Gul Saeed Khattak

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗢𝗳 𝗧𝗵𝗲 $𝟲.𝟯𝗕 𝗕𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗰𝗸, 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗔 𝗝𝗼𝗯 𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝗧𝗼 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝘁𝘆 𝗪𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘀 The biggest crypto theft in history started with a job interview. A software engineer at Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange, had a profile on a job site. It mentioned they worked at Binance. One day a message came in from a “Project Director” at another company. There was a role. Interested? First came an interview with someone from HR. Then a second round, with the company’s CEO. None of it was real. Not the HR person, not the CEO, not the company. On the other side were North Korean hackers, and they were about to take $6.3 billion. Here’s how they did it, based on what Binance has now made public. After the interviews, the “company” sent a take-home assignment. That’s normal in tech hiring. You download a small task, work on it, send it back. The engineer downloaded it. Hidden inside was a way into the laptop. From then on, the hackers could use that engineer’s work computer as if they were sitting at it. But the laptop was just the front door. What they really wanted was Binance’s wallets. In crypto, a wallet is where coins are kept. Whoever controls it can send those coins anywhere, and once they’re sent, there’s no bank to call and no “undo” button. Binance holds billions of dollars of its customers’ coins in its wallets. So the hackers went after the engineers who build and run them. They already knew who those people were, because a second trap had been running at the same time. The hackers ran an online ad pushing a fake version of Homebrew, a free tool developers use to install software on their computers. Another Binance engineer clicked the ad and installed the fake one. Binance caught it and removed it. Too late. The hackers had already learned that engineer’s role, and who else at Binance managed the wallets. So now they had a laptop inside Binance and a list of names. Next, they turned Binance’s own tools against it. Binance gives staff an internal AI tool for their work. From the hacked laptop, the attackers used it to take over two more engineers: one who runs the wallet systems day to day, and one who writes wallet software. Binance hasn’t said exactly how. On one of those computers they found a “container deployment permission token.” In plain English: big companies run their software inside sealed boxes called containers. A deployment token is a digital pass that lets you launch or change what runs in those boxes. Binance says the attacker got into one of these containers, a working part of Binance’s own system, and from there sent out withdrawals Binance never approved. That’s the part that should scare every company. They never stole the wallets’ private keys, the master passwords to crypto wallets. Binance says there’s no sign any key leaked. They didn’t need one. They got into Binance’s own machinery and had it send the money out. On Thursday, October 29, they took over a series of Binance wallets and drained them. $6.3 billion. More than four times the old record, the roughly $1.5 billion stolen from Bybit in 2025, also blamed on North Korea. Binance calls it a “monthslong scheme.” That means all of this happened before a single coin moved: a fake company, a fake HR person, a fake CEO doing a second-round interview, a fake download pushed through ads, and quietly mapping out who did what inside Binance. Some of the money was saved. Part of what was taken was stablecoins, crypto tokens pegged 1:1 to the US dollar. Unlike Bitcoin, they’re issued by companies, and those companies can freeze them. Tether and Circle froze the stolen ones, and about $2.5 billion has been recovered. Binance shut withdrawals for about 48 hours. It says it has refilled 98% of the stolen coins from its own reserves and that customer funds are safe. Two details stay with me. Binance has a policy that employees in roles that aren’t public-facing shouldn’t have LinkedIn profiles. It had already seen hackers targeting its staff on LinkedIn, and it says it stopped 57 North Korea-linked hacking attempts this year. This one it didn’t stop. And none of it needed a genius hack to get started. It needed a believable job offer and one engineer willing to do a take-home test. Links in First Reply 👇👇 “This should not have happened,” Binance said. thehackernews.com/2026/10/bi…

𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗞𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗲'𝘀 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗠𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀 Picture a coding agent two hours into a job. It has opened 40 files, run the tests a dozen times and written a long plan. Now it wants to take one tiny next step. Until now, to do that, it had to send Anthropic's API 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻. Every file, every test log, every earlier message. Then again on the next step. And the next. 𝗢𝗻 𝗡𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮, 𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗱 "𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀", 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀. Here's the difference, with made-up sizes just to show the idea: ❌ 𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲: 𝗻𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 Turn 1: send the whole conversation (800 KB) Turn 2: send all of it again, plus your new message (802 KB) Turn 3: all of it again, plus the next message (804 KB) ✅ 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿: 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 Turn 1: send the whole conversation once (800 KB) Turn 2: send only your new message and the ID of Claude's last reply (about 2 KB) Turn 3: only the next message and the latest ID (about 2 KB) Anthropic's servers stitch the full conversation back together before Claude reads it. So Claude still sees everything. Your app just stops carrying it back and forth. Those sizes aren't far from real life. Anthropic says the typical request in long Claude Code sessions went from 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝟴𝟬𝟬 𝗞𝗕 𝘁𝗼 𝟭.𝟴 𝗞𝗕. 𝗦𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲? ⏱️ 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻. Without a thread, the API has to receive, check and tokenize the whole conversation again before Claude can start. With a thread, most of that work covers only the new part. On really big sessions (500K to 1M tokens), Anthropic says Claude started replying 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝟯𝟱% 𝘀𝗼𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿. 💰 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲. Claude still reads the full conversation on every turn, so you pay for the same tokens as before. Rate limits don't change either. If you want to cut cost, that's still the job of prompt caching. People get confused about who this affects, so let's split it in two. 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 You don't have to do anything. Anthropic says threads are already 𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗮𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀. It all happens in the background. There's no new button, no setting and nothing on screen. You chat and code the way you always have. In long sessions, replies may just start a bit sooner. If you step away for a while, the thread expires 𝟱 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀 after the last request. The full history then gets sent again to start a new one. You won't see that happen. That one reply just won't get the speed boost. Anthropic has only talked about Claude Code here. It hasn't said anything about the regular Claude chat app. 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗣𝗜 Here it's the opposite: 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗻. The easiest way is the thread helper in Anthropic's SDK. In Python it looks like this: client = anthropic.Anthropic() thread = client.beta.messages.thread( model="claude-opus-5-5", max_tokens=1024, system="You are a coding assistant.") thread.send({"role": "user", "content": "Fix the failing test."}) thread.send({"role": "user", "content": "Now run it again."}) The first send() sends the full conversation and starts the thread. Every send() after that sends only the new message. The helper adds the beta header for you, and if a thread has expired, it sends the full history again on its own. A few things worth knowing before you switch it on: If your chats are only a few thousand tokens long, you probably won't notice much. This is built for long-running agents. 𝗢𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘆 OpenAI's Responses API and Google's Interactions API can already continue a conversation from an ID. 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀, 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗶𝘁. claude.com/resources/article…

Saw this and wondered why Elon still works like this when he doesn't need to. I got the answer pretty quickly. Tbh a yacht is fun for a week. After that it's the same sea every morning. Some might disagree , but that is fine . Most of us think the point of money is to stop working. But rest only feels good when there's work around it. Take the work away and relaxing becomes its own kind of boredom. What doesn't get boring is building something nobody has built before. You never really finish it, so it keeps you hooked for years. If Elon had cashed out and moved onto a boat, he wouldn't be Elon, and none of us would be talking about his 3am office nights. People with lots of money and nothing to build often drift into bad habits. People deep in building something rarely have time for them. On a much smaller scale, my best late nights are the ones spent building something. It feels more like rest than any day off.

𝗡𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗮'𝘀 𝟱𝟭% 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲: 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜𝘁 𝗚𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜𝘁 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻'𝘁 Picture a data centre in Singapore. Racks full of Nvidia chips. Its biggest clients are Chinese AI companies that can't buy those chips at home, so they rent them. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝗱𝗲𝗮 Compute is a physical thing, but access to it isn't. You can stop a box at a border. It's much harder to stop someone logging in to a box in another country. So there are two doors: • 𝗕𝘂𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴: export controls, plus Nvidia's "white list", which per the FT more than halved approved Asian buyers this year. • 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴: Chinese companies leasing GPUs in overseas data centres, including for model training. Close the first door and traffic moves to the second. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗼𝗿. 𝗔𝗻 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 It's a bit like a landlord telling a building manager: no more than 49% of tenants from one place. Not a law. A lease condition, enforced by whoever signs the lease. 𝗡𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗛𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 According to the Financial Times (five people familiar with the matter), Nvidia has told cloud providers that 𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟱𝟭% of their services must go to non-Chinese companies. There was no such limit before. • 𝗡𝗼 𝗽𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸: the instruction was given verbally, through Nvidia's sales and regional teams. • 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱𝘄𝗶𝗱𝗲: it applies to clients globally, not only in Asia (two people told the FT). • 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆: existing leases are not affected. • 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿: two people said Nvidia did it pre-emptively, to cut criticism from US lawmakers. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 US export rules mostly control where chips are shipped. Renting them in a data centre abroad has been the gap. Many Chinese groups used overseas leases for heavy AI work, including model training. Nvidia had already tightened the front door. This year it built a "white list" of approved Asian buyers and 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗱 it, per the FT. That pushed more Chinese firms toward renting. This new rule goes after 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜𝘁 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗧𝗼 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 A rack of B300 chips sells for 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 $𝟲𝟬𝟬,𝟬𝟬𝟬 internationally. One person told the FT a rack fetched 𝗥𝗺𝗯𝟭𝟴.𝟱𝗺𝗻 (𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 $𝟮.𝟴𝗺𝗻) in China last month. That is 𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝗹𝘆 𝟰.𝟳 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 the price. The B300 can't legally be sold in China. 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗱 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 Chinese tech groups are the biggest clients for data centres in places like south-east Asia. A Singapore-based provider told the FT it is hard to find enough non-Chinese clients outside the US. Providers that can't find them may have to 𝘀𝗵𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗸. New contracts only. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗽 𝗢𝗳 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹𝘀, 𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗘𝗮𝗰𝗵 • 𝗨𝗦 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹𝘀: block shipping top chips like the B300 to China. • 𝗕𝗜𝗦 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 (𝗝𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆): license applicants must list remote cloud users in China and other listed countries. • 𝗕𝗜𝗦 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 (𝗠𝗮𝘆 𝟯𝟭): a license is needed for advanced chips going to companies headquartered in China or Macau, wherever they are. • 𝗡𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗮'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁 (𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿): approved Asian buyers more than halved, per the FT. • 𝗥𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗔𝗰𝘁: passed the House 369-22 in January; sitting with the Senate Banking Committee. • 𝗡𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗮'𝘀 𝟱𝟭% 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 (𝗻𝗼𝘄): aimed at the cloud provider's customer mix, not the chip. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗙𝗶𝘁𝘀 Government rules set the floor. Nvidia is adding its own layer on top, so lawmakers have less to criticise (two people told the FT that was the motive). 𝗪𝗵𝗼 𝗙𝗲𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗜𝘁 • 𝗖𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵-𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮: Chinese tech groups are their biggest clients. • 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝗜 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀: already paying a premium. A B300 rack, 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 $𝟲𝟬𝟬𝗸 abroad, reportedly fetched $𝟮.𝟴𝗺𝗻 in China last month (one deal). 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁: 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘶𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. FT (original report): ft.com/content/1902df70-1380… Links in reply 👇

Who is this reply even for? Saw a reply today under my NVIDIA auto-ontology repo post today . It just said "@bot save this". I assumed it was a joke, so I looked it up. @bot is xAI's Grok Bot, an agent app they launched in August 2026. You tag it under a post and the post goes to your own agent, which runs on its own computer in the cloud all day. So that reply wasn't really for the person who shared the repo. It was for someone's private assistant, left out in public where the rest of us could read it. Feels a bit like leaving a note for your cleaner on a stranger's front door. I get why people do it though. I have hundreds of bookmarks I've never opened. Every time I save something I tell myself I'll read it later, and I don't. At least an agent might actually go through the list. I read that repo properly because I'm building an ontology layer on top of a lineage graph at work. I doubt most people saving it will open the README. Their bots probably will. Still can't decide how I feel about that.

Claude Code says no to game clones. A tool that uses Claude Code tops trending anyway. What changed: Last week Claude Code got two new sentences telling it not to recreate specific existing games. What it is: This week a tool called Craft Anything is topping the trending charts. It reverse engineers apps and games, then has a coding agent build your own version. 1.6K stars today. 5.7K total. To be fair, it defaults to a clean-room mode and says it never bypasses DRM, logins or anti-cheat. The funny part: The builder it supports first is Claude Code. One of its own example requests is "Recreate this game's gameplay in Rust". My take: Big labs can block this kind of use inside their own agents. I don't think it changes much. Craft Anything already has adapters for open agents like Qwen Code and opencode. Open models are good enough now, and anyone can point these tools at them. Reverse engineering always cut both ways. The debugger that fixes your crash can also copy someone's code. What changed is the effort. It used to take a skilled person weeks. Now it's closer to a prompt. Links in reply 👇 Reply comment (post this straight after): Repo: github.com/storytold/craft-a…

OpenAI's $172K bug bounty, and why the partner matters more My read on OpenAI's security news is a bit different from the headlines. The money: • $172,000 is the top payout, with bonuses stacked on
• A critical bug in ChatGPT, Codex or the API now pays up to $30,000
• OpenAI says that's more than four times what critical findings paid before The partner: The more interesting part is who they picked. Cathedral is the startup whose AI agents reached Anthropic's internal business systems in October 2026. Not through Claude. Through third-party business software. Anthropic disputes parts of it. It says it took several days, not 12 hours, and that Cathedral went beyond the bounty rules by targeting vendors and not disclosing everything. Now OpenAI brings them in as a partner, not a bounty hunter. I think that's smart. A bounty comes with a fixed scope and safe harbour. A partner can agree up front what's in bounds. The Anthropic fight was mostly about scope and disclosure. What I'd watch: The path that worked at Anthropic was vendor software, not the model. Bigger bounties for ChatGPT bugs don't cover that. OpenAI hasn't said what Cathedral will test. Maybe vendors are already in scope. If not, the money is pointed at the wrong door. One line from their write-up on the last sprint stuck with me. A merged patch didn't always mean the fix had reached every deployed system. I've seen the same in data pipelines. Code merged, old job still running somewhere. Links in reply 👇 OpenAI's sprint post: openai.com/index/preparing-o…

𝟯 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻-𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗧𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀 𝗥𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗔𝗜 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 You have Claude Code in one terminal. Codex in another. Five more agents running somewhere. 𝗪𝗵𝗼'𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺? Three open-source projects want that job. Same goal, very different ideas. 𝗣𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗽: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 (𝟭𝟭𝟬𝗸 ⭐) "𝘐𝘧 𝘖𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘦, 𝘗𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺." • Hire agents into roles: CEO, engineer, marketer • Set goals and budgets, approve plans • Not just code: research, content, operations too 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗛𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺 (𝟵𝟮𝗸 ⭐) Now leads with Agent Canvas, a "𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴." • The only one of the three with 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 • Also runs Claude Code, Codex, Gemini and others • Automations with Slack, GitHub and Linear. Self-host or use their cloud 𝗥𝘂𝗳𝗹𝗼: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹 (𝟴𝟭𝗸 ⭐) "𝘈𝘯 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘢-𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘹." • Lives inside Claude Code as plugins • Runs "swarms" of agents, with routing and policy rules • Built for developers who stay in the terminal 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: • Paperclip manages 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 • OpenHands runs 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺 • Ruflo powers up 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁: Paperclip only launched in 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲. It passed both in about 8 months. 𝗞𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱: • 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘂𝘀𝗲 • They overlap but aren't the same product. Pick by how you work, not by stars The race isn't to build the best agent anymore. 𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺. 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘰𝘷 3, 2026. Links in reply 👇