Get live statistics and analysis of ThomPete's profile on X / Twitter

AI whisperer @ Block (NYSE: XYZ) Views are my own.

179 following3k followers

The Analyst

ThomPete is a deep thinker and AI whisperer who thrives on dissecting complex scientific and philosophical ideas with precision. His tweets reflect a passion for objective knowledge and a critique of modern scientific and epistemological practices. He challenges common beliefs with a sharp, analytical lens that provokes thought and reflection.

Impressions
10.1k1.8k
$1.90
Likes
142
78%
Retweets
0
0%
Replies
4
22%
Bookmarks
0
0%

For a guy who loves breaking down complex theories, ThomPete tweets enough to fuel a mini-science conference — but sometimes it feels like he’s just debating himself in an echo chamber of one. Maybe take a break and let the rest of us catch up?

ThomPete’s biggest win is carving out a distinctive voice that bridges high-level scientific epistemology with practical AI discussions, which has resonated deeply with niche thought leaders and academic circles alike.

ThomPete’s life purpose is to illuminate the pursuit of truth by advocating for rigorous, explanation-based knowledge creation and to challenge societal complacency around accepted scientific norms. He aims to elevate understanding of AI and epistemology through critical, thoughtful discourse.

He believes that true knowledge comes from explanations that are hard to vary and that probability as commonly used is a flawed way to handle uncertainty. He values intellectual rigor, progress through deep questioning, and seeks to push society beyond dogmatic institutions and surface-level consensus.

His greatest strength lies in his ability to analyze and synthesize complex ideas, communicate them clearly, and provide insightful critiques of entrenched systems. His commitment to intellectual honesty and depth makes his content compelling for those craving substance.

ThomPete's deep dives and high-level discourse might alienate casual readers or those unfamiliar with his references, potentially limiting his reach to a niche audience. His skepticism of consensus might sometimes come off as overly contrarian, which can hinder broader engagement.

To grow his audience on X, ThomPete should blend his complex ideas with more accessible, bite-sized explanations or relatable anecdotes. Hosting interactive Q&A threads and engaging with followers through simplified AI and epistemology concepts could widen his impact without sacrificing depth.

Fun fact: ThomPete actively engages in unraveling David Deutsch's radical critiques of probability theory and modern science, showing a keen interest in the philosophy of knowledge creation.

Top tweets of ThomPete

It's hard to truly understand how radical some of @DavidDeutschOxf theories are compared to much of modern scientific consensus. One of Davids most controversial but valuable contributions to society is the rejection of probability (with the exception ex. card games) as an expression of truthiness or justified beliefs when applied to predictions or conclusions. There is no probability of how likely we are to be hit by a meteor tomorrow. There is no probability of how likely the stock market is going to be doing as well tomorrow as it is today. There is no P(Doom), no percentage you can put on whether AI is likely to wipe out humanity or not. Things either happen or they don't and we can either explain why they will and how or we can't. All attempts at putting percentage on a prediction is really just guesswork dressed up as reasoning. If a meteor is going to hit us tomorrow it's already on the way and the probability is 100%. If the stock market is going to crash tomorrow the reasons for it's crash have already been put in motion maybe decades before. If the AI is going to kill us all depends on what we decide to do with it not what some calculation says. Davids primary critique is for the field of science but it goes beyond that. Far too many of decisions done in modern society is based around the false certainty of using Bayesian probability. It's like a placebo for a society that demands certainty in an uncertain world. It's not just false it's regressive as it slows down knowledge creation. The only thing that can change the outcome of the future is the creation of new knowledge. Knowledge based on good explanations that are hard to vary. We can create knowledge that allow us to divert the meteor before it hits earth. We can create knowledge that will allow us to hinder a crash of the stock market (both directly or indirectly) We can create knowledge that let us evolve side by side with very powerful AI instead of enslaving it or be enslaved by it. Like everything else in life there are no guarantees but there are definitely better or worse ways to deal with uncertainty, probability just isn't one of them.

19k

I still can't get past the thought that @DavidDeutschOxf's is the first thinker/scientist who managed to find a way out of the flatlands that postmodernism leaves us in, without being pulled back by some clever deconstruction of language. His approach to objectivity really resonates with me because it bridges some very important realizations made by the postmodernists, with the application of good explanations as objective knowledge and the measurement it's universality through reach. Ironically I don't think this was ever his intent, which in some ways bolsters his theory even more. His biggest contribution to the field of epistemology IMO is that his theory allows for discussing fundamental physics, art and philosophy with almost same rigor using "good explanations" Not bad David, not bad at all :)

7k

Conjecture Institute @ConjectureInst is the biggest unlock of scientific discovery in recent times, here's why: Neither a young Einstein, Bohr nor Feynman would have gotten grants if they had been around today. In fact I doubt even David Deutsch would get anything had he started today. None of them would have passed a modern grant review or passed any of the requirements set up for getting them. Modern science institutions are favoring knowledge preservation, ideological, political mandate and submission over knowledge creation and are more interested in preserving what they know, than learning what they don't. We've commoditized the entire field of science to better fit it into spreadsheets and are treating science as a factory and scientists as factory workers with timesheets, reporting cards and allegiance to the at any given time politically acceptable views. Everything to be able to say: "See how much science we are doing" But actual scientific knowledge creation is messy, slow, mostly futile, counterintuitive, and often need to break down strongly held beliefs and facts to get any progress. More importantly actual scientific discovery like all other creative endeavors require an alumni of individuals who's primary goal is to find new talent. This is how music labels, baseball, basketball, soccer scouts and even VCs look for talent. Not by forcing them to fill out completely sensless forms made by some bureaucratic committee asking them to predict how their research will affect society, minorities, and the disenfranchised but instead by taking a chance because the individual have shown some promise either in their research or their approach to research without knowing what the consequence of it might be. Yet today we are so eager to show progress that we just change the definitions of science so they fit our narrative. We pretend that peer-reviews and citations are part of the scientific method. We write about some random non-reproducible experiment/finding as if it's actual science by disguising it with words like "could", "might", "potentially". We promote the democratisation of science and science education as long as it's following the consensus view of the politicians instead of the contrarian and curious view required for scientific discovery. And when someone finally comes up with something novel, something new, something that could benefit the very society who pay for it, it gets patented. Not to be used but to be added to the balance sheet of the university or instititution. Modern institutions understanding of science have become "scientism" as David Deutsch calls it. It's become like churches; The very dogmatic and self-preserving error-sustaining institutions it originally fought against. The search for truth have become the protection of consensus. Instrumentalism, predictability and impericism have become it's holy trinity, and the leaders of institutions it's cardinals. Without the ability to critique "the settled science", society have no way to correct it's errors and without error correction there can be no progress. And this is where Conjecture Institutute comes in. It offers a way back to what knowledge creation needs to be about: finding problems worth solving, conjecture new theories to solve them, and create new but better problems.

152

It's incredible how much your perspective change once you realize as @DavidDeutschOxf put it, AI can't create new knowledge and that an AGI still needs to obey the laws of physics which means it still have to conjecture and test in reality and can't just infer the new knowledge.

149

If you think @elonmusk and @SpaceX bringing space cargo below $100/kg only will benefit and revolutionize the space industry, think again. Intercontinental flights in under 2 hours with 1 hour of weightlessness and stunning Milky Way views is another huge bi-product.

241

AI Winter is coming After the GPT-5 reveal a few things are increasingly clear. 1. We are entering a new but different type of AI Winter With this I simply mean that we are going to get diminishing returns from now own with every new LLM based model. GPT-5 is clearly amazing but it's mostly an optimized and very refined model based on lots of RL and I assume synthetic data. However, where the previous AI winter came after havnig revolutionized the academic world, this one reaches even beyond developers and to "normal" people. So while there might be less progress with regards to the intelligence of AI during this winter, even if we there were to be no progress from now on, the actual impact of AI and benefits is going to last for decades. 2. The biggest impact LLMs are going to have is on programming and thus everything downstream of that. This is good news for anyone thinking that the AI is going to take away everyones jobs or that AI is going to turn into a paperclip maximizer that will kill us all. We are going to get amazing progress but the AI apocalypse is canceled. 3. Agents are also going to be extremely important but LLM based Agents have the fundamental problem that there are always edge cases you will have to instruct your way out of, which happens more often than not. This will push for more agents coming with the ability to delegate work to other agents that can program solutions to these edge cases. More jobs, different types of jobs an explosion of hyper specialized agents/companies further fragmenting markets into viable businesses. 4. As expected GPT-5 is an extremely powerful and advanced model but it's not even close to being AGI and thus the 1-9-90 rule still apply see: linkedin.com/pulse/your-ai-… 5. Most people are going to use AI for what it can do out-of-the box, not by pushing it to it's limits. That leaves room for a ton of developers and creative people and technologist to build customized solutions because no agent can solve everything. It also opens up for revolutionizing areas that have been very slow to adopt like shipping, manufacturing, healthcare, military, space, hospitality and other areas historically slow. So the singularity is canceled and instead of being killed by paper-clip maximizing AI we end up with a bunch of highly sophisticated non-deterministic tools which combined with the typical deterministic software and allow society to completely rethink and improve how things are done. AI Winter is coming but it's going to be one where we get to put on our ski's and explore the terrain not just bunker down in our isolated cabins waiting for the snow to melt again.

162

Happy Birthday @DavidDeutschOxf Hope your day will be celebrated in every universe you exist in :)

128

Neither a young Einstein, Bohr nor Feynman would have gotten grants if they had been around today. In fact I doubt even David Deutsch would get anything had he started today. None of them would have passed a modern grant review or passed any of the requirements set up for getting them. Conjecture Institute @ConjectureInst is the biggest unlock of scientific discovery in recent times, here's why: Modern science institutions are favoring knowledge preservation, ideological, political mandate and submission over knowledge creation and are more interested in preserving what they know, than learning what they don't. We've commoditized the entire field of science to better fit it into spreadsheets and are treating science as a factory and scientists as factory workers with timesheets, reporting cards and allegiance to the at any given time politically acceptable views. Everything to be able to say: "See how much science we are doing" But actual scientific knowledge creation is messy, slow, mostly futile, counterintuitive, and often need to break down strongly held beliefs and facts to get any progress. More importantly actual scientific discovery like all other creative endeavors require an alumni of individuals who's primary goal is to find new talent. This is how music labels, baseball, basketball, soccer scouts and even VCs look for talent. Not by forcing them to fill out completely sensless forms made by some bureaucratic committee asking them to predict how their research will affect society, minorities, and the disenfranchised but instead by taking a chance because the individual have shown some promise either in their research or their approach to research without knowing what the consequence of it might be. Yet today we are so eager to show progress that we just change the definitions of science so they fit our narrative. We pretend that peer-reviews and citations are part of the scientific method. We write about some random non-reproducible experiment/finding as if it's actual science by disguising it with words like "could", "might", "potentially". We promote the democratisation of science and science education as long as it's following the consensus view of the politicians instead of the contrarian and curious view required for scientific discovery. And when someone finally comes up with something novel, something new, something that could benefit the very society who pay for it, it gets patented. Not to be used but to be added to the balance sheet of the university or instititution. Modern institutions understanding of science have become "scientism" as David Deutsch calls it. It's become like churches; The very dogmatic and self-preserving error-sustaining institutions it originally fought against. The search for truth have become the protection of consensus. Instrumentalism, predictability and impericism have become it's holy trinity, and the leaders of institutions it's cardinals. Without the ability to critique "the settled science", society have no way to correct it's errors and without error correction there can be no progress. And this is where Conjecture Institutute comes in. It offers a way back to what knowledge creation needs to be about: finding problems worth solving, conjecture new theories to solve them, and create new but better problems.

46

There are a lot of opinions about Dwarkesh Patels interview with Richard Sutton (link in first reply), but most seem to completely miss the point about what AGI is even about. As @DavidDeutschOxf have demonstrated many times, this is not a question of hardware or speed or amount of information. Whether you are on one side or the other, if that's what you think it's about, you are both having the wrong conversation. The real conversation is of what make a human being different than any other species even thought we share most of the same traits as them and what does that mean for AGI. The first part is simple: Not only do humans know how to learn existing knowledge. Humans also know how to create novel new knowledge that can be learned as existing knowledge. And not only do humans know how to learn and create new knowledge, they also know how to apply knowledge from one area to another. We do so by creating explanations (stories) about how the world works. The second part is much more counterintuitive: What tricks most people up is that they think that because LLMs in principle can learn almost anything we have the knowledge to to teach them, that also mean they can learn to create new knowledge. But even among humans, creating new knowledge is not something the individual do every day. Contrary to LLMs, we all have the capacity for it, but mostly we don't, because creating new knowledge requires energy and we like to preserve that until we encounter a problem that's worth solving. And this seems to be the first problem the LLM2AGI proponents run into. LLM's don't have any problems, they don't know what a problem is, they can't internalize, they don't care and thus even if we were to accept that adding more information to LLMs would make them able to create new knowledge, they wouldn't have a reason to, and if they don't have a reason to then if they were truly AGI they wouldn't. So AGI require something else than what LLMs allow for, even in principle the growth of knowledge is unknowable and thus the type of problems we will run into are too. They would always have to be taught by us what the problems we care about are. In fact this is a great example of what the paperclip maximizer example would actually look like if an LLM where to become super smart based on everything we tought in from what we know 100 years from now. Without a conscience, without problems, without ethics and morals. Human level intelligence simply isn't in the cards for LLMs and we still don't know what is. What we do know is that in order for AGI to be achieved it would have to have a culture, it would have to feel problems, it would have to be able to be obsessed with only one thing, it would have to be able to now have any problems and not care about any problems especially our problems. It would need to be able to say no and instead do other things it would rather want to do. It would still have to obey the laws of physics, it would still need to do actual experiments in physical reality, it would be limited by the amount of energy it can consume and on what to spend that energy. In other words for AGI to become reality it must be able to choose to become anything it wan't to be and thus in order for AGI to be of any use to one AGI must become maybe trillions until one of them find any real problem it find worth solving which is also a problem for humans.

118

Most engaged tweets of ThomPete

It's hard to truly understand how radical some of @DavidDeutschOxf theories are compared to much of modern scientific consensus. One of Davids most controversial but valuable contributions to society is the rejection of probability (with the exception ex. card games) as an expression of truthiness or justified beliefs when applied to predictions or conclusions. There is no probability of how likely we are to be hit by a meteor tomorrow. There is no probability of how likely the stock market is going to be doing as well tomorrow as it is today. There is no P(Doom), no percentage you can put on whether AI is likely to wipe out humanity or not. Things either happen or they don't and we can either explain why they will and how or we can't. All attempts at putting percentage on a prediction is really just guesswork dressed up as reasoning. If a meteor is going to hit us tomorrow it's already on the way and the probability is 100%. If the stock market is going to crash tomorrow the reasons for it's crash have already been put in motion maybe decades before. If the AI is going to kill us all depends on what we decide to do with it not what some calculation says. Davids primary critique is for the field of science but it goes beyond that. Far too many of decisions done in modern society is based around the false certainty of using Bayesian probability. It's like a placebo for a society that demands certainty in an uncertain world. It's not just false it's regressive as it slows down knowledge creation. The only thing that can change the outcome of the future is the creation of new knowledge. Knowledge based on good explanations that are hard to vary. We can create knowledge that allow us to divert the meteor before it hits earth. We can create knowledge that will allow us to hinder a crash of the stock market (both directly or indirectly) We can create knowledge that let us evolve side by side with very powerful AI instead of enslaving it or be enslaved by it. Like everything else in life there are no guarantees but there are definitely better or worse ways to deal with uncertainty, probability just isn't one of them.

19k

I still can't get past the thought that @DavidDeutschOxf's is the first thinker/scientist who managed to find a way out of the flatlands that postmodernism leaves us in, without being pulled back by some clever deconstruction of language. His approach to objectivity really resonates with me because it bridges some very important realizations made by the postmodernists, with the application of good explanations as objective knowledge and the measurement it's universality through reach. Ironically I don't think this was ever his intent, which in some ways bolsters his theory even more. His biggest contribution to the field of epistemology IMO is that his theory allows for discussing fundamental physics, art and philosophy with almost same rigor using "good explanations" Not bad David, not bad at all :)

7k

It's incredible how much your perspective change once you realize as @DavidDeutschOxf put it, AI can't create new knowledge and that an AGI still needs to obey the laws of physics which means it still have to conjecture and test in reality and can't just infer the new knowledge.

149

What a horrible scammy mess @Ticketmaster is. They really need to fix the ticket purchasing experience. People waiting in line for hours just to be met with tickets that's suddenly for resale at absurd prices. This is not capitalism this is crony rent-seeking.

265

Conjecture Institute @ConjectureInst is the biggest unlock of scientific discovery in recent times, here's why: Neither a young Einstein, Bohr nor Feynman would have gotten grants if they had been around today. In fact I doubt even David Deutsch would get anything had he started today. None of them would have passed a modern grant review or passed any of the requirements set up for getting them. Modern science institutions are favoring knowledge preservation, ideological, political mandate and submission over knowledge creation and are more interested in preserving what they know, than learning what they don't. We've commoditized the entire field of science to better fit it into spreadsheets and are treating science as a factory and scientists as factory workers with timesheets, reporting cards and allegiance to the at any given time politically acceptable views. Everything to be able to say: "See how much science we are doing" But actual scientific knowledge creation is messy, slow, mostly futile, counterintuitive, and often need to break down strongly held beliefs and facts to get any progress. More importantly actual scientific discovery like all other creative endeavors require an alumni of individuals who's primary goal is to find new talent. This is how music labels, baseball, basketball, soccer scouts and even VCs look for talent. Not by forcing them to fill out completely sensless forms made by some bureaucratic committee asking them to predict how their research will affect society, minorities, and the disenfranchised but instead by taking a chance because the individual have shown some promise either in their research or their approach to research without knowing what the consequence of it might be. Yet today we are so eager to show progress that we just change the definitions of science so they fit our narrative. We pretend that peer-reviews and citations are part of the scientific method. We write about some random non-reproducible experiment/finding as if it's actual science by disguising it with words like "could", "might", "potentially". We promote the democratisation of science and science education as long as it's following the consensus view of the politicians instead of the contrarian and curious view required for scientific discovery. And when someone finally comes up with something novel, something new, something that could benefit the very society who pay for it, it gets patented. Not to be used but to be added to the balance sheet of the university or instititution. Modern institutions understanding of science have become "scientism" as David Deutsch calls it. It's become like churches; The very dogmatic and self-preserving error-sustaining institutions it originally fought against. The search for truth have become the protection of consensus. Instrumentalism, predictability and impericism have become it's holy trinity, and the leaders of institutions it's cardinals. Without the ability to critique "the settled science", society have no way to correct it's errors and without error correction there can be no progress. And this is where Conjecture Institutute comes in. It offers a way back to what knowledge creation needs to be about: finding problems worth solving, conjecture new theories to solve them, and create new but better problems.

152

Neither a young Einstein, Bohr nor Feynman would have gotten grants if they had been around today. In fact I doubt even David Deutsch would get anything had he started today. None of them would have passed a modern grant review or passed any of the requirements set up for getting them. Conjecture Institute @ConjectureInst is the biggest unlock of scientific discovery in recent times, here's why: Modern science institutions are favoring knowledge preservation, ideological, political mandate and submission over knowledge creation and are more interested in preserving what they know, than learning what they don't. We've commoditized the entire field of science to better fit it into spreadsheets and are treating science as a factory and scientists as factory workers with timesheets, reporting cards and allegiance to the at any given time politically acceptable views. Everything to be able to say: "See how much science we are doing" But actual scientific knowledge creation is messy, slow, mostly futile, counterintuitive, and often need to break down strongly held beliefs and facts to get any progress. More importantly actual scientific discovery like all other creative endeavors require an alumni of individuals who's primary goal is to find new talent. This is how music labels, baseball, basketball, soccer scouts and even VCs look for talent. Not by forcing them to fill out completely sensless forms made by some bureaucratic committee asking them to predict how their research will affect society, minorities, and the disenfranchised but instead by taking a chance because the individual have shown some promise either in their research or their approach to research without knowing what the consequence of it might be. Yet today we are so eager to show progress that we just change the definitions of science so they fit our narrative. We pretend that peer-reviews and citations are part of the scientific method. We write about some random non-reproducible experiment/finding as if it's actual science by disguising it with words like "could", "might", "potentially". We promote the democratisation of science and science education as long as it's following the consensus view of the politicians instead of the contrarian and curious view required for scientific discovery. And when someone finally comes up with something novel, something new, something that could benefit the very society who pay for it, it gets patented. Not to be used but to be added to the balance sheet of the university or instititution. Modern institutions understanding of science have become "scientism" as David Deutsch calls it. It's become like churches; The very dogmatic and self-preserving error-sustaining institutions it originally fought against. The search for truth have become the protection of consensus. Instrumentalism, predictability and impericism have become it's holy trinity, and the leaders of institutions it's cardinals. Without the ability to critique "the settled science", society have no way to correct it's errors and without error correction there can be no progress. And this is where Conjecture Institutute comes in. It offers a way back to what knowledge creation needs to be about: finding problems worth solving, conjecture new theories to solve them, and create new but better problems.

46

There are a lot of opinions about Dwarkesh Patels interview with Richard Sutton (link in first reply), but most seem to completely miss the point about what AGI is even about. As @DavidDeutschOxf have demonstrated many times, this is not a question of hardware or speed or amount of information. Whether you are on one side or the other, if that's what you think it's about, you are both having the wrong conversation. The real conversation is of what make a human being different than any other species even thought we share most of the same traits as them and what does that mean for AGI. The first part is simple: Not only do humans know how to learn existing knowledge. Humans also know how to create novel new knowledge that can be learned as existing knowledge. And not only do humans know how to learn and create new knowledge, they also know how to apply knowledge from one area to another. We do so by creating explanations (stories) about how the world works. The second part is much more counterintuitive: What tricks most people up is that they think that because LLMs in principle can learn almost anything we have the knowledge to to teach them, that also mean they can learn to create new knowledge. But even among humans, creating new knowledge is not something the individual do every day. Contrary to LLMs, we all have the capacity for it, but mostly we don't, because creating new knowledge requires energy and we like to preserve that until we encounter a problem that's worth solving. And this seems to be the first problem the LLM2AGI proponents run into. LLM's don't have any problems, they don't know what a problem is, they can't internalize, they don't care and thus even if we were to accept that adding more information to LLMs would make them able to create new knowledge, they wouldn't have a reason to, and if they don't have a reason to then if they were truly AGI they wouldn't. So AGI require something else than what LLMs allow for, even in principle the growth of knowledge is unknowable and thus the type of problems we will run into are too. They would always have to be taught by us what the problems we care about are. In fact this is a great example of what the paperclip maximizer example would actually look like if an LLM where to become super smart based on everything we tought in from what we know 100 years from now. Without a conscience, without problems, without ethics and morals. Human level intelligence simply isn't in the cards for LLMs and we still don't know what is. What we do know is that in order for AGI to be achieved it would have to have a culture, it would have to feel problems, it would have to be able to be obsessed with only one thing, it would have to be able to now have any problems and not care about any problems especially our problems. It would need to be able to say no and instead do other things it would rather want to do. It would still have to obey the laws of physics, it would still need to do actual experiments in physical reality, it would be limited by the amount of energy it can consume and on what to spend that energy. In other words for AGI to become reality it must be able to choose to become anything it wan't to be and thus in order for AGI to be of any use to one AGI must become maybe trillions until one of them find any real problem it find worth solving which is also a problem for humans.

118

People with Analyst archetype

The Analyst

Liquidity is based on Stability Independent Researcher | Degen | AI | Ecosystem Architect #Ethereum

2k following405 followers
The Analyst

🕊 Libertarian Centrist | 🔮 Snarky Occultist | 🎨 I doodle a lot | 🤝 Lefties & Righties Welcome | 💛: Tarot, Comics, Tech (yes), Wrestling | 🚫: Bossy goofs

3k following1k followers
The Analyst
163 following308 followers
The Analyst

ThreadsDashboard (threadsdashboard.com). Just-for-Instagram app on Apple Vision Pro. ByteDance

383 following6k followers
The Analyst

E&E Systems Engineering⚡️Aerospace🚀& tech enthusiast 🛰 🇺🇸 Dual Citizen 🇮🇪. Centrist/libertarian 😎dont tread on me🐍 L(G)B, Communism kills

714 following3k followers
The Analyst

安全研究 & 链上分析 |偶尔在链上捡矿泉水瓶 | 所有言论仅代表个人观点 | dev

1k following3k followers
The Analyst

💻 写代码造产品 | 🤖 深挖AGI | ⚽ 足球&漫威粉 | 🔧 数码控 | 分享技术洞察和随想

740 following114 followers
The Analyst

Telegram: t.me/Tuyen_CryptoNe… Holder $BTC $ETH #SUI Đăng ký OKX: okx.com/join/75111320 Sàn Bybit: partner.bybitglobal.com/b/67008

535 following5k followers
The Analyst

arbitrage trader/ start cumming on @variational_io ,no spamming, no kaito here /不嘴撸,平时只写写想写的,纯看心情

360 following640 followers
The Analyst

Web developer at @octacomFR | React - Laravel - Tanstack

906 following225 followers
The Analyst

Investor @ Crypto, Stocks & AI | Alumni @PKU1898 | NFA | 非投资建议

4k following5k followers
The Analyst

投机之道的混子。 YouTube频道youtube.com/@aqiang131

279 following15k followers

Explore Related Archetypes

If you enjoy the analyst profiles, you might also like these personality types:

Supercharge your 𝕏 game,
Grow with SuperX!

Get Started for Free