, , ,

The Power Law of Mediocrity

The Power Law of Mediocrity: Confessions from the Belly of the VC Beast

By Skeeter Wesinger

October 6, 2025

We all read the headlines. They hit our inboxes every week: some fresh-faced kid drops out of Stanford, starts a company in his apartment, lands millions from a “top-tier” VC, and—poof—it’s a billion-dollar exit three years later. We’re force-fed the kombucha, SXSW platitudes, and “Disruptor of the Year” awards.

The public narrative of venture capital is that of a heroic journey: visionary geniuses striking gold, a thrilling testament to the idea that with enough grit, hustle, and a conveniently privileged network, anyone can build a unicorn. It’s the Disney version of capitalism—“anyone can be a chef,” as in Ratatouille—except this kitchen serves valuations, not ratatouille.

And it’s all a delightful, meticulously crafted fabrication by PR mavens, institutional LPs, and valuation alchemists who discovered long ago that perception is liquidity.

The truth is far less cinematic. Venture capital isn’t a visionary’s playground—it’s a casino, and the house always wins. Lawyers, bankers, and VCs take their rake whether the founders strike it rich or flame out in a spectacular implosion. The real magic isn’t in finding winners; it’s in convincing everyone, especially limited partners and the next crop of naive founders, that every single bet is a winner in the making. And in the current AI gold rush, this narrative isn’t just intoxicating—it’s practically a MDMA-induced hallucination set to a soundtrack of buzzwords and TED-ready hyperbole.

Full disclosure: I’ve been on both sides of that table—VC and angel investor, and founder. So consider this less a critique and more a confession, or perhaps karmic cleansing, from someone who has seen the sausage made and lived to regret the recipe.

The Power Law of Mediocrity

The first and most inconvenient truth? Venture capital isn’t about hitting singles and doubles—it’s about swinging for the fences while knowing, with absolute certainty, that you’ll strike out 90 percent of the time.

Academic data puts it plainly: roughly 75 percent of venture-backed startups never return significant cash to their investors. A typical fund might back ten companies—four will fail outright, four will limp to mediocrity, and one or two might generate a real return. Of those, maybe one breaks double-digit multiples.

And yet, the myth persists. Why? Because returns follow a power law, not a bell curve. A single breakout win papers over nine corpses. The median VC fund barely outperforms the S&P 500, but the top decile—those with one or two unicorns—create the illusion of genius. In truth, it’s statistical noise dressed up as foresight.

The Devil in the Cap Table

Not all angels have halos. Some of them carry pitchforks.

I call them “Devil Investors.” They arrive smiling, armed with mentorship talk and a check just large enough to seem life-changing. Then, once the ink dries, they sit you down and explain “how the real world works.” That’s when the charm evaporates. Clauses appear like tripwires—liquidation preferences, ratchets, veto rights. What looked like partnership becomes ownership.

These are the quiet tragedies of the startup world: founders who lose not only their companies but their sense of agency, their belief that vision could trump capital. Venture capital thrives on asymmetry—of information, of power, of options.

So no, I don’t feel bad when VCs get hoodwinked. They’ve built an empire on the backs of the optimistic, the overworked, and the under-represented. When a fund loses money because it failed to do due diligence, that’s not misfortune—that’s karma.

For every VC who shrugs off a loss as “portfolio churn,” there’s a founder who’s lost years, health, and ownership of the very thing they built. The VC walks away with a management fee and another fund to raise. The founder walks away with debt and burnout.

The Great AI Hallucination

If the 2010s were about social apps and scooters, the 2020s are about AI euphoria. Every week, another “AI-powered” startup raises $50 million for a product that doesn’t exist, can’t scale, and often relies entirely on someone else’s model.

It’s déjà vu for anyone who remembers the dot-com bubble—companies worth billions on paper, zero on the balance sheet. But in this era, the illusion has new fuel: the hype multiplier of media and the self-referential feedback loops of venture circles. Valuation becomes validation. Paper gains become gospel.

In private, partners admit the math doesn’t add up. In public, they double down on buzzwords: foundational models, RAG pipelines, synthetic data moats. They don’t have to be right—they just have to be first, loud, and liquid enough to raise Fund IV before Fund III collapses.

The House Always Wins

The cruel beauty of venture capital is that even when the bets go bad, the system pays its insiders. Management fees—usually 2 percent of committed capital—keep the lights on. Carried interest, when a unicorn hits, covers a decade of misses. It’s a model designed to appear risky while transferring the risk onto everyone else.

Founders risk their sanity, employees their weekends, and LPs their patience. The VC? He risks his reputation—which, in this industry, can always be rebranded.

A Confession, Not a Complaint

I say all this not as an outsider looking in but as someone who once believed the myth—that innovation needed gatekeepers, that disruption was noble, that capital was somehow creative. I’ve seen brilliant ideas die not for lack of ingenuity but for lack of political capital in a partner meeting.

Venture capital has produced miracles—no question. But for every transformative success, there are hundreds of broken dreams swept quietly into the footnotes of fund reports.

Pulling Back the Curtain

The next time you read about a wunderkind founder and their dazzling valuation, remember: you’re seeing the show, not the spreadsheet. Behind the curtain lies an industry that’s part casino, part cult, and wholly addicted to the illusion of inevitability.

Because in venture capital, the product isn’t innovation.
It’s a belief—and belief, conveniently, can be marked up every quarter.

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

Inside the ShinyHunters Breach

Inside the ShinyHunters Breach: How a Cybercrime Collective Outsmarted Google

By Skeeter Wesinger

August 26, 2025

In June 2025, a phone call was all it took to crack open one of the world’s most secure companies. Google, the billion-dollar titan that built Chrome, Gmail, and Android, didn’t fall to an exotic zero-day exploit or state-sponsored cyberweapon. Instead, it stumbled over a voice on the line.

The culprits were ShinyHunters, a name that has haunted cybersecurity teams for nearly half a decade. Their infiltration of Google’s Salesforce system—achieved by tricking an employee into installing a poisoned version of a trusted utility—didn’t yield passwords or credit card numbers. But what it did uncover, millions of names, emails, and phone numbers, was enough to unleash a global phishing storm and prove once again that the human element remains the weakest link in digital defense.

ShinyHunters first burst onto the scene in 2020, when massive troves of stolen data began appearing on underground forums. Early hits included databases from Tokopedia, Wattpad, and Microsoft’s private GitHub repositories. Over time, the group built a reputation as one of the most prolific sellers of stolen data, often releasing sample leaks for free to advertise their “work” before auctioning the rest to the highest bidder. Unlike some cybercrime groups that focus on a single specialty—ransomware, banking trojans, or nation-state espionage—ShinyHunters thrive on versatility. They have carried out brute-force intrusions, exploited cloud misconfigurations, and, as Google’s case shows, mastered social engineering. What ties their operations together is a single goal: monetization through chaos. Their name itself comes from the Pokémon community, where “shiny hunters” are players obsessively searching for rare, alternate-colored Pokémon. It’s a fitting metaphor—ShinyHunters sift through digital landscapes looking for rare weaknesses, exploiting them, and then flaunting their finds in dark corners of the internet.

The attack on Google was as elegant as it was devastating. ShinyHunters launched what cybersecurity experts call a vishing campaign—voice phishing. An employee received a convincing phone call from someone posing as IT support. The hacker guided the target into downloading what appeared to be Salesforce’s Data Loader, a legitimate tool used by administrators. Unbeknownst to the victim, the tool had been tampered with. Once installed, it silently granted ShinyHunters remote access to Google’s Salesforce instance. Within hours, they had siphoned off contact data for countless small and medium-sized business clients. The breach didn’t expose Gmail passwords or financial records, but in today’s digital ecosystem, raw contact data can be just as dangerous. The stolen information became ammunition for phishing campaigns that soon followed—calls, texts, and emails impersonating Google staff, many of them spoofed to look as though they came from Silicon Valley’s “650” area code.

This wasn’t ShinyHunters’ first high-profile strike. They’ve stolen databases from major corporations including AT&T, Mashable, and Bonobos. They’ve been linked to leaks affecting over 70 companies worldwide, racking up billions of compromised records. What sets them apart is not sheer volume but adaptability. In the early days, ShinyHunters focused on exploiting unsecured servers and developer platforms. As defenses improved, they pivoted to supply-chain vulnerabilities and cloud applications. Now, they’ve sharpened their social engineering skills to the point where a single phone call can topple a security program worth millions. Cybersecurity researchers note that ShinyHunters thrive in the gray zone between nuisance and catastrophe. They rarely pursue the destructive paths of ransomware groups, preferring instead to quietly drain data and monetize it on dark web markets. But their growing sophistication makes them a constant wildcard in the cybercrime underworld.

Google wasn’t the only target. The same campaign has been tied to breaches at other major corporations, including luxury brands, airlines, and financial institutions. The common thread is Salesforce, the ubiquitous customer relationship management platform that underpins business operations worldwide. By compromising a Salesforce instance, attackers gain not only a list of customers but also context—relationships, communication histories, even sales leads. That’s gold for scammers who thrive on credibility. A phishing email that mentions a real company, a real client, or a recent deal is far harder to dismiss as spam. Google’s prominence simply made it the most visible victim. If a company with Google’s security apparatus can be tricked, what chance does a regional retailer or midsize manufacturer have?

At its core, the ShinyHunters breach of Google demonstrates a troubling shift in cybercrime. For years, the focus was on software vulnerabilities—buffer overflows, unpatched servers, zero-days. Today, the battlefield is human psychology. ShinyHunters didn’t exploit an obscure flaw in Salesforce. They exploited belief. An employee believed the voice on the phone was legitimate. They believed the download link was safe. They believed the Data Loader tool was what it claimed to be. And belief, it turns out, is harder to patch than software.

Google has confirmed that the incident did not expose Gmail passwords, and it has urged users to adopt stronger protections such as two-factor authentication and passkeys. But the broader lesson goes beyond patches or new login methods. ShinyHunters’ success highlights the fragility of digital trust in an era when AI can generate flawless fake voices, craft convincing emails, and automate scams at scale. Tomorrow’s vishing call may sound exactly like your boss, your colleague, or your bank representative. The line between legitimate communication and malicious deception is blurring fast. For ShinyHunters, that blurring is the business model. And for the rest of us, it’s a reminder that the next major breach may not come from a flaw in the code, but from a flaw in ourselves. And these ShinyHunters use fake Gmail accounts, which will get them caught.

/2 Comments/by
, , , , ,

Beyond Zapier

Beyond Zapier: What Happens When Workflow Automation Becomes Obsolete?

By Skeeter Wesinger August 3, 2025

For years, tools like Zapier, LangChain, and Make (formerly Integromat) have served as the backbone of modern automation. They gave us a way to stitch together the sprawling ecosystem of SaaS tools, APIs, and data triggers that power everything from startups to enterprise platforms. They democratized automation, enabled lean teams to punch above their weight, and brought programmable logic to non-programmers.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: their days are numbered.

These platforms weren’t designed to think—they were designed to follow instructions. They excel at task execution, but they fall short when the situation requires adaptation, judgment, or real-time negotiation between competing priorities. The problem isn’t what they do; it’s what they can’t do.

The Next Frontier: Intent-Driven Autonomy

The future doesn’t belong to systems that wait to be told what to do. It belongs to systems that understand goals, assess context, and coordinate actions without micromanagement. We’re entering the age of intent-driven autonomy, where AI agents don’t just execute; they plan, adapt, and negotiate across domains.

Imagine a world where your AI agent doesn’t wait for a Zap to send an email—it anticipates the follow-up based on urgency, sentiment, and your calendar. Where you don’t need to build a LangChain flow to summarize documents—your agent reads, tags, stores, and cross-references relevant data on its own. Where infrastructure no longer needs triggers because it has embedded agency—software that adjusts itself to real-world feedback without human intervention.

This is more than automation. This is cognition at the edge of software.

Why This Isn’t Hype

We’re already seeing signs. From autonomous GPT-based agents like AutoGPT and CrewAI to self-updating internal tools powered by vector databases and real-time embeddings, the scaffolding of tomorrow is under construction today. These agents won’t need workflows—they’ll need guardrails. They’ll speak natural language, interact across APIs, observe results, and self-correct. And instead of chaining actions together, they’ll pursue objectives.

Don’t Panic. But Do Prepare.

This doesn’t mean Zapier or LangChain failed. On the contrary, they paved the way. They taught us how to think modularly, how to connect tools, and how to make systems work for us. But as we move forward, we need to unlearn some habits and embrace the shift from rigid logic to adaptive intelligence.

The question for builders, founders, and technologists isn’t “What should I automate next?” It’s “What kind of agency am I ready to give my systems?”

Because the future isn’t about building better workflows. It’s about building systems that don’t need them.

/4 Comments/by
, , , ,

Banking Without Prompts

Banking Without Prompts: Autonomous AI Agents and the Future of Finance

By Skeeter Wesinger

August 1, 2025

As artificial intelligence evolves beyond chatbots and scripted assistants, a new kind of intelligence is emerging—one that doesn’t wait to be asked, but rather understands what needs to happen next. In the world of finance, this evolution marks a profound shift. Autonomous AI agents are poised to redefine how we interact with our money, our banks, and even decentralized systems like Bitcoin. They will not simply respond to prompts. They will act on our behalf, coordinating, securing, optimizing, and executing financial operations with a level of contextual intelligence that eliminates friction and anticipates needs.

In traditional banking, autonomous agents will operate across the entire customer lifecycle. Instead of relying on users to initiate every action, these systems will recognize patterns, detect anomalies, and carry out tasks without requiring a single command. They will notice unusual account activity and intervene before fraud occurs. They will detect opportunities for savings, debt optimization, or loan restructuring and act accordingly, surfacing choices only when human approval is required. Agents will onboard new customers by retrieving identity credentials, verifying documents through secure biometric scans, and completing compliance steps in seconds—all in the background. On the back end, these agents will navigate regulatory checkpoints, reconcile ledgers, update Know Your Customer (KYC) files, and monitor compliance thresholds in real-time. They will not replace bankers—they will become the invisible machinery that supports them.

In the realm of Bitcoin and digital assets, the impact will be just as profound. Managing wallets, executing transactions, and securing assets in a decentralized environment is complex, and often inaccessible to non-experts. Autonomous agents will quietly manage these processes. They will optimize transaction fees based on current network conditions, initiate trades under preset thresholds, rotate keys to enhance security, and notify users only when intervention is required. In decentralized finance, agents will monitor liquidity positions, collateral ratios, and yield performance. When conditions change, the system will react without being told—reallocating, unwinding, or hedging positions across decentralized platforms. In multi-signature environments, agents coordinate signing sequences among stakeholders, manage the quorum, and execute proposals based on a shared set of rules, all without a central authority.

Crucially, these agents will act without compromising privacy. They will utilize zero-knowledge proofs to perform audits, verify compliance, or authenticate identity without disclosing personal data. They will operate at the edge when necessary, avoiding unnecessary cloud dependency, while still syncing securely across systems and jurisdictions. Whether in traditional banking, Bitcoin custody, or the emerging DeFi landscape, these agents will not just streamline finance—they will secure it, fortify it, and make it more resilient.

We are moving toward a world where finance no longer requires constant attention. The prompt—once essential—becomes redundant. You won’t need to ask for a balance, check your rates, or move funds manually. Your presence, your intent, and your context will be enough. The system will already know. It will already be working.

Contact: Skeeter Wesinger

Senior Research Fellow

Autonomous Systems Technology and Research

skeeter@skeeter.com

For inquiries, research partnerships, or technology licensing.

/1 Comment/by
, ,

Scattered Spider Attacks Again

Scattered Spider Attacks Again
By Skeeter Wesinger
July 2, 2025

In yet another brazen display of cyber subterfuge, Scattered Spider, the slick, shape-shifting cyber gang with a knack for con artistry, has struck again—this time sinking its fangs into Qantas Airways, compromising data on as many as six million unsuspecting customers. It wasn’t some arcane bit of code that cracked the system. It was human weakness, exploited like a well-worn key.
The breach targeted a third-party customer service platform, proving once again that it’s not always your network that gets hacked—it’s your vendor’s.
A Familiar Pattern, a New Victim
Qantas now joins the growing list of high-profile victims stalked by Scattered Spider, a crew whose previous hits include MGM Resorts, Caesars, Hawaiian Airlines, and WestJet. Their calling card? Social engineering at scale—not brute force, but charm, guile, and just enough personal data to sound like they belong.
They impersonate. They coax. They wear your company’s name like a mask—and by the time IT realizes what’s happened, they’re already inside.
This time, they walked away with customer names, emails, phone numbers, birthdates, and frequent flyer numbers. No passwords or payment data were accessed—Qantas was quick to say—but that’s cold comfort in an age when a birthday and an email address is all that it takes to hijack your digital life.
“Trust, but Verify” is Dead, well, sort of.
As Qantas CEO Vanessa Hudson issued the standard apology—support lines are open, regulators are notified, the sky is still safe. But the real damage isn’t operational. It’s existential. Trust doesn’t come back easy, especially when it’s breached by a whisper, not a weapon.
“We used to worry about firewalls and phishing links,” one insider told me. “Now it’s your own help desk that opens the front door.”
Scattered Spider doesn’t hack computers. They hack people—call center agents, IT support staff, even security teams—using their own policies and training scripts against them. Their English is fluent. Their confidence is absolute. Their patience is weaponized.
The Breach Beneath the Breach
What’s truly alarming isn’t just that Scattered Spider got in. It’s how.
They exploited a third-party vendor, the soft underbelly of every corporate tech stack. While Qantas brags about airline safety and digital transformation, it was a remote call-center platform—likely underpaid, overworked, and under-secured—that cracked first.
We’ve heard this story before. Optus. Medibank. Latitude. The names change. The failures rhyme.
And the hackers? They have evolved.
The Next Call May Already Be Happening
Scattered Spider is a ghost in the wires—a gang of young, highly skilled social engineers, some rumored to be based in the U.S., operating like a twisted start-up. Their tools aren’t viruses—they’re LinkedIn, ZoomInfo, and your own onboarding documents.
What you can do is rethink your threat model. Because the enemy isn’t always a shadowy figure in a hoodie. Sometimes it’s a cheerful voice saying, “Hi, I’m calling from IT—can you verify your employee ID?”
By then, it’s already too late. Need to hire an expert? Call me.

/by
, , , , , , ,

Scattered Spider

Scattered Spider: Impersonation, and Cybersecurity in the Age of Cloud Computing

By Skeeter Wesinger
June 29, 2025

In an era where companies have moved their infrastructure to the cloud and outsourced much of their IT, one old-fashioned tactic still defeats the most modern defenses: impersonation.
At the center of this threat is Scattered Spider, a cybercriminal collective that doesn’t exploit code—they exploit people. Their operations are quiet, persuasive, and dangerously effective. Instead of smashing through firewalls, they impersonate trusted employees—often convincingly enough to fool help desks, bypass multi-factor authentication, and gain access to critical systems without ever tripping an alarm.
This is the cybersecurity challenge of our time. Not ransomware. Not zero-days. But trust itself.
Who Is Scattered Spider?
Known to threat intelligence teams as UNC3944, Muddled Libra, or 0ktapus, Scattered Spider is an English-speaking group that has compromised some of the most security-aware companies in North America. Their breaches at MGM Resorts and Caesars Entertainment made headlines—not because they used sophisticated malware, but because they didn’t have to.
Their weapon of choice is the phone call. A help desk technician receives a request from someone claiming to be a senior executive who lost their device. The impersonator is articulate, knowledgeable, and urgent. They know internal jargon. They cite real names. Sometimes, they even use AI-generated voices.
And too often, it works. The attacker gets a password reset, reroutes MFA codes, and slips in undetected.
The Illusion of Familiarity
What makes these attackers so dangerous is their ability to sound familiar. They don’t just say the right things—they say them the right way. They mirror internal language. They speak with confidence. They understand hierarchy. They’re skilled impersonators, and they prey on a simple reflex: the desire to help.
In the past, we might have trusted our ears. “It sounded like them,” someone might say.
But in the age of AI, “sounding like them” is no longer proof of identity. It’s a liability.
When Cloud Isn’t the Cure
Many organizations have moved to cloud-based environments under the assumption that centralization and managed services will reduce their exposure. In some ways, they’re right: the cloud simplifies infrastructure and offloads security operations. But here’s the truth: you can’t outsource responsibility. The human layer remains—and that’s precisely where Scattered Spider operates.
They don’t need to breach Azure or AWS. They just need to impersonate someone with access to it.
It’s time we stop treating “trust but verify” as a cliché and start treating it as operational policy. Better yet: trust—but always verify. Every request. Every reset. Every exception.
Verification today means more than checking a box. It requires multi-channel authentication. It means never resetting MFA or passwords based solely on a phone call, no matter how credible the caller seems. It means locking down help desk protocols so impersonation doesn’t slip through the cracks.
Security teams must also monitor legitimate tools—like AnyDesk, TeamViewer, and ScreenConnect—that attackers often use once inside. These aren’t inherently malicious, but in the wrong hands, they’re devastating.
And above all, organizations must train their frontline personnel—especially support staff—to treat every identity request with healthy skepticism. If your instinct says something feels off, pause and verify through secure channels. Escalate. Slow down. Ask the questions attackers hope you won’t.
Scattered Spider doesn’t hack your servers. They hack your systems of trust. They bypass encryption by impersonating authority. And they exploit the one vulnerability no software can patch: assumption.
As we continue shifting toward remote work, outsourced IT, and cloud-based everything, the real threat isn’t technical—it’s personal. It’s the voice on the line. The urgent request. The person who “sounds right.”
In this world, cybersecurity isn’t just about what you build. It’s about what you believe—and what you’re willing to question.
Therefore, you have to train your teams. Harden your protocols. And remember in the age of the cloud, the most important firewall is still human.
Trust—but always verify!

/by
, ,

When Cybersecurity Is an Afterthought

When Cybersecurity Is an Afterthought: The Victoria’s Secret Breach and the Looming Threat to E-Commerce
By Skeeter Wesinger
May 30, 2025

Victoria’s Secret recently experienced a significant cybersecurity incident that led to the temporary shutdown of its U.S. website and the suspension of certain in-store services. The company stated, “We have taken down our website and some in-store services as a precaution,” emphasizing their commitment to restoring operations securely.
While the exact nature of the breach remains undisclosed, the incident aligns with a series of cyberattacks targeting major retailers. Notably, the threat group known as Scattered Spider has been linked to similar attacks on UK retailers, including Marks & Spencer and Harrods. Security experts suggest that the tactics employed in the Victoria’s Secret breach bear a resemblance to those used by this group.
The impact of the breach extended beyond the digital storefront. Reports indicate disruptions to internal operations, including employee email access and distribution center functions. Customers faced challenges in placing orders, redeeming coupons, and accessing customer service.
Financially, the incident had immediate repercussions. Victoria’s Secret’s stock experienced a decline of approximately 7%, reflecting investor concerns over the implications of the breach.
This event highlights a broader issue: the persistent vulnerability of retailers to cyber threats, which is often exacerbated by inadequate adherence to cybersecurity protocols. Despite the increasing frequency of such attacks, many organizations remain underprepared, lacking robust security measures and comprehensive response plans.
Furthermore, the reluctance of some companies to disclose breaches hampers collective efforts to understand and mitigate cyber threats. Transparency is crucial in fostering a collaborative defense against increasingly sophisticated cybercriminals.
In conclusion, the Victoria’s Secret breach serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of proactive cybersecurity measures. Retailers must prioritize the implementation of comprehensive security protocols, regular system audits, and employee training to safeguard against future incidents. The cost of inaction is not just financial but also erodes consumer trust and brand integrity.

/by
, , ,

In a classic phishing move

In a classic phishing move: spoofing a legit security company like VadeSecure to make the email look trustworthy. Irony at its finest—phishers pretending to be the anti-phishing experts.

Here’s what’s likely going on:

  • vadesecure.com is being spoofed—the return address is faked to show their domain, but the email didn’t actually come from Vade’s servers.

  • Or the phishers are using a lookalike domain (e.g., vadesecure-support.com or vadesecure-mail.com) to trick people not paying close attention.

If you still have the email:

  • You can check the email headers to see the real “from” server (look for Return-Path and Received lines).

  • If the SPF/DKIM/DMARC checks fail in the headers, that’s confirmation it’s spoofed.

  • You can also report it to VadeSecure directly at: abuse@vadesecure.com

By Skeeter Wesinger

March 26, 2025

/by
, , , , ,

DeepSeek’s Mind-Blowing AI Solution Caught in a Cover-Up?

DeepSeek, a rising CCP AI company, was under siege. The company’s official statement, issued in careful, bureaucratic phrasing, spoke of an orchestrated “distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack” aimed at crippling its systems. A grave and urgent matter, to be sure. Yet, for those who had followed the firm’s meteoric rise, there was reason for skepticism

DeepSeek had, until this moment, presented itself as a leader in artificial intelligence, one of the few entities capable of standing alongside Western firms in the increasingly cutthroat race for dominance in machine learning. It was a firm backed, either openly or in whispered speculation, by the unseen hand of the Chinese state. The company’s servers, housed in mainland China, were reportedly fueled by NVIDIA H800 GPUs, their interconnections optimized through NVLink and InfiniBand. A formidable setup, at least on paper

But then came the curious measures. Whole swaths of IP addresses, particularly from the United States, were unceremoniously blocked. The platform’s registration doors were slammed shut. And in the vague, elliptical style of official Chinese pronouncements, the public was assured that these were emergency steps to preserve service stability. What the company did not say—what they could not say—was that these actions bore all the hallmarks of a hasty retreat, rather than a tactical defense

For a true DDoS attack—one launched by sophisticated adversaries—there were measures to mitigate it. Content delivery networks. Traffic filtering. Rate-limiting techniques refined over decades by those who had fought in the trenches of cybersecurity. Yet DeepSeek’s response was not one of resilience, but of restriction. They were not filtering the bad actors; they were sealing themselves off from the world

A theory began to take shape among industry watchers. If DeepSeek had overestimated its own technological prowess, if its infrastructure was ill-prepared for rapid growth, the sudden influx of new users might have looked, to their own internal systems, like an attack. And if the company was not merely a commercial enterprise but an entity with deeper ties—perhaps to sectors of the Chinese government—it would not do to admit such failings publicly. To confess that their AI could not scale, that their systems could not bear the weight of global interest, would be an unpardonable humiliation.

The consequences of such a revelation would be severe. The markets had already felt the tremors of cyberattacks; the global economy had bled $1.5 trillion due to disruptions of this nature. If DeepSeek, a firm hailed as the vanguard of China’s AI ambitions, was faltering under its own weight, the financial and political repercussions would extend far beyond the walls of its server farms. The illusion of invulnerability had to be maintained

Thus, the narrative of a “DDoS attack” was not merely convenient—it was necessary. It allowed DeepSeek to take drastic action while obscuring the truth. Blocking foreign IPs? A countermeasure against cyber threats. Suspending new users? A precaution against infiltration. A firm whose technological backbone was more fragile than its reputation suggested had suddenly found an excuse to withdraw from scrutiny under the guise of self-defense

It is in such moments that history leaves its telltale fingerprints. The annals of technological development are filled with entities that stumbled not due to sabotage, but due to their own shortcomings, concealed under layers of propaganda and misdirection. One wonders if, years from now, when the documents are unsealed and the real story emerges, historians will look back at DeepSeek’s so-called DDoS crisis not as an act of foreign aggression—but as a moment of revelation, when the cracks in the edifice became too great to hide

Also, the DeepSeek app has been removed from both Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store in Italy. This action occurred after Italy’s data protection authority, known as the Garante, requested information from DeepSeek regarding its handling of personal data. Users attempting to access the app in Italy received messages indicating that it was “currently not available in the country or area you are in” on Apple’s App Store and that the download “was not supported” on Google’s platform. As reported by REUTERS.CO

Regarding Ireland, the Irish Data Protection Commission has also reached out to DeepSeek, seeking details about how it processes data related to Irish users. However, as of now, there is no confirmation that the app has been removed from app stores in Ireland. As reported by THEGUARDIAN.COM

Currently there is no publicly available information indicating that DeepSeek has specifically blocked access from Apple, Google, or individual reporters’ servers. It’s possible that access issues could be related to the broader measures DeepSeek has implemented in response to recent events, but without specific details, it’s difficult to determine the exact cause.

For now, the truth remains elusive, hidden behind digital firewalls and the careful hand of censorship. But as in all such cases, history is patient. It waits for those who will dig deeper, who will look beyond the official statements and ask: Was it an attack? Or was it something else entirely?

Story By Skeeter Wesinger

January 30, 2025

 

/1 Comment/by
, , ,

Breaking boundaries When the dead come alive

The recent emergence of an animated representation of John McAfee as a Web3 AI agent is a notable example of how artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies are converging to create digital personas. This development involves creating a digital entity that emulates McAfee’s persona, utilizing AI to interact within decentralized platforms.
In the context of Web3, AI agents are autonomous programs designed to perform specific tasks within blockchain ecosystems. They can facilitate transactions, manage data, and even engage with users in a human-like manner. The integration of AI agents into Web3 platforms has been gaining momentum, with projections estimating over 1 million AI agents operating within blockchain networks by 2025.

John McAfee
Creating an AI agent modeled after John McAfee could serve various purposes, such as promoting cybersecurity awareness, providing insights based on McAfee’s philosophies, or even as a form of digital memorialization. However, the involvement of hackers in this process raises concerns about authenticity, consent, and potential misuse.
The animation aspect refers to using AI to generate dynamic, lifelike representations of individuals. Advancements in AI have made it possible to create highly realistic animations that can mimic a person’s voice, facial expressions, and mannerisms. While this technology has legitimate applications, it also poses risks, such as creating deepfakes—fabricated media that can be used to deceive or manipulate.
In summary, the animated portrayal of John McAfee as a Web3 AI agent exemplifies the intersection of AI and blockchain technologies in creating digital personas. While this showcases technological innovation, it also underscores the importance of ethical considerations and the need for safeguards against potential misuse.
As John McAfee was reported deceased on June 23, 2021, while being held in a Spanish prison. Authorities stated that his death was by suicide, occurring shortly after a court approved his extradition to the United States on tax evasion charges. Despite this, his death has been surrounded by considerable speculation and controversy, fueled by McAfee’s outspoken nature and previous statements suggesting he would not take his own life under such circumstances.
The emergence of a “Web3 AI agent” bearing his likeness is likely an effort by developers or individuals to capitalize on McAfee’s notoriety and reputation as a cybersecurity pioneer. By leveraging blockchain and artificial intelligence technologies, this project has recreated a digital persona that reflects his character, albeit in a purely synthetic and algorithm-driven form. While this may serve as a form of homage or a conceptual experiment in Web3 development, ethical concerns regarding consent and authenticity are significant, mainly since McAfee is no longer alive to authorize or refute the use of his likeness.
While John McAfee is indeed deceased, his name and persona resonate within the tech and cybersecurity communities, making them a focal point for projects and narratives that intersect with his legacy. This raises broader questions about digital rights, posthumous representations, and the ethical boundaries of technology. Stay tuned.

Skeeter Wesinger
January 24, 2025

/by