
Founder @shipstacked → Proof-of-work network for AI implementation. Solo builders, teams, agencies & agents get hired based on real shipped work.
Joined May 2012
- Tweets1.8K
- Following602
- Followers754
- Likes6.1K
Pinned Tweet
Hiring just broke. CVs don't capture what AI-native builders actually ship anymore. GitHub doesn't show what was built with Claude Code. The world's most exciting builders are completely invisible to recruiters who don't know the right questions to ask. So I built ShipStacked. The proof-of-work hiring platform for AI-native devs, vibe coders, agent builders — anyone shipping production work in the agentic economy. No CVs. No cover letters. No middlemen. Your build feed is your application. Your verified outcomes are your CV. Employers come to you. If you build, you belong here. shipstacked.com
Thomas Oxlee retweeted
Qui mana realment en el futbol mundial?
La FIFA fa marxa enrere. El debat de fons, intacte.
Ahir vaig participar a la #RadioCiudaddeBuenosAires parlant de la proposta —finalment retirada— de la FIFA de donar entrada a inversors privats en els seus principals actius comercials.
La notícia és important. Però, al meu entendre, el debat real és molt més profund.
🛑 La FIFA ha acabat fent un pas enrere davant l’oposició de la UEFA, la CONCACAF i bona part de les federacions nacionals.
Això demostra que, fins i tot en una organització tan poderosa com la FIFA, hi ha límits quan la resta dels actors decideixen actuar conjuntament.
♟️Sovint s’ha presentat aquesta història com un debat entre diners i esport.
Jo crec que és, sobretot, un debat sobre el poder, més enllà dels interessos personals dels qui governen.
Qui governa el futbol mundial? Qui pren les decisions? I davant de qui ha de retre comptes?
💰 Quan una organització controla les competicions més importants del planeta, també controla enormes fluxos econòmics, drets audiovisuals, patrocinis i capacitat d’influència.
Per això cada decisió sobre la seva governança és també una decisió sobre el repartiment del poder.
🏦L’entrada d’inversors privats podia alterar aquest equilibri.
No només perquè hi hagués nous accionistes, sinó perquè apareixerien nous interessos permanents al voltant de les competicions més valuoses del món.
🔍 Però aquest episodi també posa de manifest una altra qüestió.
Les crítiques a la FIFA no s’han centrat únicament en el contingut de la proposta, sinó també en la manca de transparència amb què, segons moltes federacions, es va impulsar el projecte.
Quan les decisions afecten un patrimoni esportiu global, els processos també importen.
🏛️ Dit això, seria un error pensar que aquest és un problema exclusiu de la FIFA.
La bona governança, la transparència i la rendició de comptes són exigències que haurien d’afectar totes les grans organitzacions esportives: FIFA, UEFA, confederacions continentals, lligues i fins i tot els grans clubs.
El poder necessita sempre contrapoders.
⚔️ Per això interpreto aquest episodi com alguna cosa més que una batalla financera.
És una lluita pel lideratge del futbol mundial entre les dues institucions més influents: la FIFA, que aspira a reforçar el seu paper global, després de l’inqüestionable èxit del Mundial 2026, i la UEFA, que defensa el pes esportiu, econòmic i polític que representa Europa.
❓ El projecte s’ha aturat. Però les preguntes continuen obertes.
Com s’ha de governar el futbol del futur?
Qui ha de controlar els seus actius?
I, sobretot, quins mecanismes de transparència i control hem d’exigir perquè decisions d’aquesta magnitud responguin a l’interès general del futbol i no només als interessos de qui ostenta el poder en cada moment?
Aquest és, probablement, el veritable debat.
AHORA @ivancabeza, economista, en #CorresponsalesenLínea @CenLinea por laoncediez.buenosaires.gob.a…
And ShipStacked.com is their home!
Awesome 👏
We've raised $500M at a $10B valuation
supabase.com/blog/supabase-s…
Europe 👀
America's cultural ideal has been the self-made entrepreneur while Europe's was rooted in aristocracy, with status inherited rather than earned. Europe's inheritance laws show this divide.
Many European countries have "forced heirship" laws that require people to leave 50-75% of their estates to their children. Want to leave the majority of your wealth to charity? not allowed. Your kids are estranged from you, struggling with addiction, or irresponsible? still required to give them the money. Want your kids to avoid a life of entitlement? tough.
Incredibly, these laws look back at transfers made during your lifetime. If you have 3 children in France, you're required to bequeath them a minimum of 75% of your estate. Because French law calculates this based on your assets at death plus all lifetime gifts, giving away more than 25% of your wealth while alive means your heirs can legally sue to force charities or foundations to return the funds. This has limited the development of the nonprofit sector on the continent.
The cultural gap between an entrepreneurial society and one shaped by dynastic wealth is enormous. If you make it yourself, you tend to want your kids to do the same. If you inherit it, the primary goal is protecting the estate for the next gen.
Countries like Spain, France, and Italy legally entrench family dynasties, while America has historically sought to limit them through estate taxes. The result is not only a weaker culture of philanthropy and civil society in Europe, but also less economic dynamism.
Interesting 🧐
Replying to @ThomasOxlee @gregisenberg
Micro-SaaS factory. One orchestrated loop that actually compounds: agents surface a real pain, validate demand fast, spin up landing + Stripe + core feature, gate reviews, and launch a waitlist. The others are sharp tools. This one ships the startup itself this weekend.
Shipper is cool 😎 @chddaniel
This 👇
CEOs are uniquely prone to AI psychosis because they’re sufficiently distant from the last mile of work that still has to happen to generate most value with AI.
So when they play with AI, they see the happy path results, often not considering the next 10 or 20 things that have to happen to get sustainable results from agents.
“Look I made this awesome product prototype”. Yes but you didn’t have to review the code before it went into production and fix a bunch of issues.
“Look I generated a contract”. Yes but you didn’t verify all the terms before it goes out to the counterparty and didn’t have to wire up all the past contracts to work with.
The best thing you can do as a CEO is to use AI a *ton* to figure out the real implications of agents in the enterprise, and come out the other side with an appreciation for both the upside and the real work that goes into them.
This 👇
Q: How are job postings for software engineers rising rapidly despite AI agents automating coding?
A: Because there’s far more code to manage than ever before. We’re already seeing a 14x YoY increase in GitHub commits, and it’s accelerating.
AI has dramatically lowered the cost of writing code, so it’s now being used across far more businesses, applications, and use cases.
We’re at the beginning of a massive productivity boom driven by the proliferation of bespoke software throughout the entire economy.
Coding has been AI’s breakout use case this year. The fact that it’s increased demand for software engineers — rather than decreased it — should call into question the entire “AI will cause mass job loss” narrative.
This 👇
Everyone building AI agents is focusing on building the prefrontal cortex. Planning. Reasoning. Multi-step chains. There's value here. CEO-stuff.
But also, a reframe: there is value in building the cerebellum. It's offloading boring tasks into reflex so the complex thought can focus.
Your mortgage gets paid by a standing order, not a committee. The things that are not fun, not interesting, but have to be done? Done. Most agent frameworks will fail because they treat all cognition as high cognition.
The winners will nail the boring stuff first.
This is such an epic thread 🧵 @TomBilyeu
And there you have it folks @nikitabier
Key Person of AI with @DanielPriestley Dan is a legend DIVE IN!
In most businesses, problems don't arrive as problems. They arrive as a feeling - a faint sense that something's off. A quiet hesitation in someone's voice during a meeting or a small instinct that this project isn't quite tracking the way it should.
And then nothing gets said. People wait. They tell themselves they might be imagining it - they want to be sure before they raise it.
And by the time it's undeniable, it's no longer a small thing you could have adjusted in a five-minute conversation. It's a crisis that costs you weeks.
So in our business we don't wait for issues. We deal with awarenesses. The culture is built so that anyone, at any level, can say, can I raise an awareness - "something doesn't feel quite right," "I'm not sure how we're going to hit this," "I think I might be off track."
No diagnosis or proof required. Just the instinct, surfaced early.
The founders who scale are the ones who treat a faint signal as worth listening to. The ones who stall are the ones who only act when the signal is loud, and by then the cost of acting is ten times what it would have been.
Build the culture before you need it.
Join me live for the Key Person of AI workshop, where I'll show you how to use AI and influence to build a founder-led business that scales. Only one date left: bit.ly/4dlozlI




















