Join >4.5k subscribers and stay updated by getting the latest posts delivered directly to your inbox.
Some of you may remember that about a year ago I moved this blog onchain from WordPress to a platform called Paragraph. I've been happy with the move, though I know that my daily emails have been ending up in many of your junk boxes since then. Sorry. Hopefully that gets better over time. Given my enthusiasm for crypto, it just made sense to make the switch. I'm trying to move as much as I can onchain.
This blog is now also featured on Paragraph's homepage:
At the same time, things still feel very early. Paragraph, for example, has been experimenting with ways for writers to monetize their work. I don't care about that for this blog, but I am interested in seeing how the business models may evolve.
Up until recently, the way to make money on Paragraph was to have readers collect your posts: Writer publishes something, readers mint it as an NFT, and then writer receives small payments in their crypto wallet. I've had a few people collect my posts over the past year, but it has not been anything of significance.
Now Paragraph is testing something new called writer coins. Instead of collecting individual posts, readers can now buy a writer's coin and support them more broadly. I just set this up on my publication and so there is now a brand-new coin in existence called $BRANDON.
One of the interesting things that I was able to do was automatically distribute this new coin to anyone who has collected one of my posts in the past and who is subscribed to my blog (with a connected wallet). If you are one of these people, you should have received something.
In theory, $BRANDON coin should increase in value as this blog develops incredible international notoriety, but in practice, who the hell knows? These experimentations are all part of the journey onchain. Some stuff will work, but many other things won't. Already though, I think you can feel product-market fit for things like stablecoins. Maybe one day the same will be true of $BRANDON.
If you'd like to try out this new feature and support the blog, click here.
After Game 5's win, I was feeling confident that the Toronto Blue Jays would win the World Series. History placed us at roughly a 75% probability of success. Polymarket had even flipped in favor of the Jays for the first time. We were up 3–2 in the series and heading home.
But of course that didn't happen on Saturday. Toronto lost.
We Torontonians will always remember the 2025 Blue Jays and how fun of a season it was, but history doesn't care about second place. What history will remember is that the Los Angeles Dodgers went back-to-back and strengthened their baseball dynasty. This is to be expected.
But here's the thing, if you watched the series, you'll know that it could have gone either way. We lost in Game 7 in extra innings, after looking like the better team throughout most of the series.
What if Isiah Kiner-Falefa had taken a slightly bigger lead at third? What if that ball had never gotten improbably wedged under the outfield padding? What if Andy Pages had collided with Kiké Hernandez and not made the catch? The list goes on.
My point is not to be a sore loser — congratulations to Los Angeles — my point is that a few millimeters are all it takes to separate sadness from celebration. (Inches also work, but I prefer to use the international standard for weights and measures.)
It's a good lesson for life and business. Small, consistent changes can be all that it takes, especially because over time they compound.
It reminds me of something that chef Daniel Hadida says in this video when talking about Restaurant Pearl Morissette (in the Niagara Benchlands). He says, "I'm willing to go significantly harder to achieve slightly better." And that's because slightly is all it takes.
In Ontario, couples with children overwhelmingly live in ground-oriented ownership housing. This form of housing is still the majority for all other households (at least according to 2021 Census data), but apartment rentals make up a much larger share.
This is an important finding if you're worried about Canadians not having enough babies. But this correlation doesn't tell us exactly what's going on. The data suggests that families with children have a clear preference for ground-oriented ownership — even if it means moving farther out — but what other options do they really have?
Three-bedroom apartments remain a relatively elusive housing type because demand is low. But as we have talked about, demand is a function of price, and multi-family buildings are more expensive to construct than low-rise housing. So how much of this perceived consumer preference for ground-oriented housing is actually just people driving until they qualify?
In other words, how many people are simply solving for X amount of space/bedrooms at Y price? And what would happen if we made large three-bedroom apartments in walkable transit-oriented communities the most affordable option? It still wouldn't be for everyone, but I bet that we would see demand adjust.
More importantly, it would give people options.
Charts from the Missing Middle Initiative; cover photo by Jason Ng on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Support writers dialog
Share Dialog
Support writers dialog
Share Dialog
