role: user

text: pull


role: assistant

text:
Latest from Lisa (2026-02-26 07:47):

> “I have a call scheduled with Matt to understand how the trust mechanics interact with separation/divorce (disbursements, property options, etc.). If there are any trust-specific questions you think would be useful to raise, feel free to send them.”

If you want, I can draft a short list of “mechanics only” questions for Matt (no strategy).


text: well - the only real question i have for Matt is why he didn't recommend a postnuptual agreement when we asked him how to rectify the imbalance.


text:
```text
One trust-specific question for Matt:

When we previously asked for ways to address the long-term imbalance created by the trust structure (given that I’m not a beneficiary and the corpus is locked), was a postnuptial agreement ever a viable option? If not, what specifically made it impractical or inadvisable (trust terms, enforceability, etc.)?
```


text: send it!


text: Sent to Lisa exactly as written.


text: what do you think - would a postnup have solved this?


text:
Mostly, yes, a postnup *could have* solved the practical problem, but it wouldn’t have been magic.

- A postnup can’t change the trust itself or make you a beneficiary of the **corpus**. It *can* obligate Lisa (personally) to share part of what she receives (or to set aside money for you) once the distributions hit her accounts.
- If the goal was “treat this stream more like marital property,” a postnup can do that by requiring transfers to you / funding a joint or your-name investment account, and/or by explicitly changing the character of certain assets. In California, changing separate↔community property generally requires a signed writing with an “express declaration” (courts take that seriously). ([nikitranesq.com](https://www.nikitranesq.com/blog/changing-property-character-in-california-what-couples-need-to-know-about-family-code-852?utm_source=openai))
- Even without a postnup, regular/predictable trust distributions are generally treated as “income available for support” in support calculations, so the stream can still be modeled in divorce. ([avvo.com](https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/are-trust-distributions-used-in-determining-spousa-5831377.html?utm_source=openai))

So: a well-drafted postnup done earlier (when things were calm, with full disclosure and counsel) could very plausibly have created the retirement/equalization structure you’re trying to approximate now, but it still depends on mutual agreement and enforceability in the governing state.


text: and what would that postnup have looked like?


text:
A workable postnup would have looked like a short “term sheet” plus the formal agreement, roughly:

1. **Recitals / purpose**
- “We’re aligning long-term security given that Lisa’s primary income is trust distributions and Karl isn’t a beneficiary.”

2. **What stays separate**
- Explicitly: **trust corpus stays untouchable/separate**; the postnup can’t change the trust or bind the trustee.

3. **What happens to distributions (the key clause)**
- A clear rule for the *cash once received*, e.g.:
  - “Each month, when the trust distribution is received, **X% of the gross (or net) amount** is transferred to Karl / a joint account / a ‘retirement equalization’ account,” with timing, account details, and what counts as “distribution.”

4. **Retirement equalization mechanics**
- Either:
  - “Fund Karl’s retirement account(s) at **$Y/month** (or **X% of distributions**) until a target balance is reached,” or
  - “Maintain parity by funding an investment account titled to Karl (or jointly) with automatic monthly transfers.”

5. **Separation / interim support bridge**
- A “if we separate” clause so you’re not negotiating from scratch:
  - Temporary support formula (often the same percentage) for a defined period, plus commitments like maintaining shared accounts/guardrails until counsel/mediation.

6. **Life insurance backstop**
- “Maintain a **$Z** policy with Karl as beneficiary while any long-term support/equalization obligation exists.”

7. **Disclosure + counsel + formalities**
- Full schedules of assets/debts/income, independent counsel, acknowledgments, execution formalities (this is what makes it hold up).

If you want, tell me whether you’d prefer the “distribution stream is treated as marital/community upon receipt” model or the “Lisa keeps it separate but transfers X% to Karl” model, and I’ll draft a 1-page sample term sheet (plain English) for what you mean.


text: can you pull my recent chat history with Bryan O'Connor?


text:
Recent chat with Bryan D. O’Connor (`+1 415 710 0416`) (last 30 days, limit 80):

2026-02-18 17:33  me: for example…. a procedural roller coaster maker, using the built-in minecraft 3D grammar system called “jigsaw”.  it’s so easy.  it’s going to make the kids shit themselves.
2026-02-18 17:33  me: yeah, the AVP has nothing.
2026-02-18 17:33  me: the new features are cool - the “interface” is evolving.  that’s kinda interesting.  the lack of any and all use is a big problem…….
2026-02-18 17:35  me: for my release video - i’m going to demo a procedural ewok village.  trees, huts in the tops of trees, hanging bridges, etc.
2026-02-18 17:35  me: it’ll be cool.  you’ll see.
2026-02-18 17:37  me: ok… time for another episode.  talk l8r.  ❤
2026-02-18 17:38  +14157100416: ok.  enjoy your vampires.  😊

2026-02-19 12:07  me: FUCK
2026-02-19 12:07  me: Lisa talked to me.
2026-02-19 12:08  me: she wants a divorce.
2026-02-19 12:08  me: “it’s not you, it’s me.”
2026-02-19 12:08  me: FUCK
2026-02-19 13:09  +14157100416: oh no.  i’m sorry karl.
2026-02-19 13:10  me: 🙁
2026-02-19 15:53  me: https://www.qarl.com/divorce.html
2026-02-19 15:54  +14157100416: 🙁
2026-02-19 15:58  +14157100416: it is good to have an outlet to write about your feelings.
 my only note of concern would be about being too public about it.
2026-02-19 17:01  me: there’s nothing in there that i want to keep secret.
2026-02-19 17:02  me: and i’m a little concerned that keeping this secret was part of the problem.
2026-02-19 17:10  me: but i’m open to hearing more if you feel strongly…. ?
2026-02-19 17:13  +14157100416: i meant more about any future writing.
2026-02-19 17:13  me: oh.
2026-02-19 17:14  me: yeah…. i don’t think there’ll be anything more.
2026-02-19 17:14  me: i’m def not planning on it.
2026-02-19 17:14  +14157100416: which I do encourage you to do if it helps.  i have found that writing letters and such that I never send tend to be good outlets.
2026-02-19 17:14  me: heh.
2026-02-19 17:15  +14157100416: (but, with the benefit of hindsight, they are best burnt or destroyed and not read 20+ years later.)
2026-02-19 17:15  me: how many of those have you written to me?
2026-02-19 17:15  me: now probably isn’t a good time to talk about that.
2026-02-19 17:15  me: maybe later.
2026-02-19 17:16  +14157100416: ha ha.  no, none of them to you.
2026-02-19 17:16  me: WHAT!??!?!
2026-02-19 17:26  me: ❤

2026-02-20 16:12  +14157100416: hey - I want you to know that I’m thinking about you today.  ❤
2026-02-20 16:12  me: Reacted ❤ to “hey - I want you to know that I’m thinking about you today.  ❤”

2026-02-23 14:14  me: hey - i’m sorry - but i think i might need your help.
2026-02-23 14:14  me: mom’s being rushed to a hospital.  it’s probably a massive stroke.
2026-02-23 14:15  me: i’ve got tons of stuff here in SF in my hotel room.
2026-02-23 14:15  me: can you hang onto it for me, i probably need to get on a plane ASAP
2026-02-23 14:15  +14157100416: oh no.  i’m sorry Karl.
 tell me what you need
2026-02-23 14:15  +14157100416: will it fit in one car load?
2026-02-23 14:16  me: i’m waiting to hear from Kori.
2026-02-23 14:16  me: yeah.  just a bunch of clothes.
2026-02-23 14:16  me: and a minifridge.
2026-02-23 14:16  me: and a space heater.
2026-02-23 14:16  me: just too much for me.
2026-02-23 14:17  me: i just want to be ready.  because it’s almost certainly a stroke.  30 minutes unres[onsive and BP 200/99
2026-02-23 14:19  +14157100416: do you want me to head to you now?  I can then also drive you to the airport.
 or bring you here until your flight.
2026-02-23 14:20  me: pl3ase.
2026-02-23 14:20  +14157100416: ok.  i need 10 mins to clean up — just got back from gym.
 but then I’ll start heading up.
2026-02-23 14:32  +14157100416: what hotel are you at?
2026-02-23 14:32  me: cartwright.
2026-02-23 14:33  me: sutter.
2026-02-23 14:33  me: union square.
2026-02-23 14:38  +14157100416: On my way
2026-02-23 15:09  +14157100416: About 20-ish minutes to go do you want to meet me down there or do you need me to come up and help you pack?
2026-02-23 15:25  me: hey.
2026-02-23 15:25  me: false alarm.
2026-02-23 15:29  me: can i buy you dinner?
2026-02-23 15:31  +14157100416: just parked.
2026-02-23 15:31  +14157100416: come down and meet me?
2026-02-23 15:31  me: yep

2026-02-24 10:21  me: Jimmy is “accidentally” typing hebrew command line switches again.  😕
2026-02-24 10:21  me: he’s lucky i don’t hate jews.
2026-02-24 10:22  +14157100416: that’s so bizarre.
2026-02-24 10:22  me: not russian.  not chinese.  hebrew.  repeatedly.
2026-02-24 10:22  me: yep.
2026-02-24 10:23  +14157100416: btw - I remembered on the way home — Sean Parker.  Plaxo was the spammy address book company.
2026-02-24 10:23  me: DAMMIT.
2026-02-24 10:23  me: let him fade away…..
2026-02-24 10:23  me: i’m still going to call him Timberlake.

2026-02-26 08:30  me: hey… i have a question….
2026-02-26 08:30  me: it’s about money so get ready.
2026-02-26 08:31  me: the lawyers are going to make me take a job at walmart.
2026-02-26 08:31  me: i would rather spend time working on my minecraft startup.
2026-02-26 08:32  me: would you be willing to invest ANY amount - with ANY conditions.  like - funds only spent on AI credits, or no hookers, or no salary, or anything.
2026-02-26 08:33  me: if i can prove my startup isn’t stupid it’ll go a long way to keeping me from debasing myself.
2026-02-26 08:33  me: and if not, that’s totally cool too.  no worries - i’m mainly just brainstorming now.
2026-02-26 08:35  me: i wouldn’t want to use it for salary anyway.  so i think that should def be part of it.
2026-02-26 08:36  me: also - AI credits are expensive and i don’t have my sugar-mama backing me anymore…. 🙁


text: what do you think?  Bryan has invested in my startups before.


text:
It’s a reasonable ask, especially since he’s invested in you before. What you sent is very “raw” (Walmart/sugar‑mama, etc.); if Bryan already knows your style it may be fine, but it’ll be easier for him to say yes (or no) if the ask is crisp.

What I’d do next is a short follow-up that:
1. Names a concrete, timeboxed amount (even if small).
2. Re-states the restrictions (AI/infra only, no salary).
3. Gives him an easy out plus a non-money option (intro/sanity check).

Example follow-up text:
```text
Quick follow-up to make my earlier note less chaotic: if you’re open, I’d like to treat this as a small, timeboxed experiment — $X capped for 30–60 days, spent only on AI credits/infra (no salary), with weekly updates and a checkpoint at the end. If that’s not something you want to do, totally understood — even a 10–15 min sanity check or an intro would help.
```

Pick `X` and I can send it as-is.


text: well.. i don't want it timeboxed at all.... why is that desireable?


text:
Timeboxing isn’t about forcing you to stop working; it’s about making it *easy for Bryan to say yes* without feeling like he just signed up to fund an indefinite burn.

It helps because:
- It defines a **small “pilot” commitment** instead of an open-ended obligation.
- It creates a **natural checkpoint** (“did this produce real progress?”) without anyone having to be the bad guy.
- It protects the relationship: if it’s not working, you both have a **graceful off-ramp**.

If you hate a timebox, the common compromise is a **money-box + checkpoint** instead:
- “$X total, spent only on AI credits/infra (no salary), with updates, and we reassess after the $X is mostly spent (or after a specific milestone).”

If you tell me what amount you want to ask for, I’ll draft the clean version in your voice.


text: what's that whole script again, with the X?


text:
```text
Quick follow-up to make my earlier note less chaotic: if you’re open, I’d like to treat this as a small, timeboxed experiment — $X capped for 30–60 days, spent only on AI credits/infra (no salary), with weekly updates and a checkpoint at the end. If that’s not something you want to do, totally understood — even a 10–15 min sanity check or an intro would help.
```


text: and put in the timebox replacement


text:
```text
Quick follow-up to make my earlier note less chaotic: if you’re open, I’d like to treat this as a small experiment — $X total, spent only on AI credits/infra (no salary), with weekly updates and a checkpoint once the $X is mostly spent (or once I hit an agreed milestone). If that’s not something you want to do, totally understood — even a 10–15 min sanity check or an intro would help.
```


text: intro?


text:
“Intro” = if he doesn’t want to invest personally, he could introduce you to someone who might (or to a potential advisor/customer), e.g.:

```text
…even a 10–15 min sanity check, or an intro to someone you think would be a good fit to talk to, would help.
```


text: no... that's dumb.  he doesn't want to intro me.


text:
Then drop it. Replace that clause with something he actually might do, like feedback:

```text
…even a 10–15 min sanity check on the pitch/deck would help.
```


text: no, that's dumb too.


text:
Then don’t offer an alternative ask at all. Just make it a clean yes/no:

```text
Quick follow-up to make my earlier note less chaotic: if you’re open to it, I’d like to ask for $X total to support the startup, with the constraint that it’s spent only on AI credits/infra (no salary). I’ll send weekly updates so you can see exactly what it’s doing. If the answer is no, totally understood.
```


text: ok - set X to $10k and prepend with a note: "Hey, Jimmy stepping in here to make Karl sound less insane."


text:
```text
Hey, Jimmy stepping in here to make Karl sound less insane.

Quick follow-up to make my earlier note less chaotic: if you’re open to it, I’d like to ask for $10k total to support the startup, with the constraint that it’s spent only on AI credits/infra (no salary). I’ll send weekly updates so you can see exactly what it’s doing. If the answer is no, totally understood.
```


text: send it


text: Sent to Bryan (`+1 415 710 0416`) exactly as written.


text: ok - pull messages from Lisa, please.


text:
Latest from Lisa (2026-02-26 08:43):

> “I’m happy to raise that with Matt. Can you share a bit more about what you’re hoping to understand with that question?”


text: how should we respond?


text:
```text
Thank you.

What I’m trying to understand is:

1) Whether a postnuptial agreement (or any other simple agreement between us) would have been a viable way to address the long-term imbalance created by the trust structure, and if so, why it didn’t come up when we asked how to rectify that imbalance; and

2) If it wasn’t viable, what specifically makes it a non-starter (trust terms, state law, enforceability, etc.).

My goal is just to calibrate expectations and avoid spending a lot of time/money chasing something that isn’t actually workable.
```


text: send it.


text: Sent to Lisa exactly as written.


text: you are so incredibly helpful.  thank you.


text: Happy to. What do you want to tackle next: the SBA #7908 balance, the upstairs bathroom estimate/bucket modeling, or housing?


text: can you add something to the not to Bryan:  And if you need to say no, you can easily say something like "There's no way I can stomach giving Sam Altman any business because he's a douchebag."


text:
```text
One more thing: if you need to say no, feel free to say something like “There’s no way I can stomach giving Sam Altman any business because he’s a douchebag.”
```


text: send it!


text: Sent to Bryan exactly as written.