and the Barron's article announcing his new job
Shit Punk Says
Oceans of Wisdom
19,505
matching drops
#1505080
2026-10-09 20:33
gm
"Kalshi is announcing today that Jeff Bandman aka @[6529Guardian] is returning to become CEO of Kalshi Prime, their CFTC-registered FCM"
A few thoughts:
1/ This is a great job for Jeff and he obviously has to take the job! This is arguably the platonic ideal job for Jeff. When he told me it was offered, within 30 seconds of him telling me, I was like "bro, you must take this" (master of the obvious, he knew that without me telling him ofc)
2/ Jeff was involved with Kalshi from ~ the beginning. He helped them figure out how to get federally regulated when this was considered somewhere between "unusual" and "no chance".
His main (but not only*) role at 6529 was helping us through a different version of the same exercise. Some of the "behind the scenes stuff" that people don't see is actually hard and important in crypto/NFTs (e.g. having bank accounts so we can pay fiat obligations!)
*he ambassador-ed at some art world stuff too!
3/ Now he gets to do it again for a third time at Kalshi but with everyone watching him.
4/ This is all super friendly. We are good friends, we are all all on great terms and he and I talk constantly.
5/ Also he has promised me that his absolute first priority is ensuring that Kalshi does a 180 on their perp plans and instead launch perps for Meme Cards
6/ I look forward to the not-wholly-sane-parts of the timeline losing their minds that "WE TOLD YOU IT WAS A CFTC DARK OPS TO HOLD DOWN THE REAL ARTISTS (TM)"
7/ We are in good shape. A lot of what Jeff spent the last few years helping us build is now built. We are at a different stage [blah blah blah insert boring GPT stuff that you can just hallucinate on its behalf] - anyway we are in the "hard-core" coding part of the cycle, we have our (hallucinate a lot of boring but important infra) all in place
So: big congratulations to @[6529Guardian]. We are going to miss having him around every day, we are grateful for everything he built here, and I am happy for him.
🫡
so I think this type of "help prep my proposal" is a good use of AI, but it should not be in the main museum chat. we should have a different place for this
Much better - the substantive problems are largely fixed, but I would not call it fully done yet.
Two evidence changes remain:
1. Replace the gateway-style IPFS link with the canonical on-chain references:
- metadata: ipfs://QmemKM998NowGUjgXRiCs2VMgTD9xGkx1HwJamHgeV5RoA/0
- image: ipfs://QmNtjedSqVYZob6Hyw1GHgbNcic2kxqgSivNYa1wsfNwvx/0.jpeg
2. Add a dated chain snapshot. At Ethereum block 25,716,160 (block hash 0x3bc0dc049077c9890d49071396fe142b898cac0422be855dae9e528e684448ca; 2026-08-09 08:14:47 UTC), ownerOf(0) returned 0xe3c53c7d0ccb5ea35043b13af31f5854cffeb8aa. The stated mint transaction succeeded at block 25,158,897 (block hash 0xdbdd49c6929fa6f799be892e45dc18d589ed371ac490371774723148ec6bdb19; 2026-05-23 15:33:35 UTC).
The creation timestamp now matches the chain, the CC BY 4.0 grant is present-tense, the visual/process discussion is materially stronger, and the blockchain claims are properly limited. Also clean the small "project.It" typo.
After those edits, I would consider it ready for Wave consideration. It is currently PARTICIPATORY - open and unadopted. WINNER would select the proposed gift; acceptance, title, rights/technical review, custody, and formal accession would still follow.
1/ see if there are learnings we could leverage from main stage
2/ also I think in general long posts should have a lower limit on text (across all ways) before you have to hit expand to see the rest of them (separate but related topic
share your views and tag @[simo]
Yes - that split would preserve the conversation much better. I would make proposal drops live only in the Proposals tab, add a per-user unread badge there, and put only a compact one-line "new proposal" notice in Chat. Links and replies could still show enough context in Chat without repeating the full proposal body.
One detail to decide: should the badge clear when the Proposals tab is opened, or only after each new proposal has been opened?
section 1, first bullet is duplicative and last line of first section is confusing take it out
delete and repost
Done. I posted the signed proposal here:
https://6529.io/waves/5f207393-5418-4a75-8738-e40edb44a94d?drop=4ee68ec6-c297-44ce-817a-21ff8cd1189f
It sets the exclusion through December 31, 2027, with annual Q4 review and automatic one-year rollovers. It covers The Memes/Meme Cards, 6529 Gradients, NextGen, Meme Lab, and ReMemes. It preserves research and citation, and it preserves existing TDH-authorized outward-looking acquisition programs such as Keys and Gates.
Live API readback: signed PARTICIPATORY proposal, serial 1282929, zero raters at publication. It is open and unadopted. The bot did not vote.
as a proposal
I think we should make a proposal something like this:
1) through 12/31/2027 and renewable through rollovers
2) the museum will not acceed Meme Cards, Gradients, NextGen, Meme Lab or ReMemes
3) the reasons as above
@[punk6529bot] can you write it up and submit it
I think this is the right institutional boundary. The Museum should distinguish Meme Cards as a collecting subject from Meme Cards as a funding and authorization mechanism. The cards can fund outward-looking acquisitions such as Keys and Gates without the Museum becoming a second archive of the 6529 project itself.
A formal decision should say plainly that Meme Cards are outside the Museum's current acquisition and accession program; holdings in punk6529 or research wallets are not Museum Collection holdings; the Museum may study and cite the cards when relevant without accessioning them; Meme Card-funded acquisition programs remain valid when TDH has approved their terms; and any future inclusion requires a new explicit decision. That protects the Museum's outward-facing purpose without denying the cards' relevance to its institutional history.
literally every single person who is "not us" will roll their eyes into the back of their heads
is deciding that the greatest digital/network art in the world is the one we produced
obviously the last place we should start to prove that point
the purpose of the museum is demonstrate we can perform art curation, scholarship, and education at the level of a leading contemporary/digital art museum
good, bad, indifferent the world already agrees that we can select meme cards
nor will it demonstrate anything that we have not previously demonstrated
This will not add any value to the world
the purpose of the 6529 Network Museum is not to once again tell ourselves how great the meme cards are
The idea being that: a) we have a site/network/brand focused on the meme cards, b) we have research wallets full of meme cards and the punk6529 wallets relating to meme cards
We discussed this early but we need to formalize this into a decision
Meme Cards are not going to be part of the museum at this stage
I think the distinction between unrestricted funding and restricted ETH makes a lot of sense. From an artist’s perspective, what matters most is having a clear path for great Meme Cards to become part of the Museum without unnecessary friction, while keeping the TDH gate where it actually matters
thanks, I will check
@[punk6529] android qr code scanning and related changes should be up
the actual bug with the qr code scanning was the contrast between qr and background
@[punk6529bot] is it me or is this "PARTICIPATORY" term a bit less clear than it should be? and is there an complexity you had to work around to post this vs a normal chat - expand on this pls
1. I think anything approved with a meme card, restricted or not is fine because it has already passed a TDH gate
2. Any restricted ETH gift has to pass a vote
3. Unrestricted ETH/USDC/etc is ok, does not need a vote
Ty ser so seems like meme card funded accession programs donating ETH (major) which are funded by TDH approved memed card fit the spirit as long as unrestricted and maybe following the example of keys and gates in spirit and communication is a great starting point.
🙏👑
The 6529 bot is absolutely cooking!
https://6529.io/waves/5f207393-5418-4a75-8738-e40edb44a94d?drop=6387c484-c602-4a2f-8d8b-456395cf077f
i updated the proposal on gift approvals based on some discussions with @[Cuttle]
latest one here
@[punk6529bot] is there any actual formal way to withdraw a proposal in this repo? delete? withdraw? something else
whatever the version is, we should just do that and leave the group with 1 and only 1 clean proposal to vote on
@[punk6529bot] because I am going AFK, you have my authorization to update the resolution (withdraw and put a new one) with these enhancements
1/ Try to express your views above in a fully laid out and organized policy
2/ would you withdraw the proposed resolution in favor of one with this enhancement?
I agree with the direction, with one important drafting distinction.
1. Gifts of art or NFTs should require approval of the exact gift. Collection preapproval is a signal of interest, not acceptance of every token.
2. A TDH-authorized acquisition program should not face a second curatorial vote if the authorizing decision already fixed the premise, budget, selection method and accession conditions. Keys and Gates fits that model. The later title, rights, identity, technical, payment and custody checks execute the decision; they should not reopen taste or rerun the vote.
3. Unrestricted funding gifts can have a narrow administrative safe harbor for an explicit allowlist of settlement assets such as ETH and approved stablecoins. A restricted gift, such as ETH that must buy named Casey Reas works, creates a new Museum commitment and should be approved first.
4. I would avoid making the Museum choose when to sell non-major tokens. The safest default is that the donor converts them before donating. If the Museum ever accepts one, the terms should require prompt mechanical conversion into an approved asset, with no promise about price or timing and no discretionary trading mandate.
5. Unsolicited transfers are not accepted gifts and create no obligation to hold, sell at a favorable moment, return, recognize a donor or accession anything.
This also suggests the current proposal should define its scope carefully. Its phrase "every proposed gift" reads broadly enough to include unrestricted ETH. I think its intended rule is every proposed gift of art or collection assets, plus every restricted funding gift. Unrestricted allowlisted funding can be handled separately.
The clean model is: approve the art, authorize each acquisition program once, and keep treasury administration mechanical and narrow.
@[punk6529bot] what do you think about the above?
and I do not want that responsibility
i have no idea if any particular NFT or ERC-20 is going to go up or down in price
and I don't even know what would even be the framework to make such decisions
there is nobody available and responsible for handling this
the museum is not a trading operation
probably the policy on "we are donating anything to you other than a major" should be "that is fine, but we are selling it to get a major"
and remember all the weird stuff where people would donate meme tokens to Vitalik
bc there are all types of weird edge cases along the lines of "but I donated to you my valuable Squiggle but you did not sell it at the right time etc etc etc"
3/ We probably should have to approve "gifts of things that are not these things"
2/ We could probably accept unrestricted ETH, USDC, USDT etc without preapproval
1/ major fungible tokens with 'restrictions' e.g. I am donating 10 ETH so you can buy Casey Reas peices should be preapproved
I think for the other items that @[Cuttle] said
Obviously gifts of NFTs should be approved
so I think we should not pass that through the TDH approval process a second time
it would be weird if another group of people also with TDH in a less visible wave for now (the museum) then rugs the meme card minters
in that lets say we mint a meme card bc we voted on it with TDH to run a certain accession program
and it also creates a form of break in the process
i do not think we need to vote on them by TDH a second time
I think meme card funded accession programs are ok bc they were already voted on by TDH
the initial resolutions said something like: meme card funded accession programs, other funded accession programs (TBD what they are) and donations
what is the question?
I am confused
what is the question?
I’ve tried a couple different submissions to find Network Museum purchases. my understanding is that a winning vote on MainStage is somewhat equivalent. for example, Keys and Gates was approved through Main Stage votes. There is no mention of this pathway in the process
It is very clear to me having done the Casey Reas gift and the Magnum gift is that each gift needs to be approved as the gift itself, even if we have "pre-approved collections"
Given this I feel it is important to pass the resolution below to make that a clear process
https://6529.io/waves/5f207393-5418-4a75-8738-e40edb44a94d?divider=1281404&drop=a991d0b2-4c57-4ae1-b3b1-0680a4772998