"Today at Meta Connect, in partnership with EssilorLuxottica, we announced our next-generation Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses collection. We redesigned these from the ground up, improving all the core features of the first generation while adding new capabilities that have never been seen on a pair of smart glasses before. They start at $299 USD. Pre-orders are open now on meta.com and ray-ban.com, and the smart glasses will be available for purchase online and in retail stores starting October 17.*"

One thing that can absolutely be said about Mark Zuckerburg is that he NEVER gives up, and I deeply respect that, even though I may not necessarily agree with some of the things that he does/aligns with. With the recent announcement of the Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses collection, I really think he has something incredible that will vastly change the internet and a step in the metaverse direction that he promised when he made the executive decision to change Facebook's name to Meta in 2021. Not only did $META partner with an iconic brand like Ray-Ban, but the glasses only cost $299 which is fairly feasible given people are willing to pay over $1k for a new iPhone that might break not long after you buy it.

I genuinely believe that it might be surprising how fast this takes off, and I think the biggest contributor to this product's success is going to be the fact that people will be able to live-stream from them. Meta definitely needs to step its algorithm & interface up because TikTok's is truly elite, but it depends on whether they make a separate live-stream feed similar to TikTok, or at the very least enable TikTok users to utilize their smart glasses on the platform as well as on other services like Twitch & YouTube. Overall, this seems like a hugely positive signal for the future of Meta, and I'm sure that we'll soon see popular streamers rocking a pair of these and inspiring their viewers to do the same.

My prediction: this will be on every kid's wishlist come Christmastime!

“No one man should have all that power” —Kanye West

Who would’ve thought that one man could have such a large impact on college football, much less an entire economy in Colorado?!

If you’re wondering who that man is, his name is Deion Sanders, and he’s the head football coach at the University of Colorado at Boulder Buffaloes. When he initially signed on to be the head coach, they told him that they wouldn’t be able to pay him as much as most coaches in the NCAA, and despite that, he took on the job. The year before, he was the head coach at HBCU Jackson State, but had grander ambitions. Not only did he leave Jackson State, but he took his son Shedeur Sanders with him, and completely overhauled the Boulder Buffaloes team, in which he had 86 new players out of about 110 total players.

Deion Sanders—or Coach Prime, as he’s called—is no stranger to football or the sports world in general. From his Hall of Fame performances in the NFL and the NCAA to his MLB World Series appearance, Sanders has cemented his status as an elite athlete. For context, the Boulder Buffaloes went 1-11 last year and were never seen as a real competitor within the Division I Pac-12. However, for the first time in 27 years, Sanders has Colorado (3-0) ranked No. 19 in the country and turned the Buffaloes into must-see TV as he and his son, Heisman Trophy candidate Shedeur Sanders, find ways to use the media to hype their games.

But let’s get to the numbers… what has been the economic impact of Coach Prime on the college as well as Boulder so far?

But it gets even better... Not only has the economic impact to the college been around $91 million thus far, there's also been positive economic impacts to the local economy of Boulder, CO.

It ultimately pays to have a winner through and through on your team, and the University of Colorado at Boulder as well as the Boulder community at large are feeling that impact of that both economically & energetically. One thing that’s extremely relevant and important to note is the role culture plays in commerce.

Have you been watching the Boulder Buffaloes dominating on the football field?

If you've ever wondered why it is that financial literacy isn't heavily encouraged throughout schooling in America, it is for a very specific reason—the credit & banking industry relies on financial illiteracy in order to make money.

Don't believe me?

The basic economic equation for GDP is C + I(r) + G + NX = Y. Where C = consumer spending, I = investment which is impacted by r the interest rate, G = government spending, and NX = net exports or imports minus exports. In 2019, U.S. GDP was 70% personal consumption, 18% business investment, 17% government spending, and negative 5% net exports. This just goes to show that the majority of the US economy is upheld by consumer spending, and if people were to only buy what they could actually afford, much of the American economy would vanish.

Enter Credit Card companies.

Credit cards appeared after World War II, when a consumer spending boom spurred banks and retailers to find more options for the everyday financial needs of American families. But given that they weren't an immediate hit, elaborate marketing campaigns by the likes of people like PR maven Edward Bernays were put forth to convince people that they were inadequate without the stuff being sold. It wasn't until 1950, however, that the credit card would make its true debut.

Fast forward a couple of decades, and now we're at a place where the economy is damn near dependent upon irresponsible credit card usage, and as usual, it is the people who have the most to lose who end up footing the bill.

If you haven't watched this video already, I encourage you to watch Who Actually Pays for Credit Card Rewards? by CNBC. Although if you care not to, this closing exchange between a CNBC reporter and managing partner at Bell Advisory Group sum it up:

Reporter: "But doesn't that then mean that the banks need less sophisticated individuals to participate in this business in order for it to be so profitable that they can continue to offer such great rewards?"

Managing Partner: “100% yes, they need unsophisticated customers — high credit scores, medium credit scores and low credit scores. Absolutely. If everyone made the rationally correct decision at every point, the banking industry in the US would, would probably not exist.”

There has been this notion for quite some time that diversification is a GOOD thing, but I'd like to challenge that because I think it is actually a negative signal, especially when it pertains to moving away from a business's core existence. What inspired this post was @jazziyoung's post on Walmart.

Throughout time we've seen businesses get too big for their bridges and assume that they can become everything to everybody, only to later find out that the new verticals that they enter into end up costing them a lot of money, which causes them to sell them off 5-10 years later after people forget.

Focus is extremely important, and that's why I think it's important to include some quotes from the book Focus, by Al Ries:

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Whenever you see/hear that a business is getting into a new vertical because it thinks that it will increase market share, take that as a sign that management is just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks—usually as a means to give the illusion to shareholders that they are expanding the business. In actuality, the most positive signal that a company is increasing its business standing is quite the opposite—contracting and doubling down on innovating on the main business and ignoring the other shiny carrots that present themselves. And just think about it... when you focus a magnifying glass in one place you start a fire, whereas if you move it all around nothing happens.

Caleb's videos are a true reflection of the economic story of the majority of Americans. While he's a bit hyperbolic in his outrage (lol), most people don't seem to really care about the state of their finances.

I highly suggest his channel if you want to grasp a pulse on the story of the average American's financial situation. Culture plays a huge role in the reason why people aren't looking at & improving their finances, and Caleb is moving the needle!

Also, this is not an ad, just one of the YouTube channels I enjoy!

As a staunch proponent of Ripple and investor in $XRP.X, it's always exciting for me when there's good news surrounding Ripple; whether that be the SEC's latest ruling on $XRP.X or investments and partnerships that Ripple finalizes. And there is recent news again: Ripple is investing in the metaverse.

"Futureverse, an AI and metaverse technology and content company, has raised $54 million in a new round of funding in an effort to marry AI and the metaverse."

Now I know the metaverse is so 2022, but just because it’s fallen out of favor with the mainstream, doesn’t mean that there aren’t metaverse plays being made behind the scenes, and Ripple is doing **just** that.

As VentureBeat reports:

This is **extremely** bullish for the space, as well as for Ripple and its token $XRP.X. If you’re not familiar with $XRP.X, let me provide a little more context.

The pillar of Ripple is its XRP Ledger(XRPL)—an open-source, energy-efficient, and decentralized blockchain—and it is “best in class” when it comes to cross-border payments. Transactions on the XRPL are both fast (~3-5 seconds per transaction) and low cost (fractions of a cent per transaction), making it ideally suited to support stablecoins and asset tokenization at scale. These transaction speeds are way faster than Bitcoin—which takes about 10min on average to confirm a transaction within the Bitcoin network. This in and of itself has been the main reason why governments all over the world have been partnering with Ripple to utilize the XRPL for transacting stablecoins and CBDCs.

In my opinion, $BTC gets the credit that $XRP.X should be getting, and it’s for some of the reasons laid out above. Regardless, Ripple is separate from $XRP.X, but they are the company that developed $XRP.X and the XRPL. I believe it’s only a matter of time before we start to see the real value of $XRP.X reflected in its price, and before it becomes a well-known thing that Ripple is the company to watch (if people aren’t beginning to pick up on that already).

One last thing…

As a staunch proponent of Ripple and investor in $XRP.X, it's always exciting for me when there's good news surrounding Ripple; whether that be the SEC's latest ruling on $XRP.X or investments and partnerships that Ripple finalizes. And there is recent news again: Ripple is investing in the metaverse.

"Futureverse, an AI and metaverse technology and content company, has raised $54 million in a new round of funding in an effort to marry AI and the metaverse."

Now I know the metaverse is so 2022, but just because it’s fallen out of favor with the mainstream, doesn’t mean that there aren’t metaverse plays being made behind the scenes, and Ripple is doing **just** that.

As VentureBeat reports:

This is **extremely** bullish for the space, as well as for Ripple and its token $XRP.X. If you’re not familiar with $XRP.X, let me provide a little more context.

The pillar of Ripple is its XRP Ledger(XRPL)—an open-source, energy-efficient, and decentralized blockchain—and it is “best in class” when it comes to cross-border payments. Transactions on the XRPL are both fast (~3-5 seconds per transaction) and low cost (fractions of a cent per transaction), making it ideally suited to support stablecoins and asset tokenization at scale. These transaction speeds are way faster than Bitcoin—which takes about 10min on average to confirm a transaction within the Bitcoin network. This in and of itself has been the main reason why governments all over the world have been partnering with Ripple to utilize the XRPL for transacting stablecoins and CBDCs.

In my opinion, $BTC gets the credit that $XRP.X should be getting, and it’s for some of the reasons laid out above. Regardless, Ripple is separate from $XRP.X, but they are the company that developed $XRP.X and the XRPL. I believe it’s only a matter of time before we start to see the real value of $XRP.X reflected in its price, and before it becomes a well-known thing that Ripple is the company to watch (if people aren’t beginning to pick up on that already).

One last thing…

Last week, the SEC ruled that $XRP.X is NOT a security, which means there should be no issue with purchasing tokens on an exchange from here on out. Not only that, this ruling has been a huge topic of concern for the crypto community because it was rightfully inferred that more clarity would help legitimize the space overall.

In 2020, the SEC originally sued Ripple because they claimed that Ripple was selling unregistered securities in the form of a token ($XRP.X), which we now know is not the case. Things get tricky, however, because the ruling has not made things more clear, but instead leaves more room for speculation.

So what does this mean for the crypto industry as a whole, and how do we move forward?

Something that has been made quite clear is that Gary Gensler seemingly has it out for crypto. This ruling — from a neutral party — exposes Gensler’s gaslighting by demonstrating that the securities laws as applied to crypto are anything but “clear.”

Without clear guidance on what makes a crypto a security versus what does not, I foresee that there will be many more court cases with the SEC in the future to uncover this mystical question. For now, I'd personally like to see $XRP.X back on the exchanges, and for Gary to be honest with us about why he seems to disdain crypto so much!!

CBDCs or Central Bank Digital Currencies, are governments' answer to maintaining control over currencies in a new digital era. That being said, however, means that the government is able to track any and all transactions, without worry of money "going by the wayside" because it exists in a completely digitized space whereby paper money no longer has a place. Obviously, this has the opportunity to create a lot of problems for people, and it seems that CBDCs are already doing exactly that. But this isn't the only issue, there are others, and in Brazil, people are discovering what those other implications are.

In Brazil, CBDC Allows Government to Freeze Funds, Developer Finds:

While bringing currencies into the 21st century is great, a government maintaining complete, centralized control over it is not so great. As the adage goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely," and centralization of currency is no different. CBDCs in a lot of ways are a response to decentralized currencies like $BTC.X, and time will ultimately tell how this all ends. Regardless, this story sheds light on why CBDCs are something that we should all question and not passively accept as the next iteration of currency.

In a lot of ways, it feels like I have tech ADD (lmao) because as soon as a new technology comes out I'm ON IT until the next new technology comes out and I'm ON THAT. That being said, AI is the new tech trend, and there's a lot of investment in the space as a result. To me, this feels much more viable than the metaverse, but again, it depends on what it's being used for and what problems it's solving that humanity was unable to solve prior to AI's existence.

A company called CryptoGPT $GPT.X recently raised $10M in funding at a $250M valuation which is obviously a positive indicator for the space overall. It bills itself as a "ZK Layer-2 that lets you own the monetization of your AI data. Turn every task of your daily life into a source of income." If this still sounds like mumbo jumbo to you that's okay because it took me some time—and I'm still lowkey trying to simplify—the definition of what a zkSNARK is. I did write this newsletter post last week, so maybe that can help you to conceptualize zkSNARKS a bit more.

When I initially learned of zk rollups and zkSNARKS, it was mostly applied to payments and the financial world in general. But CryptoGPT is taking a different approach, "Instead of applying ZK technology to payments, CryptoGPT integrates it for private data transfers." What's awesome about this is that they're building a network where instead of intermediaries making money off of one's data, the individual is able to monetize it.

Other notable blockchains building similar capabilities are Lens Protocol, DeSo $DESO.X, Dfinity $ICP.X, and Flux $FLUX.X. Now all of these are different, but they're still building out web3 networks that enable the user to be in control of their data in contrast to now where it's large conglomerates that are largely in control. But back to CryptoGPT...

Given that prompt engineer is the new hot tech job thanks to the rise of ChatGPT, writing is one of those skill sets that pay dividends to any individual who has it. But, according to CryptoGPT's thesis, you shouldn't have to work at a tech company—or write—in order to make money from AI. "Turn every task in your daily life into a source of income," they say.

Would you try something like this or are you skeptical?