Sandisk was one of the largest public holdings of the hedge fund of 24-year-old former wunderkind, Leopold Aschenbrenner, and its July collapse from $2300 to $1000 was chief the main reasons why the former OpenAI employee had to liquidate his extremely overlevered hedge fund and sell all positions at a 10% discount to Citadel to meet a volley of endless margin calls.

Well, if he has some dry powder left he just may be able to repurchase some or all of his portfolio from Ken Griffen following the plunge of Sandisk after hours (we jest, of course), not because earnings were weak – they beat solidly – but because the company’s revenue guidance was very disappointing… and for a stock like SNDK which is priced to perfection beyond 2030 on the assumption that nobody else can produce the biggest commodity product in electronics – memory chips – the guidance was rather dismal. 

Here is what SNDK reported for fiscal Q4:

• EPS $39.25 vs Est. $34.37
• Revenue $8.97BN vs Est. $8.64BN
  • Data Center Revenue $3.0B vs Est. $2.6B
• Operating Income $7.0B vs Est. $6.4B
  • Adjusted gross margin 84.6%, estimate 81.5%
• Free cash flow $7.08 billion

And while historical were fine, it was the company’s Q1 guidance that sent its stock tumbling after hours: 

• Sees revenue $10.30 billion to $10.80 billion, far below the median estimate of $11.16 billion 
• Sees adjusted EPS $44.00 to $46.00, a midline also below the estimate $45.58

Commenting on the results, SNDK said that “as the cloud and other data-intensive workloads continue to expand, we remain confident in the long-term growth trajectory of our business, further margin expansion, and strong free cash flow generation.”

Perhaps, although one look at prevailing NAND prices indicates that the peak is now well in the rearview mirror…

… and the market agrees with the stock, which surged about 40% in the past few days since the Citadel takeover of the Situational Awareness hedge fund, sliding and back to about half of its all time high hit in early June.

Authored by Todd Hayen via Off-Guardian.org,

This might not apply to all sheep-types, but many of the ones I have encountered simply do not care. This could be the reason we can’t seem to get through to them with the facts we are constantly shoving down their throats. Of course, the ones I’ve talked to may just be saying they don’t care to shut me up, but I really don’t think so. They seem pretty sincere.

How could they not care? Now, that is the $64,000 question. People, in general, do not care about things they do not see directly affecting them. They should, but they don’t. People these days, at least, don’t seem very skilled at discerning things that will—if not cared about—eventually bite them in the ass. I think people used to be better at determining such things.

They used to see war in a neighbouring country, for example, and say, “Hmmm, if we don’t do something about that, those bloodthirsty marauders may be over here next.” People who thought that way—speculating about a potential ass-bite—actually disappeared a long time ago, if they ever existed at all.

Still, my point stands: if it doesn’t directly affect them in the present moment, they don’t care.

Sorry, I think that is weird.

And, of course, people seem very inconsistent about this.

Some things they do care about, and usually those things are not as important as the things they should care about.

Take immigration control and enforcement, for example. Most people leaning to the left seem to care very much about the treatment ICE gives to people suspected (or legally determined) to be in the US illegally. They worry about their rights, their families, and the way they are arrested and deported. Yes, some of these worries are legitimate.

Everyone should be treated fairly and respectfully by law enforcement officials, and if they are not, it is right to complain about it through the proper channels. But none of these people seem the least bit concerned about how millions of illegal—and often criminal—people will degrade the way of life for everyone already living here.

I often ask, “So, do you want open borders then, and as a result, never have laws about enforcing the rules regarding immigration?” They will invariably say, “Oh no, I do believe we should control our borders!” Go figure.

The same story goes for free speech. People may seem to care about hate speech and speech that does not fit their worldview, such as Charlie Kirk’s speaking about the negatives regarding transgenderism or abortion. But if you ask them, “So, you don’t believe in free speech then? You think the First Amendment of the US Constitution is idealistic hooey?” They will invariably say, “No, of course I believe in free speech!” But they don’t. Go figure.

They can’t see far enough ahead to recognize the consequences of cherry-picking speech—eliminating what they think is offensive and keeping only the “important stuff.” Unfortunately, you can’t do that, and up until recently people knew that. There is a consequence for freedom, and sometimes it isn’t pretty.

I think a lot of the time this “I don’t care” attitude stems from the fact that people don’t seem to care much about principles. Of course, that does depend on the “principle.” Using the immigration example again to illustrate this point: those against deporting illegal aliens seem to care about the principle of “kindness” and “loving your neighbour” and “no one should be hurt, for pretty much any reason.”

Yet they contradict this attitude in dozens of ways: expecting that people be put into prison for not calling someone by their chosen pronoun, or arresting someone giving a speech about the atrocities being committed in Gaza—they see these examples as hate speech. In these cases, it is fine to be arrested. But sneaking into the US illegally, or doing so and lying about your criminal record? That’s all okay.

I feel the shrew-types are (see my Substack for a definition of “shrew”) very aware of principles. The destruction of free speech and even the obliteration of privacy in the US is not necessarily affecting people directly (except during Covid, when it certainly did, with persecution toward the unvaccinated and the loss of jobs and livelihoods). It is a “principle thing” for a lot of us. It is the wanton destruction of the very fundamentals our country (the US) was founded on.

Not only our constitutional rights, but the inalienable rights our Creator granted us. The writing on the wall exclaiming a future none of us will be comfortable in is clear and present. We hear the train a-comin’, rolling ‘round the bend…And it doesn’t look good.

So maybe shrews also don’t freak out over injustices until we feel them, but maybe we also see what’s on the horizon more logically and pragmatically than the sheep-types do. But that too is arguable. The sheepies certainly have no problem losing their cookies over Trump, even though there is little he is doing that directly affects them in a bad way (until recently, at least).

They too claim to be looking at future calamity to justify their hate. Yet Canadians adore Carney, and can’t seem to see what his antics are bringing onto Canada: soaring inflation and grocery prices, ballooning deficits and national debt (now larger than the economy), higher taxes, and escalating trade tensions with the US through tariff retaliation and protectionist policies that critics argue risk recession and long-term economic decline. Or, probably the most devastating, getting into bed with China and the Chinese Communist Party (“It’s not Communism,” they love to bellow, “It’s socialism.” Ha ha.)

We see these inconsistencies in a variety of ways. Obama’s approach to drone warfare was entirely ignored, yet anything Trump did that was similar (before the Iran catastrophe) was considered criminal.

But do they really care? Or are they just oddly selective about what they care about?

Maybe it is more the latter we are seeing. Maybe they do care, but about strangely inappropriate things. And then not care about things that are very appropriate to care about. Got me. All I can say for certain is that it is weird. Very weird. And I do care about that.

Several major Wall Street firms have been hit with a wave of sophisticated cyberattacks using voice phishing, or ‘vishing’ to trick employees into revealing sensitive information or granting access, Bloomberg reports. 

The attacks targeted some of the world’s largest hedge funds – including Citadel, Point72, and Two Sigma Investments, along with several private equity firms. 

Two Sigma, which manages $75 billion, says they were able to thwart the attacks.

“Our security team responded quickly to an attempted vishing campaign targeting Two Sigma and other investment managers, and we have no indication of any impact to our data or our systems,” a spokesperson told BBG. “We continue to monitor the situation closely.”

While we don’t know if the hackers used AI, cybersecurity attacks targeting Wall Street firms have surged over the past year, as artificial intelligence tools allow for cheap, fast, and efficient attacks according to Align Managed Services president, Vinod Paul. 

“Before they could attack 50 entities in a targeted attack, now they can do 1,000,” said Paul. “Hackers can also listen into a phone call and mimic the voice, tone and phrasings of the speakers to create fake calls.”

In June, Google noted a wave of attacks this year against law firms and other professional service organizations – which also involved vishing, and people posing as IT workers to sneak into corporate offices. 

Finra is now involved…

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which oversees broker dealers and securities professionals, has been in touch with member firms about recent attempted breaches, according to a separate person with knowledge of the matter.

Finra started the Financial Intelligence Fusion Center in March – a secure portal for Finra and its member firms to share intelligence about fraud threats and to help coordinate responses. That was in response to the increasingly sophisticated cyber and fraud threats that were being directed at financial services firms. -Bloomberg

“The terrifying thing about modern day AI systems is that they have commoditized this and made it possible to execute attacks at scale,” said Will Wilson, the chief executive officer of Antithesis. “Everybody will have to seriously level up. Otherwise they are going to be in big trouble.” 

Authored by Brian Danga via TheBlock.co,

Former LAPD officer Eric Halem was sentenced to life plus 15 years in state prison on Tuesday for his role in the December 2024 armed robbery of a 17-year-old in Koreatown, who was robbed of a hard drive containing $350,000 worth of bitcoin.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mildred Escobedo imposed the concurrent life terms for kidnapping and robbery after rejecting a last-ditch request by defense attorneys seeking a new trial, the Los Angeles Times reported. 

Halem had sought a new trial on grounds that his initial attorneys failed to call witnesses or examine key evidence.

However, Judge Escobedo denied that motion, noting that the evidence presented at trial showed Halem had acted out of “sheer and utter greed,” adding that “there could’ve been no other conclusion.”

During Tuesday’s sentencing, Escobedo noted Halem had preyed on individuals who “perhaps shouldn’t be seen as victims, because they were criminals themselves,” but that that didn’t excuse his actions.

To abuse his power, by masquerading as a police officer, “is heinous and egregious,” she said.

According to a district attorney’s spokesperson, Halem must complete most of his 15-year sentence before serving the concurrent life terms and will be eligible for parole after seven years.

Halem was convicted in March following a two-week trial in which a jury found him guilty of kidnapping and robbery.

Prosecutors said Halem and three co-conspirators entered a high-rise apartment and forced the victim, identified in court as Daniel, to hand over the hard drive under threat of death.

Halem had left the LAPD nearly two years before the robbery but was still serving as a reserve officer at the time, according to the LA Times. 

He still faces pending charges in separate cases involving insurance fraud and another alleged crypto-related robbery, while his co-defendants have yet to stand trial, per the report.

Speculation about a delay to Grand Theft Auto VI is spreading online after a former Rockstar Games developer said that, based on his experience working on previous installments, he “would not be shocked” if the game slips again. Another postponement would add to the previous delays and spark frustration among gamers who have waited more than 13 years for a fresh, updated version of the series.

Jake Brigstock of Indy100, a British digital news website, spoke with former Rockstar Games animator Mike York, via covers.com, about his confidence that Rockstar Games will be able to release GTA 6 by November 19 on PS5 and Xbox Series X/S.

York said he “would not be shocked at all” if there does end up being another GTA 6 release date delay.

“Personally after being there and working on GTA 5, I don’t currently work there so I can’t give a confidence based off that, but based on my previous experience, they could delay it again,” said York.

“Straight up, they could delay it again. They can.

“They can do whatever they want and people will wait right now, it doesn’t matter. If they need to do what they need to do, they’ll do it.

“So if November comes around and they’re thinking ‘this final mission we have is still not looking very good, and there are still a few bugs in this final mission’, they’ll push it six more months if they have to.

“I would not be shocked at all. I don’t think it would hurt them or anything.”

Another delay would abosutely crush confidence in gamers whp’ve waited 13 year for another re-freshing of GTA.

Rockstar began taking GTA preorders on June 25. Take-Two Interactive Software, the owner of the gaming studio, has seen its stock meet heavy resistance at the $250 level since mid-2025.

Polymarket odds for “GTA 6 launch postponed again?“ have yet to really move on Indy100’s report that was posted on Tuesday.

Odds stand around 11%.

Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

Authorities in Madison, Wisconsin on Tuesday sent in crews to clean up and dismantle the filthy and violent “autonomous zone” that was set up by left-wing agitators to protest the shooting of an armed violent felon. At least ten occupiers were arrested as of Tuesday morning, Fox 6 reported.

Repeat offender Corey Ruiz, 38, was shot by police on July 22 after allegedly attacking an officer with a knife.

Public records show that Ruiz had eight convictions for “resisting, obstructing, threatening or injuring police officers between 2007 and 2024,” according to Fox 6.

Five of those prior cases reportedly involved conflicts with City of Madison police officers.

After the shooting, activists, including Black Lives Matter members, quickly set up barricades using furniture, spike strips, and wooden pallets to occupy downtown Madison.

The Corey Ruiz Autonomous Zone (also known as CRAZE or “Corey Street”) was initially allowed by the woke mayor as a protest encampment.

The City of Madison even provided basic services, including portable restrooms and the use of salt trucks as street blockades. A homeless population quickly moved into the zone, creating a need for more services..

Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway on Friday described the zone as “not sustainable or safe” but did not set a timeline for clearing it.

Meanwhile, Independent journalist Nick Sortor was threatened over the weekend by BLM agitators while reporting at the scene.

“Hurry up and leave before your life ends here,” an agitator told Sortor. “There’s a whole team of us.”

Cleaning crews were sent in early Tuesday morning after “CRAZE” had become a public health hazard. After the decision to remove the encampment was announced, the occupiers reportedly lit fires and threw rocks at the city workers.

The agitators clashed with city and state police who were sent to the scene to protect the crews.

The agitators blocked the streets near the encampment after it was cleared.

The occupiers eventually moved to the mayor’s decrepit house to wage a “noise protest” over her decision to shut down their “CRAZE.” They littered the mayor’s front yard with anti-police signs, deployed a megaphone siren and screamed at her through a bullhorn.

“The community ain’t get no sleep ’cause of you!” an agitator bellowed through the bullhorn. “We saw you sent your pigs out too!”

“You have blood on your hands!” the agitator cried.

Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway said in a video statement Tuesday that the decision to clear the encampment at Williamson and Baldwin Streets was “not made lightly” and occurred only after nearly two weeks of failed attempts to resolve the situation voluntarily.

She urged the community to focus on “sustainable change” and accountability through official investigations rather than occupation, stating, “Holding government accountable for progress should not mean harming the community we all share.”

Authored by Felix Ng via CoinTelegraph.com,

A group of six Ethereum researchers and developers, including Ethereum Foundation’s Justin Drake, has proposed changing the network’s issuance policy to cut validator rewards more sharply as the proportion of staked ETH rises. 

The draft, called the Tapered Issuance Burn and currently being assigned the provisional number EIP-8363, would burn an increasing fraction of validators’ consensus rewards as the amount of staked ETH approaches a fixed threshold of 60.25 million ETH (around 50% of the current ETH supply), at which point the deduction hits 100%. The changes would phase in over 18 months. 

Tapered Issuance Burn Ethereum Improvement Proposal. Source: Github

The proposal has triggered backlash from developers, stakers and DeFi founders, who warn that the reward cuts could force out solo validators before larger institutions are affected, weaken institutional demand for ETH and disrupt DeFi markets built around staking yield. 

One of the proposal’s authors, Jérôme de Tychey, said the changes are needed to address the rising share of Ether being staked, which passed 33% in April. The authors argue continued staking growth could concentrate ETH in large custodians and liquid staking providers, while unchecked issuance erodes Ether’s role as a neutral, trustless store of value. 

“Ever-growing issuance is a dilution tax on every holder: stake, or be diluted. At high ratios, LSTs and other staking derivatives displace raw ETH as the ecosystem’s working money, thus swapping the most neutral, trustless asset for intermediated claims on issuers,” he said.

Although EIP-8363 remains an early draft, its publication just two days before a deadline for proposals targeting Ethereum’s Hegotá upgrade has also raised concerns about whether there is enough time to consider the impacts on Ethereum’s tokenomics.

EIP-8363 authors’ argument to cut issuance 

The proposal’s authors argue that under the current curve, staking yield never drops below 1.5% even with all ETH in existence being staked. 

“The incentive to stake never switches off. Where does it stop? It doesn’t,” said de Tychey. 

With no changes, a worst-case scenario could see more than 55% of Ethereum supply locked in staking by 2028, he said. 

“Maximal neutrality & minimal dilution: those are the two fundamentals of a store of value. This EIP not only hardens both, it sets a bar no other blockchain clears.” 

🚨 New EIP: Tapered Issuance Burn
We just submitted an EIP to ethereum/EIPs: a minimal, market-driven fix to Ethereum’s issuance policy removing the incentive for stake growth beyond 50% of ETH supply.
EIP-8361 by @pintail_xyz, @jdetychey, @dapplion, @pa7x1, @ladislaus0x &… pic.twitter.com/g1uzWPycQ4

— Jerome de Tychey 🦇🔊 (@jdetychey) August 4, 2026

The proposed policy would see issuance peak at 0.5% of ETH supply per year at its highest (around 20% of ETH is staked), declining to zero when the staking ratio of Ethereum hits the 60.25 million ETH threshold. 

“ETH supply growth will be bounded and more predictable. Combined with the EIP-1559 and Blob burn, the supply will more often decrease. Ethereum, the most mature of all the protocols, with a sustainable security budget, will also be the least dilutive of all protocols,” said de Tychey.

The proposal’s broader direction has also received support from Grayscale. In May, Grayscale’s head of research Zach Pandl said limiting staking incentives would be “positive for the price of Ether over time.”

Critics say it’s punishing Ethereum’s growth

Aave founder Stani Kulechov said reducing staking rewards would weaken institutional demand for ETH and borrowing activity across DeFi, arguing the proposal “doesn’t achieve the outcome it tries to achieve and is actually hurtful for Ethereum.” 

Another argument is that the proposal would impact solo validators as they have generally higher relative costs and are more susceptible to reward changes, leading to a more concentrated validator set. 

“This will self evidently push out solo stakers who aren’t subsidized by the EF or others,” said Mike Silagadze, CEO of Ether.Fi. 

“It will essentially guarantee that the only ones staking are large centralized entities with zero cost of capital where users passively hold their ETH.”

De Tychey disputed this point, saying on the Ethereum Magicians forum that users of large staking providers must pay fees, making those services less attractive as rewards fall, though he acknowledged the research on this is still contested. 

The proposed network update would lower ETH issuance and inflation. Source: Zach Pandl

Others pointed to the seemingly rushed timeline to consider the proposal, though this appears to be due to confusion over the forthcoming deadline on Thursday. 

“This clearly doesn’t leave adequate time for community review of a monetary policy change of this magnitude,” said Greg Koumoutsos, a co-author of EIP-8148 and EIP-8205.

Where the proposal currently stands

The Tapered Issuance Burn proposal has not been approved, scheduled or included in Hegotá.

While there is a Thursday deadline relating to this proposal, the deadline is for pull requests proposing additional EIPs for Hegotá, not a deadline for deciding which proposals will be included. 

Ethereum community organizer Trent Van Epps said the selection process could continue until Nov. 8, and that Hegotá is likely to reach mainnet in the second quarter of 2027.

Copper strength has returned to the London Metal Exchange this week as futures top $14,000 a ton. Another leg higher could be imminent, pushing prices into blue-sky territory as traders weigh tightening global supplies against robust metal inflows into the US ahead of President Trump’s expected tariff decision.

The Commerce Department was expected to deliver its tariff recommendation by June 30, but no decision has been announced. On national security grounds, the agency is expected to impose import levies of up to 50% on semi-finished and derivative copper products under Section 232. The policy aims to protect domestic manufacturing and reduce foreign reliance, addressing supply chain risks from major exporters like Chile, Peru, and Canada.

Bloomberg reports more than 200,000 tons of copper flowed into US ports in July, the largest ever monthly inflow in data going back to 2014. High US prices have kept the trade profitable.

As a result, this has added to a massive hoard in U.S. warehouses and ports, while supplies in the rest of the world are dwindling.

LME inventories sank to a five-month low, while a widening backwardation signaled increasing pressure on near-term supplies. LME copper settled 1.4% higher at $14,066.50 a ton, while Comex futures rose as much as 2.3% to approach May’s record high.

The tightening is visible in the LME forward curve. Nearby contracts traded at a $99.50-a-ton premium to three-month futures, up from about $30 a week earlier – the widest backwardation since January. This structure suggests pressure on short-term supplies.

Jefferies analyst Christopher LaFemina told clients earlier this summer that his team “wasn’t bullish enough on copper,” adding, “We now have the highest copper price forecast on the Street as we see strong US industrial demand and still tight supply.”

Beyond Jefferies, HSBC, and Goldman, JPMorgan analysts have also told clients that the copper upcycle is being driven by a tightening supply backdrop, accelerating power-grid investment, AI data center demand, and broader industrial electrification. Taken together, some of Wall Street’s top metals desks have warned about a sustained break above $14,000 on the LME.

However, Bloomberg macro strategist Michael Ball recently pointed out that a tariff disappointment, stronger dollar, or AI-led selloff would expose the growing bullish speculative bets on copper (read here).

Some have speculated that one of the most proximal catalysts behind the collapse of Leopold Aschenbrenner’s $45 billion and epically misnamed Situational Awareness hedge fund, besides his use of batshit insane Total Return Swap leverage that would make an average Korean momentum-chasing degen blush with envy, was Citadel’s vocal warning early last week that the Fed would/should hike rates, a contrarian appeal which, while not taken seriously by any Fed watcher, may have spooked markets to the necessary and sufficient breaking point that forced the flood of margin calls that ultimately wiped out Leopold. 

While we doubt that Citadel was so tactically engaged as to crush the young and inexperienced Leopold and hear the lamentations of his soon to be wife with fringer notes, we are certain that his massive TRS leverage – as much as 4x on both side of a pair trade that had gone terribly wrong by being long chips and short software – and which we warned back in June was clearly in play and would lead to ruin for one or more funds, was more than sufficient to force the hedge fund’s liquidation by bringing its assets under management from $45 billion at the start of July to just $10 billion at the end.  

More importantly, it led to a blowout month for none other than the flagship fund of Ken Griffin’s Citadel which jumped 5.9% in July, a month when most of its peers suffered major losses (look no further than Coatue’s 8% drop) after it bought billions of dollars of AI stocks in a fire sale from Aschenbrenner’s now collapsed hedge fund Situational Awareness.

Citadel, which manages more than $71bn, has now seen its Wellington fund surge 12% so far in 2026 after a turbulent July which ultimately generated half the firm’s YTD gains, the FT reported citing people who have seen the numbers.

After a huge rally in AI-related equities earlier in the year, hedge funds were smashed by a historic collapse in high beta momo stocks in July which nuked most popular holdings such as South Korean chipmaker SK Hynix which tumbled almost 50% from a peak in June. The tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 briefly veered into correction territory last week, shortly before the deal to sell Situational Awareness’s book.

More than a month after we warned that massive TRS leverage would lead to one or more Archegos-like casualties (with or without the criminal element)…

Has anyone done the analysis which funds have the most TRS on AI, aka Archegos 2.0

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 12, 2026

… that’s precisely what happened when Aschenbrenner’s – which notched gains of more than 400% in the first half of the year with its highly leveraged bets on AI companies – became the most prominent casualty of the violent momentum reversal.

The sell-off crippled the fund, pushing it to sell the majority of its public equity positions to Griffin’s firm last week in a quick-fire process that took place over less than 24 hours. Citadel approached Situational Awareness late on July 29 and negotiated with the firm overnight. It signed a contract in less than 24 hours for the sale, which came with a 10% discount, Bloomberg has previously reported. 

Citadel’s own funds had struggled to generate big returns during the first weeks of July amid the sell-off in equities. As of July 24, Wellington was roughly flat month-to-date. In the three days prior to Citadel’s acquisition of Situational Awareness, stocks fell further.

Citadel competed with trading firm Jane Street and fellow multi-manager hedge fund giant Millennium for the purchase of Situational Awareness’s equities book last week, eventually winning the auction with about a 10% discount, FT sources reported. 

Separately, before the sale to Citadel, Silicon Valley venture capital firms Greenoaks and Sequoia Capital were approached about taking over the some of the privately held stakes in Situational Awareness’ portfolio. 

The troubled fund also had close links to some of the world’s biggest investment banks. Situational Awareness used prime brokers including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Bank of America according to filings.

In an exclusive report this morning, the WSJ wrote that Situational Awareness was backed by a wide lineup of Silicon Valley and Wall Street investors who put their faith in a 20-something founder with no prior professional investing experience.  Among the fund’s investors are Dan Sundheim, founder of the hedge fund D1 Capital Partners and a major SpaceX shareholder; Silicon Valley investor Neil Mehta, co-founder of venture-capital firm Greenoaks; the foundation of Gaurav Kapadia, founder of investment firm XN; and Feroz Dewan, the former head of public equities at Tiger Global Management, according to people familiar with the matter.

Stripe co-founders Patrick Collison and John Collison, and Daniel Gross and Nat Friedman, who lead Meta Platforms’ AI efforts, are among Situational’s other investors. Some investors might have invested through their foundations, family offices or other entities.

Situational was also backed by foundations including the Laniakea Charitable Foundation and Good Forever Foundation, according to tax and regulatory filings reviewed by fund-data tracker Old Well Labs. The president and director of Laniakea is Matthew Wage, a Jane Street trader, tax filings show. Good Forever is a grant-making organization focused on AI safety and AI policy. 

Aksia, a research and advisory firm to institutions including pensions, family offices and sovereign-wealth funds, made note of Aschenbrenner’s intellect and network in a March 2025 assessment for clients after meeting with him. But it also wrote that prospective investors in Situational “may want to be wary of hubris leading to risk management issues, particularly if the use of leverage is indeed significant,” according to a copy of the note viewed by The Wall Street Journal. 

The last ditch rescue by Citadel was not only a brilliant distressed investment which helped generate billions in short-term profits, it also helped to stem a broader market rout because Situational Awareness’s forced selling had been exacerbating the sell-off in AI stocks. Many of Aschenbrenner’s biggest investments according to his last regulatory filing – including Bloom Energy and Sandisk – rallied the day after the sale. The latter has gained nearly 30% since last Wednesday.

“These are names that trade really aggressively,” said one hedge fund manager who had invested in similar positions to those of Situational Awareness. “They were highly volatile, but they were liquid. So Citadel made a killing.”

As the FT notes, Griffin is known to charge towards firms that run into trouble. The day Enron filed for bankruptcy in 2001, Griffin sent more than a dozen of his executives to Houston on a chartered Gulfstream jet to dig into its failure, and later poached several of the company’s top analysts. The hedge fund has also stepped in before to buy the remains of failed competitors. In 2006, Citadel bought the entire trading book of Amaranth Advisors alongside JPMorgan after the fund blew up from bad bets on natural gas. A year later, it pulled off a similar coup by snapping up the credit portfolio of Sowood Capital Management when it collapsed.

“It’s classic Ken,” said one former employee, who worked closely with the Citadel founder. “He has played that card many times . . . There are very few places in the world who can do what he did.”

As for Leopold, don’t cry for the former OpenAI staffer. He may have blown up this time but after his stint working for SBF at FTX, he surely has learned how to survive blow ups such as this one, and as long as he has his freedom (unlike his former boss) he will emerge somewhere (assuming he has an ironclad prenup of course). 

The Dario curse:

SBF invested in Anthropic. Stake now worth billions, but fund blows up (SBF in prison)

Leopold invested in Anthropic. Stake now worth billions, but fund blows up (Leopold getting married)

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 30, 2026

As the WSJ notes, Aschenbrenner started his hedge fund in 2024. After a string of prescient stock picks, including memory-chip makers SK Hynix and Sandisk, his assets under management swelled, placing the firm among the fastest-growing hedge funds in years. The rapid rise earned him a reputation as a stock-picking wunderkind and the nickname “the Nostradamus of AI.” 

In retrospect, he was just a massively levered degen who, like the infamous Taleb turkey, was lucky for 99.9% of the ride… and then Thanksgiving happened.  

President Trump said late Tuesday that talks with Iran are “moving along very nicely” – in a highly fluid and ambiguous situation where it appears the two sides are only interacting indirectly at best.

But the Iranian side has continued to insist that there are currently no peace or ceasefire talks happening, but only the Iran-Oman negotiations which focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and setting terms of how it will be managed. Consistent with this narrative, Al Jazeera freshly cites Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB which reports that talks between Iran and Oman over the Strait of Hormuz “have nothing to do with the United States”. But Washington is presenting it as a US-Oman deal for the strait’s reopening, even if it fundamentally remains an Iranian-Omani proposal.

Trump in his latest comments echoed his Treasury Secretary from the day prior, saying, “It could happen. Tomorrow or the next day.” This was on the heels of traveling to Los Angeles yesterday for a fundraising event hosted by the Republican National Committee. “A lot of progress has been made.”

He told Fox that the White House is now having “very good discussions” with Iranian officials as part of an “all-day negotiation” and that the Strait of Hormuz reopening “is going to be open very soon.”

“If they back out again, they are going to get hit really hard,” the president told the outlet. He had said the same by close of last week, but by the weekend reversed course and decided to refrain from attack Iran again.

According to Bloomberg, “The US, Iran and Oman are preparing to announce a 60-day agreement on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz” – but the Iranian side has not affirmed this.

So as it stands, Tehran says it is driving the Oman talks and that Washington has been sidelined, while the White House claims that it has directly involvement in shaping the outcome.

But all sides do seem in agreement that the technical details and mechanics of the deal are currently being worked on. According to the latest outline of what this is expected to look like via CBS:

Under the current proposal, ships entering the Strait would use the channel closest to Iran, with Iran coordinating inbound traffic, while vessels leaving the strait would use the Omani side, with Muscat managing outbound traffic. The proposal also includes a “service fee,” with the revenue split between Iran and Oman.

According to the source, the broad outlines have largely been agreed upon, with the remaining discussions focused on implementation and timing. Axios reported something similar, in which the US is nearing a Hormuz deal. Axios added that no tolls or fees would be charged during the 60-day period and the parties would work on clearing naval mines from the median lane of the strait within 30 days.

As for the claim of ‘no tolls’, this could once again be just semantics, given the Iranian and Omani sides have consistently signaled the need for fund collection under the headers of safe navigation, logistics, and environmental protection.

There has also been some progress on agreements for third-party demining operations. But as Rubio reminded the world yesterday, Washington still insists resolving the nuclear issue – something which the Iranians still say can only be broached after the conflict is ended and there is peace.

Below is the version of where things stand via Axios:

• All inbound traffic of ships through the strait and into the Gulf would go in a northern lane through Iranian waters.
• All outbound traffic through the strait and into the Arabian Sea would go in a southern lane through Omani waters, in coordination with Iran.
• No tolls or fees would be charged during the 60-day period.
• The parties would work on clearing naval mines from the median lane of the strait within 30 days.
• After the median lane is cleared, it would be used for inbound and outbound traffic under the terms of a permanent arrangement to be negotiated between Oman and Iran.

More regional commentary serves as a reminder of the significant obstacles that remain toward reaching a final peace, much less the full reopening of Hormuz Strait:

But while Iranians are saying that, at this point, talks are limited to Iran and Oman, it goes without saying that the US is a key factor. We’ve got a report from state TV today citing an informed source who said that even if a deal were reached today, the breach of the Memorandum of Understanding agreement by the US means there won’t be a reopening of the strait. One of the key points of concern for the Iranians regarding the strait is the removal of the naval blockade by the Americans. They have been constantly saying that this is one of the pre-conditions.

If Axios and some other major MSM reports are to be believed, the scheme is advancing on the Iranian side. “Two regional sources said Araghchi agreed in principle over the weekend but still needed approval from Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, and the Supreme National Security Council,” writes the publication. “A U.S. official and a regional source said Iranian leadership completed its approval process on Tuesday.”

An interim maritime arrangement, inside a Memorandum of Understanding, within a ceasefire.

It’s a diplomatic turducken. https://t.co/WpXke2brda

— Ali Vaez (@AliVaez) August 5, 2026

If all the above comes into force, it will widely be seen as a victory for Iran. It will leave Iran with greater control over energy transit than before the war. Simultaneously this would be Trump essentially cutting and running in order to finally extricate American forces from the deepening quagmire, while approaching the six-month mark since Operation Epic Fury started.

For example, even the NY Times admits, “Iran and Oman are closing in on an agreement to reopen shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, according to Iranian and American officials, but if the accord goes into effect it could come at a high price — ratifying Tehran’s control over what, before the war, was an open, international waterway.” While markets would breath a sigh of relief, Tehran would be in the driver’s seat geopolitically.

US officials cited in the same report have only said the Hormuz scheme would the “temporary” – and so the ongoing contrasting interpretations suggest another tenuous and shaky agreement in the works.

“But if, ultimately, Iran asserts continued control over the passageway, the opening might come with a geopolitical cost. Iranian officials say they are designing the accord to ratify their capacity to control the strait and therefore retain strategic leverage that they did not employ before the war,” the NYT also wrote.