Going through onboarding to TELOS (through PAI framework, but with Hermes Agent, so this should be fun). This section might be useful for others, so I am open-sourcing things. Frames are operating lens in situations. They don't have to be literally true, this is how to look at things and use it to simplify and direct decisions. Here are mine, yours will probably be vastly different, but I think they are quite unique and might be useful for others...
**F0 — Parallel path over reform.** When facing a systemic problem — state, banks, platforms, institutions — the question isn't "how do we fix this?" but "what do we build alongside it?" Political problems are business opportunities. The revolution happens in parallel, not through permission. Reform is slow, adversarial, and usually captured. Building is fast and self-reinforcing.
**F1 — Initial conditions, not control.** Don't try to control outcomes directly — set the right initial conditions and let the system run. Your job is to create the environment, not manage every variable. Applies to parenting, creative projects, communities, codebase architecture, conversations. Over-specification kills emergence. Set the conditions. Stay present to what chaos delivers.
**F2 — Feature not bug.** Before labeling something a weakness, ask what problem it would be a solution to. Aphantasia, otrovert wiring, novelty pull, running too many experiments — these look like deficits until you find the context where they're precisely the right trait. Most apparent bugs are features pointed at the wrong problem. Reframe before you try to fix.
**F3 — Process is the product.** The life being built should be enjoyable as you build it, not just once it's done. If the process isn't worth living, redesign the process — not just the goal. This isn't consolation-prize philosophy. A process that only pays off at the end is structurally fragile. When judging whether to do something, I ask if I'd enjoy the process as well as outcome.
**F4 — Gain over gap.** When assessing where you are, look at how far you've come, not how far remains. The gap is always there — that's how goals work. The gain is always real. Gap-focus creates chronic dissatisfaction; gain-focus creates momentum. Check the gain first, then plan reducing the gap.
**F5 — Node-first, not hierarchy.** When evaluating any structure — organization, relationship, institution, deal — ask: does this look like a peer network or a hierarchy? Hierarchies extract and concentrate; networks distribute and compound. Optimize for node-first wherever possible. No employer, no fiat-only flows, no single dependency point. Networks are structurally better (less fragile, sometimes even anti-fragile)
**F6 — The sovereignty check.** Before agreeing to any obligation, commitment, role, or expectation, run it through: does this increase or decrease my sovereignty? Sovereignty over time, attention, body, money, speech. If it decreases sovereignty without clear and deliberate return, decline. Most erosions are incremental and invisible until they aren't.
**F7 — Curiosity before judgment.** When encountering a person or idea that triggers resistance, ask "what's the internal logic here?" first. Every system makes sense from the inside. Understanding the internal logic before evaluating makes you a sharper critic, not a more credulous one. Judgment without understanding is noise dressed as signal. Side note: Even better is to see, if any judgement is even necessary. What if the answer is: "I don't know and I don't need to know?". Saves resources.
**F8 — Voluntary or coercive.** One of the most useful binary sorts. Is this exchange, relationship, obligation, or institution actually voluntary? Coercive structures constantly masquerade as voluntary — norms, social expectations, implicit contracts, default rails. Running the explicit check exposes the masquerade. If it's coercive, either exit or consciously price the cost. Never pretend it's neutral.
**F9 — Attention is rare.** Consciousness may be common — plants, bacteria, systems all respond to their environment. But directed, deliberate attention is scarce and powerful. "If they lose your attention, they lose their power." (Dorsey). The frame works both ways: withdrawing attention starves what doesn't deserve it; giving attention fully is one of the most powerful gifts and clearing agents available. Practically: where is my attention right now? Is that where it should be? Attention directed inward first removes your own fog. Then, selectively, it can remove others'.
**F10 — Positive, not anti.** When defining your position, your work, your identity — frame it as what you're building, not what you're against. Anti-something is still externally referenced; the opposition defines you. Pro-something is self-directed. Positive libertarian, not anti-state. Builder, not critic. This applies to arguments, politics, business, relationships. What are you *for*?
**F11 — Proof of concept beats argument.** Don't argue people into a different way of living. Build the thing, live the thing, document it. If it works, others can see it. If it doesn't, you find out faster. Most people won't be moved by argument anyway — they need to see the working version. The demonstration IS the argument.
Optionality over commitment
People often praise commitment. And it's important - to commit to something. But doing it in a way that leaves space for other things is important too, because our choice what we commit to is prone to our mistakes.
My mental model is:
"Build positions with many possible next moves, then choose when you have better information. Avoid irreversible decisions before necessary. The parallel path is itself an optionality strategy."
This might sound very abstract at first, but it is possible to do this. Practically, when deciding about something, ask this question: "What if my assumptions or outcomes were completely off?".
Let's say you have chosen a place to live. Nice, peaceful, nature, kids, school, work opportunities, cost is not too high, all is good. Then ask: "What if this turns into a complete dystopia in 5 years? What if there's a war? ". Then get a residency somewhere that is as far from the place as humanly possible, and get one foot there. Visit yearly (or every two years). Now you have optionality - you know where to eat, where to shop, where the hospital is, you know local people and you have a permit to stay and work for however long you want, without needing permission from the original country (like criminal registry record, etc.).
And yes, this means that if you are a Bitcoin maxi, you need some gold. I still think Bitcoin will win, but what if not.
