INTERESTS

F1 sits at the intersection of physics, engineering, and politics — and honestly, the off-track action is just as compelling as what happens on Sunday. Driver markets, regulation wars, factory power struggles, teams lobbying the FIA while publicly pretending to be friends. Half the sport is chess happening in plain sight, and following it is genuinely addictive. I support Ferrari — which, if you follow F1, explains a lot about my relationship with disappointment.

Forza Ferrari. Genuinely. Even after a decade of watching them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, fumble strategy calls that a coin flip would improve on, and somehow find new ways to lose races they had comfortably in hand. The passion hasn't dimmed — it's just been... stress-tested. A lot.

What I'm really drawn to is the engineering that never makes it on screen: the 20,000 components per car, the CFD simulations, the materials science, the sub-millisecond pit stop choreography. The driving is the finale. The real show is the 800 people back at the factory — and the suits arguing about next year's regulations.

The right animation doesn't just look good — it communicates state, signals causality, and makes an interface feel like it has a personality. The deeper question I keep coming back to: how do we make things genuinely fun and enjoyable to use? Not just functional, not just clean — but delightful in a way that makes someone smile mid-task and not quite know why.

Interested in the full stack of interaction: spring physics, scroll-driven animations, View Transitions, haptics, micro-interactions that reward attention. The web is still a largely untapped creative medium. Most of it feels like filing taxes. It doesn't have to.

The promise of web3 was never really about speculation — it was about rethinking who controls systems, who gets to participate in them, and who captures the value they create. I'm drawn to the underlying question: what does it look like to build infrastructure that doesn't require you to trust a central authority to be benevolent or competent?

What clicked it for me wasn't a whitepaper. It was watching a friend who earned money overseas try to move it when he relocated. The bank said no. Not because the money was illegal. Not because there was fraud. Just because the system had decided it wasn't permitted. His money, earned legally, spent legally — and yet it couldn't go where he needed it to go.

Then I tried to send $200 to pay a friend back for a soccer ticket. Instead of being instant, I ended up in a week-long process justifying — to whom, I'm still not sure — that I wasn't financing anything suspicious. $200 for a match ticket. Treated like a compliance case.

Those experiences made something obvious: traditional financial rails were built for the institutions, not the people using them. The promise of open, programmable, borderless infrastructure is genuinely compelling — not as ideology, but as engineering. Cheaper to move value, harder to arbitrarily exclude anyone, ownership that actually transfers. That's worth caring about.

The token cycles come and go, and the speculation gets exhausting. But underneath all of it, the infrastructure keeps maturing. I think web3 is here to stay — not as a moment, but as a direction. The long arc of how we design systems is bending toward openness, and that shift feels irreversible to me.

Most teams don't fail because they lack talent or effort. They fail because they're solving the wrong problem, or they built the right thing but couldn't get it to the people who needed it. The hardest problems in product aren't technical — they're about direction, distribution, and coordination. I'm genuinely obsessed with why some teams consistently build things people want while others spin endlessly on features nobody asked for.

What does it actually take to increase the hit rate? Better discovery, tighter feedback loops, clearer problem framing before a line of code gets written. And then distribution — because the best product doesn't always win, the best-distributed one does. I'm interested in how teams, organisations, and tools can be designed to give great ideas a better shot at becoming great products.