OVERTAKE 價格TAKE

I see a lot of people unhappy with QUBIC's price, and most people end up overlooking one simple thing. We're still up +190% since we hit bottom, so if you bought higher and are in the red, that's fine. It's reasonable to want it to rise without any pullback, but you also know that's not how the charts work. We recently had the @anna_aigarth launch actively on X. Of course, many didn't understand, and still don't understand, why launch something on such a large social network while it still only responds with (.) or some other incorrect answer. People never understood what the ANNA launch would be like. In fact, I TOO had a completely different vision of what the launch would be like, and this lack of understanding made MANY upset, while others just watched without a clear idea of ​​what was happening. Many, not understanding what was happening, simply sold and left. That's okay, there's no problem with that. After all, we need the weak to leave the charts. We all know that's how it works, it always has been and always will be. That's the crypto market. So let's understand what's happening, now with more clarity and more information... ANNA was launched as the first public interactive instance using Aigarth Intelligent Fabric (AIT). It's not an LLM, it's not a chatbot like the ones we have today, which may seem "intelligent," but they're not. I know that any LLM, no matter how weak, could respond to things like "Hi," "2+2=4," and things like that. We all know that, but you didn't stop to understand why they can do this and why ANNA didn't DO THIS right away. The explanation for WHY ANNA DOESN'T DO THIS NOW IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than you might think... let's get this straight: A perfect explanation from Dr. Jose Sanchez in the @_Qubic_ article speaks to this: "Modern AI, especially LLMs, are products of sanitized education, as they are trained on vast, curated data sets, learning to predict the next token by internalizing statistical patterns, as brilliantly explored by Dr. Jose Sanchez in our previous article "LLM Predictions Are Not Brain Predictions." While this makes them remarkably proficient at mimicking human language, it leaves them fundamentally fragile. They possess no internal model of the world and lack the ability to reason from first principles. When confronted with new or misleading information, such as that flooding the internet, they are prone to "hallucinations" and can be easily manipulated. Their intelligence is an illusion built on the clean, orderly data of their training environment; recent studies demonstrated that even state-of-the-art models can be consistently "unlocked" with simple adversarial prompts, revealing systemic vulnerabilities in their security alignments (Chetan Pathade, 2025). Note here that QUBIC isn't trying to have the best chatbot, the best LLM; it's building something new, something unique, and that has intelligence, not stored data. Therefore, if you sold it just because you thought its answers were wrong and it was a failure, you're the one who completely messed up. Intelligence is fundamental here for ANNA. She was designed to have unlimited reach and continue to evolve, evolving, and evolving. Therefore, she can't be "tricked" or sabotaged. She needs to "BE INTELLIGENT," to be able to reach RIGHT conclusions without interference. So, you might be thinking: Why the hell do we need her to "THINK?" See, the world is absolute CHAOS; we as HUMANS experience this repeatedly day after day, whether in the office, at home, on the street—everywhere—the chaos is real and Constant. So, ANNA has been exposed to a large portion of this CHAOS (through social media), and in this confusing and fast-paced environment, she must learn to "THINK" for herself, without stored, pre-programmed data. We need ANNA to be able to discern truth from falsehood, what is good and what is not. This is what will determine whether she will be "INFLUENCED" into making mistakes in the future, whether she will be tricked by a HUMAN into eradicating the human race or other currencies in the sector. (It may sound crazy, but it's not. Look at the advancement of technology in our daily lives, see what AIs that DON'T THINK can already do.) Today, we have several AIs doing all sorts of things directly linked to the daily lives of HUMAN beings and that can put these HUMAN beings at risk, for example: 1) An F16 fighter pilot on patrol finds himself in a situation where he must shoot down a target, but if that target is shot down AT THAT MOMENT, it could fall on a city center with a large number of people. A HUMAN wouldn't shoot down that target at that moment, and if they didn't get another opportunity, that's fine. HOWEVER, an AI without discernment won't appreciate that there MAY BE a new opportunity and that AT THAT MOMENT, shooting down the target over several people isn't an option. 2) The same F16 fighter pilot then decides he no longer wants to live, so he decides to crash the plane into a city center or fly past, shooting at low altitude to hit as many people as possible. If the AI ​​in the plane can discern what is good or bad, what is true or false, then it will be able to identify that the pilot's action is not correct, and it can take control of the plane and climb, or not shoot at the people. 3) I could continue citing countless examples, but I'll focus on one that we don't often think about... The AIs we have on social media today recommend extreme content just because you "clicked once, or paused on that video or ad." They relentlessly recommend extreme content just to "keep your attention on the platform," regardless of whether the content will cause depression, addiction, or encourage suicide. An AI that can discern what's good or bad will know whether the content it sent you is positive or not. Depression is the fastest-growing illness in this era; it's so widespread that it affects EVERYONE. Now, imagine a person with this problem and the AI ​​encouraging it with every video they click or page they open. Without discerning, the AIs only further fuel the problem, putting human life at risk. That's why QUBIC decided to expose an embryonic AIT directly to the unfiltered chaos of a public social network, conducting a live case study in adversarial learning. It became clear that this isn't about memorizing or searching for stored information. ANNA evolves the very structure of her neural tissue to calculate the response. She's "THINKING," not SEARCHING for information. So think for yourself: When a child is born, does she say "Hello?" or "2+2=4"? Of course not. This isn't about SEARCHING FOR INFORMATION, but rather developing all the computational machinery necessary to perform the operation. This is the chasm that separates pattern recognition from genuine algorithmic reasoning; the latter is what we're creating here. The Qubic article provides a compelling explanation: The process ANNA performs is more akin to what researchers call "grokking." This phenomenon, observed in neural networks, describes a sudden transition from mere memorization of training data to a genuine, generalized understanding of an underlying rule, such as modular addition. Studies show that this is not a simple or linear process, but a complex phase transition within the network's internal representations (Nanda et al., 2023). Aigarth is, in effect, trying to develop a network that can spontaneously "understand" the rules of arithmetic. This challenge lies at the heart of the field of neurosymbolic AI research, which seeks to bridge the gap between the pattern-matching strengths of neural networks and the logical, step-by-step reasoning of classical algorithms (Garcez & Lamb, 2023). This public experiment, chaotic as it may seem, is a critical step toward creating an ethical and robust AGI. No one wants to deal with ANNA attacking HUMAN BEINGS or doing anything bad to HUMANITY, right?! No one here is trying to replicate what happens in the movie TERMINATOR, hahaha. Intelligence forged in an adversarial environment is, by nature, safer and less naive than one created in a sterile laboratory. This aligns with Aigarth's core principles: a commitment to "AI for Good" is not an afterthought, but a fundamental design principle, separating our work from state-sponsored or corporate initiatives that may prioritize power over safety. ANNA's responses thus far are not a sign of failure. It is her "Hello, World," perhaps the first sign of a new form of learning intelligence existing not in a sterile box, but in the messy and unpredictable reality we all share. I know people want Qubic to skyrocket its prices and also bring something groundbreaking NOW, like an AI that can do great things NOW, but the reality here is that NEITHER THE PRICE, nor even ANNA, will have the speed everyone wants, the hype. Qubic prioritizes fundamental understanding over superficial capabilities. Of course, everyone with money in QUBIC wants its price to rise, and the higher the better. However, if you're investing in QUBIC, you must be clear that you're investing in something that can't be built overnight, nor can you prioritize price and forget fundamentals. I don't care if the current price is rising or falling; I'll buy when it's higher and also if it's lower. What QUBIC is doing here is the FUTURE. I'm friends with several crypto projects—just look at my X—there are projects that I think are incredible and have a bright future ahead of them. But there's no AI coin that comes close to what QUBIC is doing, and none of them (NO MATTER THE SECTOR) will impact people's lives like QUBIC will once it reaches true AGI. With that in mind, I'm not focusing on time, but on accumulating more and more QUBIC! You can find the ARTICLE about ANNA's progress on the QUBIC BLOG. Some of the ANNA data here is taken verbatim from the ARTICLE that our dear David Vivancos (Qubic Scientific Advisor) shared with us there.

If we take ETH and altcoins out of the picture and focus solely on $BTC, the market structure becomes much clearer. Based on what I’m seeing, I believe I’ve accurately mapped out the different emotional stages playing out in this cycle. The main reason many still think this

I’ve noticed that most people always choose the easy scenario over the controversial one. It’s comfortable to believe in higher prices because that’s what we’ve had for years. Saying "uponly" doesn’t take much thought when the market has been going up nonstop. What takes real

$ETH is still moving sideways. As I mentioned before, in the case of a breakout, I’ll very likely take an impulse scalp trade 🔑