riva-melissa tez

riva melissa tez.png

intro’d to Riva here (shared on fb by John Hagel):

Meet the Woman Who’s Created the 21st Century Finance Model for Emerging Technologies

View story at Medium.com

At one point I realized, “Oh, money is how the world works.”

or not.. perhaps that’s at the core of our problem w the burried ness in the beliefs..

ie: short bp


People sometimes ask what made me ambitious at a young age. The motivation was simple: we were literally so poor that I had to find a way to make money for my mother. There’s no secret sauce; it was just pure desperation.


An interest furthered by the near-death experience, my original plan was to study how I could contribute towards life extension and regenerative medicine. To begin, I started profiling all of the biotech companies I found interesting


As I started to undertake technical due diligence on different companies, I realized that solving scientific challenges depended on the strength of tools and resources that researchers have at their disposal.

perhaps.. all of us (as researchers) have at our disposal.. – a nother way..

It was then that I really hit on machine learning and artificial intelligence. I kept thinking, well, if you could improve AI resources, you could use it to solve complex problems 

what if our biggest/deepest problem.. is our disconnected ness.. ie: 2 needs

what if everything else would work out as best it could if we just focused on that.. used tech/ai/whatever you call it… to facilitate that..

— such as those in biotech and energy provision, among other industries. AI has the potential to make the scientific process cheaper and better. It has the power to reduce complexity, which is an idea I think about all the time.


I don’t feel a need to justify myself.

imagine if 7 billion people felt that way.. oh the energy we’d have.. no? – [spaces of permission w nothing to prove..]


let’s do this firstfree art-ists….for (blank)’s sake

a nother way


I just studied everything I could and concluded that the model of traditional venture capital didn’t work for the kind of projects that interested me. It works well for consumer tech, but it doesn’t work as well if you want to do anything long term.

imagine a model that helps us disengage from money all together.. from measuring transactions.. and validating people.. all together..


During this time, a very smart investor and mentor said to me, “The bottleneck in solving problems like the advancement of AI isn’t a lack of capital. The problem is a lack of valuable deal flow.” Essentially, he told me that I wasn’t tackling the real problem. It was a major shape-shift for me.

esp if you’re thinking thurman’s alive law .. is valuable deal flow..


I decided to take another six months to model the AI ecosystem. I wanted to learn about where talent goes, the flows of capital between companies and investors, why certain companies are built, and why some ideas don’t get off the ground.

art ists and bot ists.. and finding the thing you can’t not do... connecting people to that.. and to other..

eudaimoniative surplus..


I’m looking for impact-driven individuals and groups who genuinely care about making the world better. Making money isn’t as hard as creating a positive global impact, although capital can certainly fuel the strength of impact. Unfortunately, I think most people realize this in life when it’s far too late and wish they had done more with their time-slice of existence.


Last year, I went through a bout of depression because it bothered me to see how little people in power didn’t collaborate to solve some of our grandest challenges. There’s too much ego and opposing forces, not to mention incentive structures that work against us. I kept thinking: how can you make collaboration easier without losing the value you have as a company or the impact you have as an individual?

We haven’t quite worked out how the human mind works well enough to understand how to manage incentives. The problem is, we incentivize people not to collaborate with others.

incentives… everyone doing something else.. that’ll do it..


We don’t live in a world where individuals get rewarded for contributing to society. Instead, the message is, contribute to your own thing and you’ll be rewarded for it. Then use that money to contribute to society. That process is too slow in my mind.

indeed.. for (blank)’s sake


For many companies, their value lies in their intellectual property. If you give that away, you’ve given away the value of your company. Imagine if everyone shared datasets. And… what if you had people doing it to benefit humanity? That would take global coordination and a redistribution of power, and I think that’s probably the biggest challenge of the next 100 years. I also believe AI will help with solving this, but that’s a whole another topic.

we could absolutely do it in our lifetime..(i’d even say in under 5 yrs)..  that’s how exponentiation works.. and exponentiation is what you get.. if you go deep/simple/open enough.. that it awakens/resonates with each soul.. no?

hosting life bits.. et al


find/follow Riva:

link twitter


We all suffer because of humanity’s innate myopia.  However, the systems that define us are complex.

I thought to myself, well, if things actually aren’t being controlled – if we truly have this freedom – then why aren’t things better?


We have these tiny little internal minds drowning in layers of external complexity, just trying to make sense of the limited peripheral vision that we have.


It seems that most of the systematic constructs of society have been developed to distract us with psychological narratives, to prevent us from acknowledging the fact that potentailly we could change everything.


It would be hard to find a single system in this whole world that is not in some way partially or totally broken. None of them are optimized towards human flourishing. That’s actually not quite the right statement. Most systems do the complete opposite; they actually kill us.


she repetitively justified her beliefs through extremely poor reasoning over such a long period that she eventually built a faulty concrete world model. In the end, the divergence between supposed reality and my mother’s beliefs became so vast that she was labelled schizophrenic.

The problem is, nearly every single person in the world also does this. If my mother is mentally ill, then most of us are too.


Philosophers have pointed out since the beginning of philosophical thought that a high percentage of the justification value of our beliefs comes from how widespread the individual beliefs are. It’s as if our shared beliefs are characteristic of a virus. The whole of history’s thoughts and all our present thoughts, just building layers on top of each other to be spread and repeated. We rarely get back to first principles. Therefore a high proportion of our arguments lie on faulty earlier assumptions. We attribute truth validity not to the quality of the argument, but to the quantity of people who believe it, and then we go on to build on top of those.


Unfortunately for her, not enough people share her world- model to allow her to be regarded as healthy.


How, then, do we induce and promote a positive fallibility reasoning skill in individuals? How do we give people the skills to meta-analyze their own beliefs? There is obviously a huge difference between “belief” and “degrees of belief”. By noticing these discrepancies, we are able to allocate levels of justification that cause us to test our own assumptions.

a nother way.. let’s do this Riva.. rev of everyday life.. tap into authentic energy.. daily self talk/eval..

io dance/hosting life bits (blockchain/stack ness: replace server farms – chip energy efficient –dna\ness)
ps in the open (idiosyncratic jargon)
decision making/B redefined via self-talk as data
rna ness – entropy ness
on leap frogging – for (blank)’s sake
gupta roadblock law
3 ship  [a kids’ bookan app/chipan experiment]
short  [deep problem,simple mechanism,opensystem]
short bp


calm tech


Re-calibration involves revising degrees of belief about properties of degrees of belief, and degrees of belief are in themselves probabilities. Can all humans really do that? Certainly more people can than currently do so.

i’m thinking.. all can


We should be looking to raise generations who grow up to consider the world as assumption-free as possible and to then have the efficacy to call out when certain things no longer make sense. We drive children to their intellectual deaths, by forcing the categorization of ideas into “belief” and “non-belief” instead of acknowledging this huge gray fuzzy area between the two that would allow them to think outside the box, saving the world from the errors manifested by human thought.

indeed.. best for creating/facilitating anti-fragile people.. is using curiosity/whimsy as daily roadmap.. embracing uncertainty.. let’s design for that. let’s give that a go..

if we don’t believe the world is good enough and also believe in free will, then all the faults of our earth are our own,

even if our contribution to these faults is simply from taking a bystander approach to our human-constructed systems. Does anybody actually realize how terrifying a thought that is?


With every death in this world, every ounce of human suffering, taking a bystander approach to mimetic beliefs causes us to take a share in the responsibility. We literally let people die as a result of our shared beliefs.


It’s a sorry state of affairs that we can’t realise how much individual power we have, the vastness of the potential from collaborating that power, and what the human race is capable of. We could, in all reality, do anything, if only we put our minds to it. The idea that we can’t, which is potentially the principle behind the biggest losses of our era, doesn’t stem from religion; it stems from our inability to see the perils of our own intellect.

I’m growing to learn more about the systemic failures in the justice system by helping with San Quentin State Prison’s Financial Literacy course.  The opportunity to volunteer at San Quentin came through my much-missed friend Dan Fredinburg, who continues to impact my life every day.


just whoa.. would love a convo.


may – 2016

programmers are tagging data.. when ai becomes smart enough that it can tag data itself.. that’s going to radically change things.. that’s going to mean entire world/context .. in which problems are located.. ai is going to be abel to recognized and try and solve that problem for you… that’s going to change human history.. i think

so why can’t it tag – self talk – as data..ie:  a nother way 

imagining that our biggest.. first principal problems.. have to do with connection.. ai or whatever.. can already connect us (to self/others).. w/o agenda.. if we just focus on that.


july 2015 – making world a better place

transhumanism – idea that we have these options of tech.. and how can we use that to advance humanity

interested in ai – because like a meta industry… so can advance all other industries.. an indirect industry..


Nicholas Perry (@ultimape) tweeted at 10:53 AM on Mon, Mar 27, 2017:
“Imagine a future world where we are free from our current limitations. Free from biological time.”

Imagine a future world where we are free from our current limitations.

from Nicholas: You hang on to each other as tight as you can, and float away toward the sunset.

instead of applying borders like we did previously, we will have transcended our insecurities.

healing (root of) – deep enough

to ensure that they are the best possible form of themselves, for whatever their purpose may be within this bigger picture. Maybe that is the end goal of love.

eudaimoniative surplus

When the dances never need to end, when the lovers never need to die, *when entropy no longer dominates. Imagine a world where we could explore with full scope, for as long as we wanted, every idea, every concept, every location.

*what if entropy ness is a means to exploration to the fullest..

Imagine all the things possible.

What’s the grandest vision that humanity can aspire to?

Well, it starts with how big you are willing to dream.

ginorm/small dream: a nother