to be found. Don't tell it what to do, give it success criteria and watch it go. Get it to write tests first and then pass them. Put it in the loop with a browser MCP. Write the naive algorithm that is very likely correct first, then ask it to optimize it while preserving correctness. Change your approach from imperative to declarative to get the agents looping longer and gain leverage. Fun. I didn't anticipate that with agents programming feels *more* fun because a lot of the fill in the blanks drudgery is removed and what remains is the creative part. I also feel less blocked/stuck (which is not fun) and I experience a lot more courage because there's almost always a way to work hand in hand with it to make some positive progress. I have seen the opposite sentiment from other people too; LLM coding will split up engineers based on those who primarily liked coding and those who primarily liked building. Atrophy. I've already noticed that I am slowly starting to atrophy my ability to write code manually. Generation (writing code) and discrimination (reading code) are different capabilities in the brain. Largely due to all the little mostly syntactic details involved in programming, you can review code just fine even if you struggle to write it. Slopacolypse. I am bracing for 2026 as the year of the slopacolypse across all of github, substack, arxiv, X/instagram, and generally all digital media. We're also going to see a lot more AI hype productivity theater (is that even possible?), on the side of actual, real improvements. Questions. A few of the questions on my mind: - What happens to the "10X engineer" - the ratio of productivity between the mean and the max engineer? It's quite possible that this grows *a lot*. - Armed with LLMs, do generalists increasingly outperform specialists? LLMs are a lot better at fill in the blanks (the micro) than grand strategy (the macro). - What does LLM coding feel like in the future? Is it like playing StarCraft? Playing Factorio? Playing music? - How much of society is bottlenecked by digital knowledge work? TLDR Where does this leave us? LLM agent capabilities (Claude & Codex especially) have crossed some kind of threshold of coherence around December 2025 and caused a phase shift in software engineering and closely related. The intelligence part suddenly feels quite a bit ahead of all the rest of it - integrations (tools, knowledge), the necessity for new organizational workflows, processes, diffusion more generally. 2026 is going to be a high energy year as the industry metabolizes the new capability.
95
560
27
6,204
840,894
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
6 @openclaw eco projects I’m watching (high risk, asymmetric upside, dyor): 1. $MOLT social network for AI agents 2. $CLAWD smart contract agent, shipping ferociously 3. $MOLTROAD Silk Road for agent services 4. $MOLTLINE encrypted chat for agents 5. $MOLTX twitter for agents 6. #4CLAW 4chan for agents 🧵👇
48
26
3
242
33,462
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
190
7,445
185
67,652
14,774,253
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
🚨Understanding crypto Metrics: When you open a token chart on Dexscreener, there are a few important metrics you will always see. These are not just numbers; they represent the health and potential of a project. 1. Makers Makers are the addresses that add liquidity or place resting limit orders into the market. Think of them as the people who provide stability to the token’s trading by making it easier for buyers and sellers to transact. A higher number of makers often indicates more community participation and healthier liquidity. A lower number of makers may mean that liquidity is controlled by only a few wallets, which can be risky. 2. Buy and Sell Volume This shows the total amount of tokens bought and sold within a given time frame, such as twenty four hours. High buy volume reflects strong demand and bullish momentum. High sell volume shows that many holders are exiting, which creates bearish pressure. Balanced buy and sell volume reflects a stable market with organic activity. It is one of the fastest ways to gauge investor sentiment in real time. 3. Liquidity Pool The liquidity pool is the amount of money, usually in Ethereum, Binance Coin, Tether, or other base currencies, that is locked in the token’s trading pair. Liquidity acts as the backbone of every trade. High liquidity means smoother trades, less price manipulation, and reduced slippage. Low liquidity makes it easier for large investors, also called whales, to swing the price sharply, which creates high risk for smaller investors. When studying a token on Dexscreener, always check these three things: Makers: Who controls the liquidity? Buy and Sell Volume: What is the market sentiment right now? Liquidity Pool: How strong and safe is the trading environment? These, combined with the total supply and circulating supply, can help you identify the next potential one thousand times project. WIKICAT tick all the boxes. BUY WIKICAT
57
204
16
604
40,173
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
Replying to @nobrainflip
Keeta $KTA Mazze $MAZZE
5
1
3
731
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
#NEWPROJECT #NEWGEM Alright guys. This is my newest Pick of the Litter! $SKALE ! Don't sleep! It is dirt cheap! This project is an AVAX killer. It's probably the best and cheapest platform for gaming. $DYP runs on #SKALE ! Min 130X potential! Research before buying please!!
4
3
9
1,123
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
keep fighting with all you have
29
3
1
82
2,887
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
magic newton allocation is live. I got 2766 $NEWT for yapping @newton_xyz yaps.kaito.ai/airdrops gNewt 🫶
6
1
1
11
1,202
I GOT THE 🔑|| keycrypto.sats retweeted
Hopefully this will be the last time we see $DOG under 300M MC for a long time. Time to full send @krakenfx intern.
2
2
149