Subscribe

In Malcolm Gladwell’s interview-style audiobook on Paul Simon, Miracle and Wonder, Simon talks about writing the first drafts of his songs out of anger and frustration.

In revision, he pulls the anger out and leaves his songs more pure.

Why does this work for Paul Simon? The anger is a signal for something important.

The skill isn’t ignoring it. It’s pausing with it, cooking it into something positive instead of flinging it back out raw.

I’ve faced a morsel or two of frustration in finding the time to construct the backend of the GivingTree Map platform — the intelligence pipeline.

It’s on me to stay positive and grateful, to keep moving forward, but I do need to listen to the signal, which is that pouring as much time as I can to build and grow GivingTree is the right thing to do now.

So I’m pausing weekly posts for a bit.

But dude. What about “building in public”?

“Building in public” has two chief benefits. Visibility and accountability.

Visibility is external. It’s building an audience, which is essential to any business. Accountability is internal — having eyes on you makes it harder to quit.

My weekly post hasn’t been getting visibility (maybe just a little). That’s fine. I do it to stay in rhythm, ready for the moment when visibility becomes a main goal.

But I thought that moment would come quicker.

I’ve found I simply need to pour as much time as I can into what’s in front of me right now — and staying in this weekly rhythm, I’m pulling time away from the task at hand. (Not for nothing: it’s been a good exercise for stretching my mind, thinking through how I’ll approach the public posting when I do return.)

And the accountability? Honestly, I don’t need it. I have enough motivation and drive to build this thing either way. I’m accountable to myself, to my family, and to the world around me, even during a short stretch when there’s no one watching.

It’s like you’re writing a symphony, but once a week you have to stop and go take salsa lessons. Maybe the salsa lessons add something to the symphony. But at some point you decide the smarter move is to cut the salsa, immerse yourself in the music, and get ready for its debut.

The salsa lessons still matter. In due course, it will be time to dance.

When it’s time to come back

First I’ll get my bearings. I’ll get in touch with key people, scope out the forums and groups and events and social channels where the conversation is already happening — and I’ll see how I can shake them up.

I’ll talk to other entrepreneurs and professionals, see how they’d apply the GivingTree Map to their own work, and ask for feedback.

I’ll spend about half my time on the continuing build, half on the publicity. I’ll go back to listening to copywriting podcasts (like I did back in my marketing agency days) and sharpen the message.

I’ll stay adaptable, push forward, and take the opportunity as it arises.

I’ll get back before too long. See you in a few. 😉

Love,

Matt

Subscribe

Subscribe

Aniversário de 250 anos dos EUA. Na Filadélfia, a França está prestes a vencer o Paraguai por 1 a 0 na Copa do Mundo. Um pênalti solitário vai colocá-los à frente da defesa aguerrida do Paraguai e manter os favoritos do torneio — cuja própria revolução veio na esteira da americana — na briga pelo título mundial.

Por causa da data e do local, o jogo é precedido por uma cerimônia de 15 minutos. Dançarinos deslizam pelo gramado. Dois jovens declamam um texto sobre o significado das palavras da Declaração de Independência, enquanto o The Roots, banda nascida ali mesmo na Filadélfia, toca seu hino “The Fire”.

Revolução

Revolução, na raiz da palavra, é sobre girar — do jeito que Copérnico descreveu em Sobre as Revoluções dos Corpos Celestes.

Hoje associamos a palavra a avançar, a ir para frente. Mas ela vem do latim revolvere — re-volver, girar para trás. Voltar.

Foi assim que os ingleses usaram a palavra na Revolução Gloriosa de 1688: sentiam que estavam voltando a um governo legítimo ao derrubar o rei James II.

Radical

Você pensaria que a palavra tem a ver com o nome da música, “The Fire”. Mas tem mais a ver com o nome da banda. The Roots. As raízes.

A palavra compartilha origem com rabanete — e com a própria palavra raiz, do latim radix.

Em 1776, até os fundadores dos Estados Unidos sentiam, em parte, que não estavam criando algo novo, mas reivindicando direitos que já eram deles como ingleses — direitos que sempre haviam sido seus, alegando que a coroa era que havia se afastado.

Eles queriam voltar a essas raízes.

Revolução radical.

O Curso

Ano passado, minha esposa voltou de uma viagem a trabalho com um livro do fundador da Vanguard, Stay the Course, de Jack Bogle.

Peguei o livro da estante semana passada, meio que por acaso.

Aquele momento decisivo logo no início é Bogle liderando a Wellington Management Company — um fundo mútuo conservador fundado em 1928 — por uma fase turbulenta no fim dos anos 60, quando o mercado financeiro estava migrando para fundos de ações mais agressivos, e ninguém mais tinha paciência para fundos de crescimento estável.

Ele apresentou ao conselho da Wellington sete caminhos possíveis. Recomendou os três que chamava de “os menos radicais” — o grupo de fundos, administrado mas não possuído pela Wellington Management Company, conquistando sua independência em três etapas: primeiro a administração, depois a distribuição, depois a gestão dos investimentos.

Ele mesmo faz a comparação: não era bem como as treze colônias mandando o rei George III catar coquinho em 1776 — mas a independência do fundo, no fundo, era sobre a mesma coisa.

E sabe qual era o nome do advogado que batalhou para tornar isso possível?

Charles D. Root Jr.

(Em português seria Carlos Raiz.)

Que coisa, hein.

Radical é a raiz

Você pode achar que ser radical é ir contra a corrente. Mas as raízes crescem a favor da própria natureza. A semente cresce para baixo para poder crescer para cima. Enraizamento e crescimento.

O que é radical, no sentido mais verdadeiro, é que não importa o que esteja no caminho da raiz. A dificuldade em si não é prova da sua natureza. Pode ser terra macia ou uma calçada de cimento — de um jeito ou de outro, a raiz segue o seu curso.

Dizem que estamos vivendo um ponto de virada.

Há uma mudança tecnológica radical, uma reestruturação revolucionária de como o mundo funciona. Há o clima mudando, a poluição se acumulando, os ecossistemas sendo destruídos.

Tem gente falando de um despertar em massa da consciência — cientistas e espiritualistas, cada um a seu modo, anunciando uma nova compreensão fundamental do universo.

Você assiste a um jogo da Copa, e por um instante, tudo isso parece pausar. Nações reunidas pela América do Norte. Os EUA celebrando um grande aniversário.

O mundo continua girando, seguindo o seu curso.

Até semana que vem.

Subscribe

Fontes

• The Roots com John Legend, “The Fire”, em How I Got Over (Def Jam Recordings, 2010). Para a letra, ver “The Roots – The Fire Lyrics,” Genius, acessado em 7 de julho de 2026, https://genius.com/The-roots-the-fire-lyrics.

• Nicolaus Copernicus, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (De revolutionibus orbium coelestium), trad. Charles Glenn Wallis, em Great Books of the Western World, vol. 16 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952).

• “Glorious Revolution,” The National Archives, acessado em 7 de julho de 2026, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/glorious-revolution/. Os National Archives afirmam que, no início de 1689, Jaime II foi deposto e substituído por Maria e Guilherme de Orange, e que a Revolução foi enquadrada em torno do medo de um governo arbitrário e de um modelo contratual de monarquia; sobre o ponto histórico mais amplo de que os ingleses usavam o termo como uma “restauração” ou retorno a uma ordem legítima, ver “Glorious Revolution,” BBC History, acessado em 7 de julho de 2026, https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/glorious_revolution_01.shtml.

• “Rights of Englishmen in British America,” Library of Congress, acessado em 7 de julho de 2026, https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/rights-of-englishmen-in-british-america.html. A Library of Congress observa que os colonos importaram a tradição dos “direitos dos ingleses” e que as cartas coloniais estenderam as liberdades inglesas aos habitantes da América do Norte.

• John C. Bogle, Stay the Course: The Story of Vanguard and the Index Revolution (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2018).

Subscribe

America’s 250th birthday. In Philadelphia, France is about to beat Paraguay 1-0 in the World Cup. A lone penalty kick will nudge them ahead of Paraguay’s tenacious defense and keep the tournament favorites (whose own revolution followed the American one) gunning for the world championship.

Due to its notable date and location, the World Cup game is preceded by a 15-minute ceremony. Dancers glide around the field. Two youths deliver a script about the meaning of the words in the Declaration of Independence while Philly’s own The Roots perform their anthemic jam “The Fire”.

Revolution

Revolution is about spinning, the way Copernicus described it in On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres.

Today we associate the word with moving forward, but it comes from the Latin revolvere — to re-turn.

That’s how the Engilsh used the word in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, feeling they were rolling back to a rightful state of government by overthrowing King James II.

Radical

You’d relate it to the name of the song “The Fire” but it has more to do with the name of the band. The Roots.

It shares an origin with radish and the Spanish/Portuguese raíz — the Latin root, radix.

In 1776, even the founders felt in part they weren’t starting something new but reclaiming the rights of Englishmen — rights that had always been theirs, arguing the crown had drifted away.

They wanted to return to those roots.

Radical revolution.

The Course

Last year, my wife came home from a business trip with a book by the founder of Vanguard, Jack Bogle’s Stay the Course.

I picked it out of my closet last week on a whim.

That pivotal early moment is Bogle leading Wellington Management Company—a conservative mutual fund founded in 1928—through a rocky patch in the late 60s, when finance was moving toward aggressive stock funds and people were losing interest in steady growth funds.

He presented Wellington’s board with seven paths forward. He recommended the three he called “the least radical” — the fund group (which was managed, but not owned, by Wellington Management Company) gaining its independence in three stages — administration, then distribution, then investment management.

He writes, “It wasn’t exactly the thirteen colonies telling King George III to get lost, as it were, in 1776. But fund independence . . . was at its heart.”

And you know the name of the legal advisor who pushed to make this outcome possible? Charles D. Root Jr.

Chuck Root. (I was like, get outta here.)

Radical is with the grain.

When we talk about plants, grain describes both the seed and the fibers.

You might think radical means against the grain. But roots grow with the grain. The seed grows downward to grow upward. Grounding and growth.

What’s radical—in the truest sense—is that it doesn’t matter what’s in a root’s way. The struggle itself is not the proof of its nature. It could be soft soil or a cement sidewalk, but either way, the root follows its course.

They say we’re living through a turning point.

There’s a radical technological shift, a revolutionary restructuring of the way the world works. There’s the shifting climate, accumulation of pollution, and destruction of ecosystems.

There are people talking about a mass awakening of consciousness—scientists and spiritualists alike proclaiming a new fundamental understanding of the universe.

You watch a World Cup game, and all of that seems to pause for a moment. Nations are gathered across North America. The USA celebrates a big birthday.

The world keeps turning, following its course.

See you next week.

Subscribe

Sources

• The Roots featuring John Legend, “The Fire,” on How I Got Over (Def Jam Recordings, 2010). For lyrics, see “The Roots – The Fire Lyrics,” Genius, accessed July 7, 2026, https://genius.com/The-roots-the-fire-lyrics.genius

• Nicolaus Copernicus, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (De revolutionibus orbium coelestium), trans. Charles Glenn Wallis, in Great Books of the Western World, vol. 16 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952).libquotes

• “Glorious Revolution,” The National Archives, accessed July 7, 2026, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/glorious-revolution/. The National Archives states that in early 1689 James II was deposed and replaced by Mary and William of Orange, and that the Revolution was framed around fears of arbitrary government and a contractual model of kingship; for the broader historical point that the English used the term as a “restoration” or return to a rightful order, see “Glorious Revolution,” BBC History, accessed July 7, 2026, https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/glorious_revolution_01.shtml.nationalarchives+1

• “Rights of Englishmen in British America,” Library of Congress, accessed July 7, 2026, https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/rights-of-englishmen-in-british-america.html. The Library of Congress notes that colonists imported the “rights of Englishmen” tradition and that colonial charters extended English liberties to inhabitants in North America.loc

• John C. Bogle, Stay the Course: The Story of Vanguard and the Index Revolution (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2018).

Mais uma semana focada no pipeline de inteligência do GivingTree Map. Another one!

Nessa fase de desenvolvimento, preciso mergulhar de cabeça e dedicar cada minuto do meu dia a cada detalhe, até que tudo esteja redondo — ou pelo menos “redondo o suficiente” para o lançamento da versão Beta.

O texto desta semana será uma reflexão simples. Talvez os das próximas semanas sigam a mesma linha. Vamos ver.

Mas olha, escrever assim, meio no improviso, tem suas vantagens.

A primeira é a chance de alcançar a tão desejada autenticidade. Como não tenho quase nada a provar neste momento (depois terei!), sinto que há um toque extra de honestidade e humanidade nas minhas palavras. Pelo menos eu acho, ou espero que sim. Se você sentir qualquer cheiro de papo furado por aqui, deixe nos comentários.

Outra vantagem é que existe uma certa sabedoria que só brota quando a gente não está forçando a barra — algo que o esforço não consegue comprar. Não é a minha sabedoria. É só um insight que nasce naturalmente do momento, como folhas que caem calmamente no chão.

Se você perceber algum tipo de sabedoria como essa nessas linhas, deixe nos comentários.

Mas enfim. Mesmo submerso nessa construção do backend, não vou sumir do mapa. Vou continuar postando toda semana para manter o ritmo, manter o compromisso e deixar a memória muscular de me comunicar com o público sempre afiada.

Quando eu finalmente sair dessa fase de bastidores, o conteúdo voltado para o público vai ser o prato principal, o grande desafio que estou louco para encarar.

Aí, esses textos não serão mais como folhas caindo no chão. Vão ser como folhas disparadas por um canhão: com estratégia e alvos bem definidos.

Estou empolgado com isso. Só de escrever essas palavras já sinto o coração bater mais forte.

Para finalizar o post de hoje, um brinde a todos vocês que continuam firmes na jornada.

Vamos lá. Mantenham-se fortes, façam um trabalho incrível e aproveitem cada segundo

Semana que vem, nos encontramos de novo.

Com carinho,

Matt

Siga!

It’s another week building the backend for the GivingTree Map platform. Another one!

While I’m building the backend, I just need to pour as much time as I possibly can, every day, into every detail, until it’s right — or right enough for Beta.

This week’s post will be a simple reflection. Maybe next week and the week after that will follow suit. We’ll see.

Now, writing off-the-cuff-ish can have some benefits.

The first is the chance to attain the prized quality of authenticity. I have little to prove at the moment (I will later!), so there may be an added air of honesty and humanity in my words. At least I think so. I hope so. If you smell a whiff of BS in what I’m saying, please say so in the comments.

Another is that there is a certain wisdom that can emerge when you’re not trying too hard, that cannot be achieved through greater effort. It’s not my wisdom, to be sure. It’s just a wisdom that falls out of the moment like leaves falling to the ground.

If you discover any such wisdom in these words, please say so in the comments.

Anyway. Though I’m in this back-end build phase, I will stay above ground. I will post every week—to stay in rhythm, accountable, with my public-facing muscle memory sharp.

When I make it out of the backend-build phase, public-facing content will be the thing, the exciting challenge.

Then these posts won’t be like leaves falling to the ground. They will be like leaves shooting out of a cannon, strategically, with specific targets.

I’m excited for that. Just writing these words gets my heart pumping harder.

With that — here’s to all of you, keeping on keeping on.

Let’s go. Stay strong. Do great work and appreciate every moment.

Back next week.

Love,

Matt

Follow along

Cá estou eu, mais uma semana atolado até o pescoço em schemas. Tabelas de staging, scripts em JSON, toda a arquitetura de como a informação bruta sobre a economia “do bem” é lida, compreendida, organizada e mapeada. Já montei umas vinte e cinco tabelas no Supabase.

Três semanas atrás, eu nem tinha ouvido a palavra Postgres. Você já ouviu falar em Postgres? Eu poderia te dar uma aula sobre isso.

Mas deixa pra lá.

Subscribe

Quando decidi criar a demo do GivingTree Map, antes do Impacta Mais, achei que dava para matar o backend em poucos dias. Ainda bem que deixei essa tarefa para depois, porque não ia dar! Só agora estou chegando perto de terminar a primeira camada — um prompt que tem cerca de 600 linhas e 4500 palavras.

Mas enfim. O negócio é o seguinte: quanto mais difícil fica, mais certeza eu tenho do que estou fazendo.

Dois Motivos para Isso

Parte disso vem de perceber o quão difícil é fazer a coisa certa. O quanto de tempo e foco isso realmente exige. Se alguém resolvesse pegar a minha ideia amanhã, duas coisas precisariam ser verdade para isso realmente incomodar:

• Primeiro: a pessoa teria que ter a dedicação e o foco para construir no mesmo nível de detalhes que estou construindo, o que é improvável.

• Segundo: mesmo que tivesse esse foco todo, teria que juntar todas as peças da forma correta, o que seria mais improvável ainda.

Cada obstáculo é a prova de que vou terminar com um sistema de inteligência excelente e único.

O segundo motivo é que cada dia difícil prova a minha própria convicção. A convicção se autoalimenta. Ela se multiplica. Quanto mais sigo por esse caminho, mais certeza eu tenho dele. E quanto mais certeza eu tenho, mais sigo o caminho.

Construído para Impulsionar

Não sei de quanto tempo o backend ainda precisa, e nem o frontend depois dele. Mas tenho uma boa ideia de quais partes posso deixar para depois do lançamento do MVP Beta, o que mantém o meu cronograma de lançamento o mais próximo possível.

E eu sei que, não importa quanta energia eu tenha que depositar nessa plataforma, vou sair do outro lado com algo único, algo que realmente vale a pena lançar.

Querido futuro,

Aqui é uma carta para o meu “eu” do futuro, e para o futuro de todo mundo que acabar sendo tocado por esse trabalho. É uma promessa. O GivingTree foi feito para impulsionar as pessoas.

Existe um espírito competitivo na forma como estou construindo isso, mas de um jeito motivador. Isso não significa que estou tentando derrubar ninguém.

Quero que o crescimento do GivingTree cause o crescimento dos outros. É assim que se conquistam aliados. Esse é o caminho a seguir. Quero liderar não mandando nos outros, mas pelo exemplo e criando oportunidades para as pessoas.

Então, é aí que estamos.

Backend, schema, um prompt de cada vez, seguindo firmes na estrada em frente.

Vou publicar isso aqui e voltar para o meu banco de dados.

É isso!

Até a semana que vem.

-Matt

Subscribe

It’s another week neck-deep in schema. Staging tables, JSON scripts, the architecture of how raw information about the do-gooder economy gets read, understood, sorted, and mapped. I have something like twenty-four of twenty-five tables built in Supabase.

Three weeks ago I’d never heard the word Postgres. Have you ever heard the word Postgres? I could tell you all about it.

Never mind.

Subscribe

When I first decided to build the demo of the GivingTree Map, before Impacta Mais, I thought I complete do the backend in a few days. I’m glad I defered that task until later, because there was no way! I’m only just now getting close to finishing the first layer—a prompt that’s around 600 lines long.

Anyways. Here’s the thing.

The harder it gets, the more sure I become of what I’m doing.

Two Reasons Why

Part of that is realizing how difficult it is to do this right. How much time and focus it actually takes. If someone picked up my idea tomorrow, two things would have to be true for it to matter. First they’d have to have the dedication and focus to build at the same level of detail I’m building at, which is unlikely. Second, even if they had enough focus they’d have to put all the piece together correctly, which would be unlikely.

Every bit of difficulty is proof I’m going to end up with a better intelligence system than anyone else.

The second reason is that every hard day prooves my own conviction. Conviction proves itself to itself. It compounds. The more I go down this path, the more I feel certain of it. The more I feel certain of it, the further I go.

Built to Lift

I don’t know how much time the backend still needs, or the frontend after that. I do have a good idea of what pieces I can leave for after I launch the MVP Beta, which keeps my launch schedule as near as possible.

And I know that, however much time I need to pour into this platform, I’m going to come out with something unique, something worth launching.

Dear future,

The rest of this is a letter to my future self, and to the future selves of everyone who ends up touched by this work. It’s a promise. GivingTree is built to lift people up.

There’s a competitive spirit about how I’m building, in a good, motivating way. But that doesn’t mean I’m trying to knock anyone down.

I want to GivingTree’s growth to cause the growth of others. That’s how you make allies. That’s the path forward. I want to lead, not by ordering people around, but by example and by creating possibilities for people.

So that’s where we’re at.

Backend, schema, one prompt at a time, steady on the road forward.

I’m publishing this and getting back to my database.

That’s that!

See you next week.

Subscribe

Subscribe

Nunca estudei pensamento sistêmico — é algo que eu faço, e ultimamente faço bastante. Não vou falar sobre o meu trabalho hoje, além de linkar o Mapa e o artigo sobre taxonomia da semana passada, caso queira se aprofundar nos detalhes técnicos.

Da paisagem 2D para a 3D para a 4D

Quando você visualiza um sistema por primeira vez, talvez veja um diagrama 2D — tipo aquelas grandes mesas de mapa onde planejam estratégias de batalha em Game of Thrones.

Mas essa mesa de mapa se comporta de um jeito diferente.

Imagina a seguinte cena.

Você toca em um ponto de pressão e ondulações se espalham pelo mapa, atingindo os outros pontos de pressão, que por sua vez criam novas ondulações, atingindo todos os outros pontos de pressão de novo, e assim por diante.

Agora você tem uma paisagem 3D — ou melhor, já que ela muda com o tempo, uma paisagem 4D.

Como evitar que isso vire um caos?

Ondulações e ondas

Você já viu como ondas sonoras afetam a água? Isso se chama cimática.

Você coloca uma camada de água sobre a pele de um tambor, e então toca diferentes frequências. Cada frequência cria seu próprio padrão.

Depois, você começa a combinar os tons.

Na harmonia em geral (antes de colocarmos água sobre o tambor), pares de ondas sonoras “dissonantes” não se alinham. Elas colidem em pontos estranhos. Já nas harmonias “consonantes”, os comprimentos de onda se encaixam, criando simetrias.

Na cimática, agora utilizando a água e o tambor, entra mais um elemento: o tamanho do recipiente.

Por exemplo, se o nosso tom-tom tem 10 cm de diâmetro (é pequeno), talvez uma frequência de 90,1 Hz crie padrões bonitos, porque as ondas batem nas bordas exatamente do jeito certo — mas 90,9 Hz já fica um pouco fora do ponto, criando caos.

Então, como criamos mudança em um sistema?

Na prática, não existe uma única pessoa “projetando” um sistema. Você projeta um modelo de sistema e, se tiver influência suficiente, talvez consiga chegar perto de implementá-lo no mundo real do jeito que projetou.

Mas, mesmo assim, o máximo que qualquer pessoa consegue fazer é projetar sua influência sobre o sistema. Você projeta uma onda sonora que ressoa.

Você observa como, ao combinar duas frequências, os efeitos mudam. Você acrescenta uma terceira frequência, uma quarta, uma quinta — e isso cria losangos, mas você quer hexágonos. Então você ajusta suas frequências até achar os tons certos. Você remove ou ajusta qualquer som que não se encaixe. Por fim, você vê o padrão que queria ressoando pela água.

Você aplica esse design à sua mesa de mapa 4D (a do estilo Game of Thrones de estratégia de batalha). Ajusta um pouco mais para esse novo formato de recipiente, e gosta do que vê.

Então você olha pela janela do seu castelo, para o mundo lá fora, e se pergunta se consegue criar o mesmo efeito por lá.

Se a sua convicção for forte o suficiente, você sabe que vai conseguir — mas não há como saber todas as forças que vai enfrentar até sair lá fora.

O poder do cérebro te trouxe até aqui por conta própria, mas agora você precisa engajar o coração. É preciso coragem para levar seu plano para o mundo. Você vai enfrentar obstáculos que nunca imaginou na sua sala de estratégia.

Você não vai estar brincando com ondas sonoras, água e um tambor. Você vai ser uma “frequência” entre muitas, num grande corpo de água.

Vai ter que se adaptar e persistir para concretizar a influência que imaginou.

Subscribe

Subscribe

This is a raw take.

Systems thinking is not something I’ve studied, but it’s something I do and have been doing lately. I won’t talk about my work today other than to link the Map and last week’s taxonomy article — in case you want nitty gritty.

I’m going to put forth a philosophy and hope it clicks.

So what’s systems thinking?

From 2D to 3D to 4D landscapes

When you first visualize a system, you might see a 2D diagram, maybe one of those big map tables where they plan battle strategies in Game of Thrones.

But this map table behaves differently.

Picture this.

You poke one pressure point and ripples fan across the map, hitting the other pressure points, which in turn create ripples, again hitting every other pressure point, and so on.

Now you have a 3D landscape, or rather, since it’s changing with time, a 4D landscape.

How do you keep it from becoming chaotic?

Ripples and waves

Have you ever seen a pond rippling under a drizzle, or the centimeter of water by your feet in the shower? Look at the patterns.

Better yet, have you ever seen how sound waves affect water? It’s called cymatics.

You can put a layer of water on the skin of, say, a tom-tom drum, then play different frequencies. Each frequency creates its own pattern.

Then you start putting tones together.

With harmony in general (before we put water on a drum), “dissonant” pairs of sound waves don’t line up. They clash in odd places. With “consonant” harmonies, the wavelengths fit, creating symmetries.

In cymatics, with our tom-tom drum, we add one more element—the size of the container.

For example, if our tom-tom drum is 10 cm in diameter (it’s a little one), perhaps a 90.1 Hz frequency will create nice patterns because the waves bounce off the rims just right, but 90.9 Hz will be a little off, creating chaos.

So how do we create change in a system?

There’s no such thing, in practice, as a single person “designing” a system. You design a model for a system, and if you’re influential, you might come close to implementing it in the real world the way you designed it.

But even then, the best any one person can do is design their influence on the system. You design a sound wave that resonates.

You observe how, when you combine two frequencies, the effects change. You add a third frequency, a fourth, a fifth—and it creates something like a bunch of diamonds, but you want hexagons. So you turn the knobs on your frequencies until you find the tones that work. You remove or tweak any sound that doesn’t fit. Finally, you see the pattern you want resonating across the water.

You apply your design to your 4D Game-of-Thrones-style battle-strategy map table. You tweak it a little more for this new container shape, and you like what you see.

Then you look out the window of your castle, into the world, and you wonder if you can create the same effect out there.

If your conviction is strong enough, you know you will, but you can’t know all the forces you’ll be up against until you go out there.

Thinking power has gotten you this far on its own, but now you have to start engaging your heart. It takes courage to take your plan into the world. You’ll face obstacles you never imagined in your battle-strategy map room.

You won’t be playing with sound waves, water, and a drum. You’ll be one ‘frequency’ among many in a big body of water.

You’ll have to adapt and persist to realize the influence you envisioned.

Subscribe

Inscrever-se

Passei as últimas semanas desenhando a estrutura da minha base de conhecimento.

Pura diversão. O número de coisas que precisei pensar é entorpecente. (Literalmente, minha cabeça está um pouco entorpecida.) E foi tudo para isso — o relatório PDF que você vê abaixo — que, à primeira vista, parece bem feito, mas quando você lê as colunas, percebe os tropeços.

Você pode gerar seu próprio relatório, tropeços e tudo! Basta ir aqui, aplicar os filtros que quiser e clicar em “Criar relatório”.

Passei horas e horas e horas e horas e dias (e mais horas) neste PDF — especialmente nas colunas. E ainda está longe do perfeito. Honestamente, se eu não tivesse uma reserva inesgotável de motivação pelo que estou fazendo, isso poderia me derrubar. (Mas não derrubou, e não vai.)

Este relatório PDF é só a ponta do iceberg taxonômico

Por baixo dele, da forma como cristais de gelo se formam em um iceberg de verdade, um sistema de conhecimento está tomando forma. Estou mapeando as regras de como meu sistema identifica dados, conecta pontos e os apresenta. E as lições desse trabalho se aplicam a qualquer pessoa que lida com informação no dia a dia.

Por exemplo:

Aqui estão as instruções para o código que projeta a coluna das informações geográficas.

A coluna 3 leva o título “regiões metropolitanas” — o stat em destaque. O sistema pode gerá-la em três “modos” (distribuído, foco-país e foco-cidade), dependendo das geografias selecionadas nos filtros do mapa.

Além disso, os dois modos de “foco” têm duas “trilhas” — uma para quando um país ou cidade é a única geografia selecionada, e outra para quando é a localidade dominante (mas não exclusiva), representando de 70 a 99% dos negócios identificados no relatório.

Acertar isso é fundamental. Projetar isso corretamente desde o início vai ter ramificações positivas que se espalham por tudo o mais que for construído.

Então não há escolha. Tem que ser feito do jeito certo.

Como é essa batalha

Quando você constrói sistemas assim, você enxerga tudo o que há dentro deles. Cada palavra. Cada regra. Cada efeito cascata. Cada caso que quebra no momento em que os dados fazem algo que você não esperava.

Travei algumas batalhas taxonômicas nas últimas duas semanas. Aqui vai uma.

A batalha entre “investidores” e “beneficiários”

Aparece bem no topo da coluna 1 — e é uma batalha que ainda estou travando.

Parece simples — o dinheiro vai de um investidor para um beneficiário.

O que eu realmente quero distinguir é (1) investidores e (2) “organizações não-financeiras beneficiárias” — empresas e ONGs que recebem investimentos mas não são instituições financeiras registradas. Sabe, empresas e ONGs comuns.

Só que investidores também podem ser tecnicamente “beneficiários” quando gerenciam fundos repassados por outro investidor. Empresas de investimento também são “empresas”, mas ONGs tecnicamente não são. Qualquer grupo de pessoas juridicamente constituído é uma “organização”. Instituições financeiras podem ser ONGs ou entidades governamentais.

Então o termo tecnicamente correto é “organização não-financeira.”

Mas isso é impreciso e confuso no contexto. Então, fora.

Vou provavelmente escrever “empresas*” ou “organizações*”, com uma nota de rodapé no final da coluna ou da página. Não é o que eu queria. Mas a clareza é tão importante aqui que estou disposto a abrir uma exceção. A ver se encontro uma solução melhor.

Esse é o jogo inteiro, ali: uma palavra precisa mas confusa contra uma clara mas ligeiramente imprecisa — e você tem que escolher, sabendo que a escolha se propaga por todos os relatórios que o sistema vai gerar.

Já travei centenas dessas batalhas de lógica e linguagem.

A vitória mais profunda, e a verdade mais dura

Por baixo das colunas, a arquitetura do conhecimento foi construída.

Estou migrando minha base de conhecimento do Airtable para o Supabase — uma plataforma mais técnica, mas capaz de sustentar sistemas de informação maiores e mais complexos.

Nesse processo, derrubei algumas estruturas e construí outras melhores. Duas tabelas chamadas “investors” e “recipients” viraram uma só — Entities — que marca cada organização com identificadores para os papéis que ela desempenha.

A tabela “Deals” virou “Activities” porque esse nome dá à tabela a flexibilidade de mapear não só transações financeiras, mas também parcerias, eventos e lançamentos de programas.

O novo modelo é mais honesto e mais preciso.

A taxonomia, por si só, é só metade da batalha.

O próximo passo é triagem, verificação e a coordenação das informações em conhecimento real.

É a próxima camada — e pode acabar sendo muito mais complexa do que a parte da taxonomia. Como treino o sistema para entregar, de forma confiável — ou 99,999% das vezes — informações verificáveis e citadas?

Com um sistema desse tamanho, rachaduras aparecem. Preciso manter o conhecimento que passa pelo meu sistema hermeticamente selado, por meio de um sistema inteligente de prompts. Preciso estudar como o Perplexity faz isso. Preciso pesquisar um conceito chamado “verificação formal” que ouvi num podcast.

E então preciso fazer a triagem da informação para os exatos pontos onde ela precisa aparecer, de forma que entregue a você informação de alta qualidade em uma experiência de alta qualidade.

Tudo isso ainda está por vir.

A jogada que muda os cálculos

Perto do fim de tudo isso, decidi que precisava de uma forma melhor de travar essas batalhas de lógica e informação.

Então pedi ao Claude para construir uma habilidade de “pensamento crítico” que roda uma auditoria de oito etapas em qualquer sistema antes de o trabalho voltar para mim — unidade e cardinalidade, casos de borda, redundância, precisão palavra-por-realidade, e assim por diante.

Agora tenho IA travando essas batalhas por mim — ou pelo menos abrindo caminho para que meu trabalho seja muito mais eficiente.

Por que não há escolha

Aqui está o que faz todo esse trabalho entorpecente valer a pena.

Por enquanto, tudo o que mapeei é a arquitetura do movimento de recursos financeiros na economia do bem. Mas isso é a semente, não a árvore. Quando começarmos a construir outros tipos de informação — histórica, legislativa, científica, cultural — tudo o que precisamos para contar a história completa do movimento que busca tornar o mundo um lugar melhor, vai ficar bem mais complexo.

Pode vir. Consigo pegar o complexo e transformar em ouro. Tudo que for construído por cima vai ser melhor do que qualquer outra coisa lá fora — justamente por causa do tempo e da energia que investi na taxonomia. Essa é a fundação do edifício. O alicerce sobre o qual tudo se apoia. A germinação que a semente precisa para brotar de forma saudável.

E honestamente? Sinto que acabei de fazer o equivalente mental de uma semana de treino físico intensivo. Agora preciso de uma semana relativamente tranquila. Quando eu voltar desse descanso — fazendo coisas menos exigentes mentalmente por uma temporada — vou estar ainda mais forte. O cérebro é um músculo. Se você vai enfrentar provações como essas, precisa treiná-lo, da mesma forma que um atleta treina para vencer.

Essa é a parte que eu te passaria, se você for um trabalhador do conhecimento, ou qualquer pessoa que constrói e trabalha dentro de sistemas: a batalha ingrata e entorpecente para acertar a estrutura não é um desvio do trabalho. É o trabalho. Entenda isso, e vai elevar tudo o mais que você faz.

É essa energia mental que transforma a semente em broto, e o broto em uma árvore alta e imponente. 🌱

O GivingTree Map é uma visualização interativa do fluxo global de capital de impacto. Acesse no givingtree.com.br/map. Este artigo faz parte de uma série “building in public”.

Inscrever-se

Subscribe now

I’ve been focused for a couple of weeks on designing the structure of my underlying knowledge base.

Fun stuff. The number of things I’ve had to think through is mind-numbing. (Literally, my mind feels a little numb.) And it’s all been for this—the PDF report you see below—which looks pretty good at first glance, but when you read the columns, you see the kinks.

Since this is building in public, you can create your own report, kinks and all!

Just go here, select any filters you want, and click “Create report”.

I spent hours and hours and hours and hours and days (and hours) on this PDF — especially the columns. And it's still far from perfect.

Honestly, if I didn't have an endless supply of motivation for what I'm doing, this might have knocked me down. (But it didn't and won't.)

This PDF report is the tip of the taxonomic iceberg.

Underneath it, in the way ice crystals form in an actual iceberg, a knowledge system is forming. I'm mapping out rules for how my system identifies data, connects dots, and presents them. And the lessons from that work apply to anyone who deals with information for a living.

For example:

This is my homework in designing column 3 of the PDF, which gives the geographic information.

Column 3 is titled “metro areas” after the highlighted stat. The system can write it in three “modes” (distributed, focus-country, and focus-city), depending on what geographies you select on the map filters.

Beyond that, both “focus” modes have two “tracks” — one for a country or city as the sole geography selected, and one for when it’s the dominant (but not sole) location, representing 70 to 99% of the deals identified in the report.

I know! It’s fun stuff!

But getting this right is critical. Designing it correctly up front will have positive ramifications that branch out across everything else I build.

So there’s no choice. It’s gotta be done right.

What the fight looks like

When you build systems like these, you see everything that goes into them. Every word. Every rule. Every ripple effect. Every edge case that breaks the moment the data does something you didn’t expect.

I have fought a few taxonomic skirmishes over the past two weeks. Here’s one.

The battle between “investors” and “recipients”

The first one shows up at the top of column 1, and it’s a battle I’m still fighting.

It sounds simple — money moves from an investor to a recipient.

What I really want to distinguish is (1) investors and (2) “recipient non-financial organizations” — companies and nonprofits that receive investments but aren’t registered financial institutions. You know, regular companies and nonprofits.

But investors can also technically be “recipients” when they manage funds downstream from another investor. Investment companies are also “companies” but nonprofits technically are not. Any incorporated group of people is an “organization”. Financial institutions can be nonprofits or government entities.

So the accurate term is “non-financial organization.”

But that’s imprecise and unclear in context. So it’s out.

I’ll probably end up writing “companies*” or “organizations*,” with an asterisked footnote at the bottom of the column or page. It’s not what I’d want. But clarity is so important here that I’m willing to make an exception. TBD if I find a better solution.

That’s the whole game, right there: a word that’s accurate but confusing against a word that’s clear but slightly imprecise, and you have to choose — knowing the choice ripples through every report the system will ever generate.

I’ve been through a hundred such battles of logic and language.

The deeper win, and the harder truth

Beneath the columns, the knowledge architecture was built.

I’m moving my underlying knowledge base from Airtable to Supabase — a platform that’s more technical but that can handle larger, more complex systems of information.

In doing so, I demolished some structures and built some better ones. Two tables called “investors” and “recipients” become one — Entities — which tags each organization with identifiers for the roles it plays.

The “Deals” table became “Activities” because that title gives the table the flexibility to map not only financial transactions but also partnerships, events, and program launches.

The new model is more honest and more precise.

Taxonomy itself is only half the battle.

Next comes triage, verification, and the coordination of information into real knowledge.

It’s the next layer, and it could end up being far more complex than the taxonomy part. How do I train the system to reliably — or 99.999% of the time — deliver verifiable, cited information?

With a system this large, cracks can show up. I need to keep this knowledge that goes through my system sealed tight through an intelligent system of prompts. I need to study how Perplexity does it. I need to look into a concept called “formal verification” that I heard about on a podcast.

And then I need to triage information to exactly the points where it needs to show up, so it reliably feeds you top-quality information in a top-quality experience.

All of that is still ahead.

The move that changes the math

Toward the end of all this, I decided I need a better way to fight these battles of logic and information.

So I asked Claude to build a “critical thinking” skill that runs an eight-pass audit on any system before the work comes back to me — unit and cardinality, edge cases, redundancy, word-to-reality precision, and so on down the list.

So now I have AI go fight these battles for me, or at least clear the way to make my job much easier.

Why there’s no choice

Here’s what makes the mind-numbing work worth it.

Right now, all I’ve mapped is the architecture of the movement of finances in the do-gooder economy. But that’s the seed, not the tree. Once we start building in other types of information — historical, legislative, scientific, cultural — all the things we need to tell the complete story of the movement to make the world a better place, it’s going to get far more complex.

Bring it on. I can take complex and turn it into gold. Everything built on top will be better than anything else out there, precisely because of the time and energy I’ve put into the taxonomy. This is the foundation of the building. The groundwork everything else stands on. The germination the seed needs to pop and sprout in a healthy way.

And honestly? I feel like I just did the mental equivalent of a week of intensive physical training. Now I need a sabbath. When I come back from that rest — doing less mentally taxing things for a stretch — I’ll be even stronger. The brain is a muscle. If you’re heading into ordeals like this, you have to train it, the same as an athlete trains to win.

That’s the part I’d hand to you, if you’re a knowledge worker, or anyone who builds and works inside systems: the unglamorous, mind-numbing fight to get the structure right is not a detour from the work. It is the work. Understand that, and it elevates everything else you do.

It’s the mental energy that turns the seed into a sprout into a tall, mighty tree. 🌱

The GivingTree Map is an interactive visualization of global impact capital flows, live at givingtree.com.br/map. This post is part of an ongoing build-in-public series.

Subscribe now

Terminei o artigo da semana passada com formas de diminuir a distância entre ideias e soluções.

Como isso pode ser útil no seu trabalho, vamos puxar esse fio.

Subscribe now

Meu processo de construir a GivingTree (especificamente o GivingTree Map da economia de impacto global) é o que a galera chama de “building in public”. Estou mostrando minhas cartas de propósito, publicando iterações da plataforma antes de ela estar totalmente formada.

Esse caminho tem três fases. Demo. Beta. Lançamento.

Mesmo que eu ainda esteja no Demo — todas as três fases já estão me ensinando lições importantes.

Tem uma história de um professor de engenharia.

Ele pede aos seus alunos que construam pontes em escala.

Metade da turma tem o semestre inteiro para aperfeiçoar suas pontes. A outra metade tem que construir uma ponte nova por semana.

As melhores pontes são construídas na última semana, pelos alunos do segundo grupo.

Iteração, baby.

Esse é o pensamento por trás do demo do GivingTree Map.

Construí a primeira versão rápido, para levar a um evento em São Paulo, o Impacta Mais. Ter o demo nas mãos abriu a porta para mais conversas. Conversas melhores. Conversas com direção real. Conversas que podem dar frutos.

Então, se você está construindo alguma coisa, não subestime o valor de soltar um rascunho meio tosco. Não se esconda atrás da “necessidade” da perfeição. Coloca pra fora. Começa umas conversas.

Aqui vai outra metáfora — as fases da vida — para fechar o quadro.

Imagina que você tem filhos. Imagina só!

Quando são pequenos, você deixa eles experimentarem de tudo — esportes, artes, ciências, outras áreas de interesse. Você joga a rede larga. Vê pelo que eles são atraídos.

Quando viram adolescentes, você os deixa gravitar para as atividades que amam, nas quais se destacam. Quando entram no “mundo real”, aí podem focar em uma área (talvez duas ou três que se sobrepõem) onde vão deixar sua marca no mundo.

Então.

A atual fase ‘Demo’ do GivingTree Map é a infância. Estou jogando uma rede larga, mirando entregar conhecimento e valor para todo mundo, sem alvo mais específico do que a “economia de impacto global”, exceto que sou, naturalmente, me inclino mais para os dois países que chamo de lar: 🇺🇸 e 🇧🇷.

É o contrário do conselho que você ouve por aí de “fazer nicho”.

Mas isso vem depois. A fase Beta é a adolescência.

Vou testar o product-market fit de diferentes aspectos da plataforma — pequenos ajustes, novas funcionalidades, diferentes tipos de marketing e precificação.

Se eu receber um sinal claro dos investidores, vou trabalhar em funcionalidades institucionais. Se receber um sinal dos empreendedores e dos negócios, vou na direção desse mercado. Se receber um sinal do “mercado de massa” de pessoas físicas usando essa plataforma, vou nessa direção.

Se receber sinais dos três, vou descobrir como equilibrar.

Quando chegar a hora do mundo real — o lançamento oficial — eu já vou ter um caminho claro.

—

Iteração, baby.

—

O lançamento oficial vem em algum momento de 2027, depois que o Beta tiver feito seu trabalho. Por causa do caminho que tomei até lá, é quase garantido que ele vai ser valioso para as pessoas.

Em um rascunho desse artigo, eu havia escrito:

Mas se eu estou levando a sério esse ciclo de iteração e feedback, não sei se isso é verdade. Talvez a versão mais valiosa — pelo menos no começo — seja um mapa cheio de dados sólidos.

Às vezes, suas visões são melhor sustentadas com muita convicção por um lado e com puro desapego por outro. Visão clara com a mente aberta.

Uma nota pessoal para fechar.

A decisão de construir a plataforma GivingTree tem sido libertadora.

Eu estava titubeando nela.

Agora que estou me comprometendo, tenho mais clareza e firmeza sobre minha vida do que nunca. Vejo o mundo de uma forma completamente diferente. Entendo, melhor do que antes, por que as pessoas fazem as coisas pelas quais se sentem movidas, de onde vem a verdadeira coragem.

Vou continuar construindo isso. Nada vai me parar. Com cada grama de energia que eu coloco aqui, a GivingTree cresce. Quando ela crescer até certo ponto, a GivingTree vai retribuir — não só para a minha vida, mas para os outros e para o mundo ao nosso redor.

É só uma questão de tempo e energia.

Então minha última mensagem hoje é: se você sente o mesmo em relação a algo, siga esse sentimento.

Se você está com dificuldade para tomar uma decisão que sabe, no fundo do seu coração, que precisa tomar — tome. Pode tentar negociar com ela. Pode resistir. Ela nunca vai parar de te chamar.

Certamente não é a primeira vez que você ouve esse conselho. Mas em algum momento a ficha cai. Continue seguindo seu coração, mesmo que devagar e sempre. Quando chegar o momento em que a ficha cair, em que o caminho se abrir, corra por ele e sinta o vento no rosto.

—

Mais na semana que vem.

— Matt

Subscribe now

Veja o GivingTree Map

Last week’s piece ended with ways of narrowing the gap between ideas and real solutions.

You might find them useful, so let’s pick up that thread.

Subscribe now

My process in building GivingTree (specifically the GivingTree Map of the global impact economy) is what the cool kids call “building in public”. I’m deliberately showing my cards and publishing iterations of my platform before it’s fully formed.

This road has three phases. Demo. Beta. Launch.

Even though I’m still in Demo—all three phases are already teaching me lessons.

There’s a story about an engineering professor.

He has his students build model bridges.

Half the class will have the full semester to perfect their bridges. The other half will build a new bridge each week.

The best bridges are built in the final week, by the students in the second group.

Iteration, baby.

That’s the thinking behind the GivingTree Map demo.

I built the first version fast, to go to an event in São Paulo, Impacta Mais. Having the demo in my hands opened the door to more conversations. Better conversations. Conversations with real direction. Conversations that might bear fruit.

So if you’re building something, don’t discount the value of releasing a shabby rough-draft. Don’t hide behind the “need” for perfection. Put it out there. Start some conversations.

Here’s another metaphor—the stages of life—to complete the picture.

Imagine you have kids. Imagine that!

When they’re young, you let them try everything—sports, arts, sciences, and other areas of interest. You cast a wide net. You see what they’re drawn to.

When they’re teenagers, you let them gravitate toward the activities they love, where they excel. As they enter the “real world”, they can now focus on one area (maybe two or three overlapping) where make their mark in the world.

So.

The current GivingTree Map ‘Demo’ phase is childhood. I’m going wide, aiming to give knowledge and value to everyone, with no target more specific than the “global impact economy” except that I am, by default, tilted toward my two home countries of 🇺🇸 and 🇧🇷.

It’s contrary to the advice you often hear to “niche down”.

But that comes next. The Beta phase is adolescence.

I’m going to test the product-market fit of different aspects of the platform—tweaks, new features, different kinds of marketing and pricing.

If I get a clear signal from investors, I’ll work on institutional features. If I get a signal from entrepreneurs and businesses, I’ll move towards that market. If I get a signal from the “mass market” of individuals using this platform, I’ll move in that direction.

If I get signals from all three, I’ll figure out how to balance them.

When it’s time for the real world—the official launch—I’ll have a clear path.

Iteration, baby.

The official launch will come sometime in 2027, after the Beta has done its job. Because of the road I’ve taken to get there, it’s almost guaranteed to be valuable to people.

In a rough draft of this article, I had written:

“By then, the platform will be more than a map. It’ll be a comprehensive database of intelligence, data, information, and knowledge.”

But if I’m serious about this iteration-and-feedback loop, I don’t know if that’s true. Maybe the most valuable version—at least at first—is a map full of hard data.

Sometimes your visions are best held, on one hand, with great conviction, and on the other hand with pure non-attachment. Clear sight with an open mind.

A personal note to close.

The decision to build the GivingTree platform has been liberating.

I’d been teetering on it.

Now that I’m committing myself, I’ve had more clarity and sureness about my life than ever before. I see the world completely differently. I understand, better than ever before, why people do things they feel driven toward, where real courage comes from.

I’m going to keep building this thing. Nothing will stop me. With every ounce of energy I put in, GivingTree grows. When it grows to a certain point, GivingTree will give back—not just for my own life but for others and the world around us.

It’s just a matter of time and energy.

So my last message today is, if you feel the same way about something, follow that feeling.

If you’re struggling to make a decision that you know in your heart of hearts you need to make, make it. You can try to negotiate with it. You can resist it. It’s never going to stop nagging at you.

This certainly isn’t the first time you’ve heard this advice. But at some point it clicks. Just keep following your heart, even if you move toward it slow-and-steady. Let yourself be called toward it. When you reach the moment where it clicks, where the path opens up, run down it and feel the wind in your face.

More next week.

— Matt

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Day one at Impacta Mais 2026, during a panel called “O que falta é pipeline?” (Is a pipeline what’s missing?) a partner at one of Brazil’s most respected impact investment firms described out loud the problem I’ve been thinking about.

She said the pipeline is there.

Investors hunt for impact businesses worth backing. Impact businesses hunt for investors who understand and believe in them. But both sides lose time digging through scattered information, personal relationships, and word-of-mouth networks just to find each other.

It gets even more complicated at the international level—where capital flows across borders, into ecosystems where the public-facing data is thinner, where the local context lives in other languages, where many active funds are newly formed or unknown on the global scene.

The pipeline isn’t missing. It’s just hard to see.

O que falta é visibilidade.

On day one, I talked to entrepreneurs.

If enthusiasm for my Map platform were a cruise ship (sorry I don’t have a more sustainable analogy), then entrepreneurs would be the passengers ready to set sail. We’re on board.

These founders are scouting for capital and ways to be found. The platform’s premise didn’t need defending. They’ve lived inside the visibility problem long enough to see it instantly.

The most consistent feedback from entrepreneurs was: you should show the names of the businesses receiving capital, not just the funds deploying it. They want a way for their business’s name and profile to appear on the platform.

On day two, I talked to impact investors.

If the entrepreneurs were cruise ship passengers, the investors were the health and safety inspectors. They want the platform to set sail, but they won’t put their name behind it if it doesn’t look sound.

They had sharper questions and probes into my plans and methodology.

I’m grateful they didn’t just smile and walk away. They acknowledged that a platform like this could matter. But they were also working out whether this version is the one they’d back.

They were interested enough that I’m inspired to keep building. They were tentative enough that I’m inspired to keep building.

I had one chat with a veteran impact investor over an açai bowl.

The conversation did two things—deepened my thinking and told me I need to sharpen my pitch.

I was describing the platform from the inside out: what it does, how it works, why it matters. After that conversation, I’m clearer on what people need to hear first. The problem. Then the product-market fit.

Then, finally, the solution—the ins-and-outs of the platform are last to bat.

Four things I’m carrying back into the build

1 — Investees get featured. Recipient-side visibility moves up the roadmap. The impact entrepreneurs were all interested in having profiles on the Map platform. My açai connection told me the sweet spot for investors would be businesses that are big enough to warrant investment and small enough to slip under the radar—series A, maybe series B companies.

2 — The platform is more than capital flows. Capital is the first layer. Underneath are problems, solutions, actors, and the relationships between them. The architecture has to leave room not only for data and intelligence, but (further down the line) also for education and knowledge.

3 — Don’t pitch. Ask for feedback. “Selling” something is never the best way to sell something. Asking for feedback turns a possible rejection into a relationship. Some lean into a conversation about all possibilities. Some are critical, giving fodder I can use to sharpen my pitch and my platform.

4 — The road from DEMO, to BETA, to launch — I’m going to keep designing the DEMO platform as I’d imagined it—as the best source of intelligence about the impact investing field. Once I’m happy with my front-end interface and back-end data pipeline, I’ll shift into BETA and start testing the product-market fit of various solutions, on my way to an official launch in 2027.

More on this roadmap next week.

The GivingTree Money Map platform leaves Impacta Mais 2026 sharper than it arrived. Investors and entrepreneurs alike, in different registers, looking for similar things from different sides of the deal.

My job is to keep listening and keep building.

Mais em breve.

Subscribe now

No primeiro dia do Impacta Mais, uma sócia de uma das firmas de investimento de impacto mais respeitadas do Brasil falou no painel chamado O que falta é pipeline? — e descreveu o problema em voz alta.

Os investidores estão caçando negócios de impacto que valham o investimento. Os negócios de impacto estão caçando investidores que os entendam. E os dois lados estão perdendo tempo vasculhando newsletters fragmentadas, bases de dados dispersas e redes de boca a boca.

O pipeline não está faltando.

Só é difícil de enxergar.

Então, a primeira iteração do que estou construindo é criar essa visibilidade na economia de impacto. Em seguida, vou buscar os modelos de negócio que melhor se encaixem nesse ambiente, as funcionalidades com real product-market fit. O Impacta Mais me deu muita clareza sobre essa abordagem.

Conectar investidores de impacto aos negócios certos é difícil não porque falta capital, mas porque encontrar a combinação certa significa vasculhar informações fragmentadas e desestruturadas.

Some a camada internacional. Capital fluindo através de fronteiras, para ecossistemas onde os dados públicos são mais escassos, onde o contexto local vive principalmente atrás da barreira dos idiomas, onde os fundos mais ativos não são nomes conhecidos fora de suas regiões.

A complexidade se multiplica. O campo inteiro está tentando se enxergar com clareza.

Uma base de dados abrangente com uma interface inteligente, alimentada por IA, pode resolver isso. É essa a aposta por trás do Map da GivingTree.

As conversas do primeiro dia vieram majoritariamente do lado dos empreendedores.

Se o entusiasmo pela minha plataforma fosse um navio de cruzeiro, os empreendedores seriam os passageiros prontos para zarpar. (Peço desculpas por não vir com uma metáfora mais sustentável.)

A reação deles foi quase unânime: precisamos disso.

Fundadores construindo coisas, procurando capital, buscando formas de serem encontrados. A premissa não precisava ser defendida.

O pedido mais consistente de quem testou o demo: mostre o nome dos negócios que recebem o capital, não só dos fundos que o aplicam. O público me ensinou a minha própria tese. A visibilidade corre nas duas direções.

O segundo dia se inclinou para o lado do capital.

Se os empreendedores eram passageiros entusiasmados, os investidores eram mais como inspetores de saúde e segurança. Eles querem que o navio zarpe, mas não vão emprestar o nome a algo que não pareça sólido.

A recepção foi diferente. Perguntas mais afiadas. Investigações mais duras sobre metodologia, qualidade dos dados, escopo, fontes.

O escrutínio dos investidores é a forma do interesse qualificado. Os investidores que acham uma plataforma irrelevante não vão a fundo na metodologia. Eles acenam e seguem em frente. Os que vão a fundo já decidiram que pode importar. Estão tentando descobrir se esta versão é a que apoiariam.

Tive também a chance de sentar com um investidor de impacto veterano. Uma conversa de verdade, não um cruzamento de corredor. Afiou meu pensamento. E me fez perceber que meu pitch também precisa ser afiado.

Venho descrevendo a plataforma de dentro para fora: o que ela faz, como funciona, por que importa. Depois daquela conversa, está mais claro o que as pessoas precisam ouvir primeiro. O problema. Depois o diferencial. Depois a prova. A plataforma vem por último.

Isso vai aparecer no próximo dispatch, no próximo deck e na próxima conversa.

Quatro coisas que estou levando de volta para a construção:

Os destinatários ganham destaque. Um mapa que mostra onde o capital vive sem mostrar onde ele pousa é meio mapa. A visibilidade do lado dos destinatários sobe no meu roadmap.

A plataforma é mais do que fluxos de capital. O capital é a primeira camada. Embaixo estão problemas, soluções, atores e as relações entre eles. A arquitetura precisa deixar espaço para essas camadas desde o início. O primeiro trabalho é coletar e estruturar bem a inteligência. O conhecimento (contexto, trilhas de aprendizado mais profundas, a camada de educação) é construído em cima dessa base, no seu próprio tempo. Uma coisa de cada vez.

Não venda. Peça feedback. A plataforma ainda não está pronta para pedidos pesados, e as pessoas cuja atenção eu quero também não querem ser abordadas para vendas. Pedir feedback transforma uma possível rejeição em um relacionamento. O escrutínio que volta é o sinal. As pessoas que se aproximam são as que eu devo procurar depois, com um pitch mais afiado e uma plataforma mais afiada.

O caminho do DEMO ao BETA até o lançamento. Continuar desenhando a plataforma demo do jeito que eu havia imaginado. Assim que possível, lançá-la como BETA, mirando ser a melhor interface para inteligência na economia de impacto.

O BETA inicial vai longe, capturando o interesse de pessoas em todo o mundo na economia de impacto. Depois, durante a fase beta, buscar funcionalidades e recursos específicos com forte e duradouro product-market fit para impulsionar assinaturas. Não como acesso pontual à plataforma, mas como uma simbiose contínua entre os atores da economia de impacto e os serviços que a GivingTree pode oferecer a eles.

Isso vale para o mercado mais amplo de pequenas empresas e pessoas no campo, e para o mercado institucional (investidores e empresas maiores) que pode se beneficiar de ferramentas e funcionalidades de alto nível.

A plataforma sai do evento mais afiada do que entrou. Investidores e empreendedores, em registros diferentes, pedindo a mesma coisa de lados diferentes do negócio.

Meu trabalho daqui em diante é continuar construindo, continuar ouvindo e continuar diminuindo a distância entre premissa e prova.

Mais em breve.

— Matt

This used to be matthonold.substack. It’s now givingtree.substack.

Still me behind the keys.

My eyes hurt. I’m staring at a laptop screen from the second level, front row, of a bus barreling down a highway to São Paulo.

If you’re reading this, it’s already tomorrow—Wednesday, May 20th. It’s the day of Impacta Mais, Brazil’s biggest impact investing conference, and I’m launching the demo version of the GivingTree platform.

Big moment for me.

Here’s what I’ve been building.

The Money Map is an interactive map of impact capital flows around the world. Starting with two countries as the main focuses: my native U.S. and my second home, Brazil.

Eventually, “the Money Map” may become “the Map”, because yes, it’s about the dollars, but it’s more than that.

I’m building the Map to render a full picture—who’s putting money where, who’s designing what in the impact economy, who’s connected to whom? The deals you’ve heard of, and the ones you haven’t.

We’re going to capture the qualitative stories that give life to the numbers.

Under the hood, the Map runs on AI and a tech stack I’ve built to ingest, organize, and surface all of it in a way I haven’t seen done before. I may share more about how that works in a future dispatch.

For now, know this: every data point will be traceable back to a source, and I’ll always credit the people or organizations doing the original reporting.

I’ve been mapping for months. Now I’m ready to show.

Later, the pipeline will run on its own — processing sources and surfacing patterns.

What’s live tomorrow is a hand-built demo, a few hundred deals tracked across several countries and cities. Small, but real. It works. And it points clearly at what comes next.

So tomorrow (today) I’m walking into Impacta Mais with a QR code on the lockscreen of my phone, ready to share the Money Map.

I’m going to scope out the scene, take opportunities where I see them, introduce myself, ask people earnestly about what they do, and learn as much as I can from everyone I meet.

I’m going to make allies.

I’m not the only one doing this. There are excellent people already mapping different pieces of the impact economy, and one of the things I love about this sector is that competitors are also collaborators. We’re all gunning for the same goal of a better world.

What’s ahead, briefly.

I’m going to write a dispatch on this Substack every week.

One type of post will be founder’s notes—what I’m working on, what I’m learning, what I’m seeing.

Once the pipeline’s humming, I’ll layer in a second—intelligence reports drawn from the platform itself. The first few are free, then those will live behind a paywall.

The platform itself will follow a similar rhythm. The demo is free. That’s what you’ll see this week, and what I’ll keep building in public over the coming months.

The BETA version will be $5 a month, with some future perks for early members: maybe locked-in pricing for the first year post-beta, maybe preferential connections or discounts down the line.

The official version will launch with a pro account, then enterprise — standard tiered pricing stuff. We’ll see how it shakes out.

I’ll write another dispatch after the event, while it’s still fresh, and publish it here next week.

I’m finishing this writing in my Airbnb at midnight the night before the event. I’m going to close my laptop, get some sleep, and wake up to a new day.

See you out there.

— Matt

Of course, this case does not need to be made. Or does it?

After Trump’s first brush with a would-be assassin, back on the 2024 campaign trail, a realization hit me square in the pit of my heart. It hit me again last week.

I don’t want to see this man assassinated.

Before the 2024 attempt, I would have weighed pros and cons. In 2026 those “pros” include:

• Trump’s dismantling of USAID has, in roughly one year, led to an estimated 760,000 deaths worldwide—over 500,000 of them children—and created hardship for countless others.¹ Those numbers are climbing.

• The war in Iran, with questionable motives, has already killed thousands in the Middle East, including at least 1,700 civilians.²

• The genocide in Gaza—linked to the Iran war through the relationship between Trump’s USA and Netanyahu’s Israel—has caused starvation for millions and the deaths of over 72,000 Palestinians, men, women, and children alike.³

So what’s the life of one man, who will have lived 80 years in luxury this June, compared to the thousands or millions of victims of his political actions?

Just to kind of hedge my position…

This is more moral than political.

I like history and culture. I’m interested in politics but avoid it in my day-to-day.

Philosophically, I’m more liberal, though I’m agnostic to political parties and open to many worlds of thought.

I “get it” when it comes to supporting Trump as an alternative to the Democratic Party.

I vote.

Lastly, let’s set aside any notion that the incident was staged. Regardless, I’ve heard people say things like “Someone has to take this guy out.” I’m addressing that sentiment more than anything else.

Now, there are two reasons I wouldn’t want to see Trump assassinated—the practical reason and the real reason.

The Practical Reason

If Trump died tomorrow, would the world be a better place? His existing actions would stand. The new President J.D. Vance might or might not change them.

MAGA might dwindle. Or it could grow behind the martyrdom of its leader. Or we could watch a complex, decades-long unfolding of both dynamics.

And anyway, many see MAGA as a good thing. Maybe it is in some ways, at least as a wake-up call to progressives who’d lost the beat.

So, from a practical perspective, removing Trump from life on Earth is a crapshoot at best.

The Real Reason

Say what you will about Game of Thrones season 8.

In the season 7 finale, Jon Snow, Daenerys, Tyrion, and their allies try to persuade Cersei Lannister to join the fight against the white walkers — a temporary alliance of enemies against a greater enemy. Cersei agrees, but only if Jon will stay neutral in the war that follows between her and Daenerys.

Jon refuses. The negotiation collapses. Later, Tyrion asks him:

I love that scene.

If you’re in politics, you are — at least in theory — in the business of building a better society, whatever your vision of society may be.

If we get there through assassination, we say violence is an acceptable way to solve problems. Do we get a better society? Do values mean anything?

It’s deeper than that.

Even this blog post, up to this point, has taken an us-vs-them position. It’s tempting. To see the world in terms of friends and enemies. It feels like a survival instinct.

In the short run, it’s harder to teach people real values than it is to pick fights, especially when we’re talking about people with differing views. Yet when we take that harder path, every step counts. Every step is real progress.

There’s an MLK quote in here somewhere about darkness and light, hate and love… anyone remember that one?

If we truly want a better society, then we must take the road of condemning actions instead of people.

Every person is fundamentally sacred.

A better world is one where this truth applies universally.

Citations

[1]: As of January 2026, the ImpactCounter — a mortality-tracking model developed by Boston University researchers — estimated over 762,000 deaths attributable to USAID funding cuts, including more than 500,000 children (CIDRAP, Jan. 2026). A peer-reviewed study in The Lancet projected over 14 million additional deaths by 2030 if cuts continue. (https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/chikungunya/quick-takes-death-toll-usaid-cuts-withdrawal-chikungunya-vaccine-funding-updated-ebola | https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01186-9/fulltext)

[2]: As of early April 2026, Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRANA) documented 3,636 deaths in Iran from US-Israeli strikes, including 1,701 civilians. An additional 2,500+ have been killed in Lebanon and hundreds more across Iraq and the Gulf states (Al Jazeera live tracker; HRANA report, April 2026). The war began on February 28, 2026. (https://web.archive.org/web/20260411020254/https://www.en-hrana.org/day-39-of-u-s-and-israeli-attacks-on-iran-extensive-damage-to-the-rail-network-and-roads/)

[3]: As of late April 2026, the Gaza Health Ministry reports over 72,500 Palestinians killed since October 2023. A population-representative survey published in The Lancet Global Health estimated 75,200 violent deaths through January 2025 alone, suggesting official figures represent a significant undercount. (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2026/2/18/gaza-death-toll-exceeds-75000-as-independent-data-verify-loss)

[4]: Game of Thrones, Season 7, Episode 7: “The Dragon and the Wolf” (HBO, 2017). Quoted via IMDB. (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5775874/characters/nm3229685/)

Today is Earth Day. So let me write about what I think about the Earth on this day.

I listened to a podcast this morning — Acid for Squares — you know, sometimes I like to let my mind wander these spiritual topics. The guest was Acharya Prashant, an Indian teacher talking about nonduality. At first the episode pissed me off a little. He was talking about not caring about anything, basically. The gist of part of what he was saying was that the best thing you can do for the world is to stop existing.

Then I scrolled through the comments. One was from someone who’d felt the same frustration until they realized it was just about getting your ego out of the way. Everything we do is, inherently, ego-driven. The only thing that isn’t is to die or to do nothing — just sit and meditate like the Buddha.

That opened something. Maybe the Buddha wasn’t trying to reach enlightenment. Maybe he was just trying to stop his ego. Maybe those are the same thing. Non-dual.

By the end of the episode I was warmed up to what Acharya Prashant was saying.

Just stop

So Cody Blue, one of the show’s hosts, asks the question that ties this to Earth Day. Even though a lot of this sounds dark — the ending of all purpose and singular existence — there’s still a moral direction to it. This guy’s teachings would have us stop all the harms we’re doing to the world and to each other.

Stop.

Not march toward action. Not preach. Just stop. If the issue is women’s rights, we don’t need to do anything — we just need to stop treating half the world’s population as unequal. If the issue is the health of the Earth, we don’t have to march or campaign. We just have to stop emitting carbon. And to do that, we just need to stop the materialistic, hedonistic, egoistic activities that lead to the emission of carbon. Stop rampant consumerism. Stop striving for a constantly bigger house that fits our goals in life. Stop stop stop.

Caring for the planet isn’t something you add to your life. It’s what remains when you subtract the ego-driven stuff.

The rabbit

I’m not sure what to do with this information. I guess I’m not supposed to do anything with it. As soon as I do — like write this blog post, or whatever whatever whatever — I’ve already contradicted the point.

And here’s the thing. My life runs on the premise that action matters. Building things, connecting people, mapping systems, making the case that capital should flow toward impact. What does a philosophy of “just stop” do to a person who does that?

I don’t know.

But I do know that reflecting on what he said has made me think and feel in a way I never quite have before. I’ve been able to see my own ego in a way I never have before. It’s plain to see now, in a way I’ve never experienced. As soon as I come up with a solution to one thing or another, I think: oh, that’s my ego trying to save itself. It’s like a rabbit in a corner — a very clever one. When you try to grab it, it slips away. When you try to walk away, it follows you. When you try to feed it, it eats but forgets to thank you.

And probably the best option for those of us who like the idea of overcoming the ego but aren’t keen on dying or meditating for our entire lives is to live selflessly. In total service to others and to the world. The most celebrated, selfless difference makers in history don’t just sit on a mountaintop until they become food for wolves and worms. Food for thought.

So what do you do for the Earth today? Plant a tree? I don’t know. If we let it be, the tree will plant itself.

It’s a “cover page” for the country of Brazil — providing a panorama of the country’s culture, ecosystems, economy, governance, and history through a detectable (yet not overpowering) impact lens.

This is the first step in a build-out of the GivingTree Knowledge Base.

The next phase will be, on its face, more interesting. It will be to map Brazil’s landscape of impact investing and philanthropic giving, looking at . . .

. . . Who’s investing in what?

. . . Where is capital coming from?

. . . What’s working, and where are the remaining gaps?

But this first phase is very important.

Why?

Three reasons.

1) The Brazil cover page is not a one-off.

I connected my WordPress site to an AI and automation tech stack that allows me to create a cover page for any country with the click of a button.

. . . Okay, that makes it sound a little easier than it is in reality. The AI can’t produce the page with a mere voilà (but check with me again in 6 or 12 months). I still need to comb through research, vet sources, create images, and polish up content.

I can, however, click a button and create a rough draft cover page for any country. So I’m gaining the power to map the whole world’s impact economy. Mwah ha ha ha ha haaaa!!!

Actually, my immediate next step (before the impact money mapping phase) is to go back through my “country cover page” tech pipeline and optimize it, applying everything I’ve learned since I initially set it up.

If I do this now, I can get closer to the click-of-a-button function AND I’ll be in a better mindset to build the tech stack for phase two. So I’ll get the time I “lost” right back and then some.

2) There’s a bigger picture.

Let’s zoom out a bit.

The Brazil cover page is systems thinking (for those of you who like buzzwords).

If we connect the dots of the broader landscape (or create space for the dots to connect), we can see more clearly and make better decisions.

If we understand Brazil as a whole, we can better understand the potential of any given grant, investment, or project.

I don’t claim this cover page is revolutionary on its own, but it sets the stage for something that could be.

Let’s zoom out a little more.

The grand vision for the GivingTree Knowledge Base is that it will be a resource where anyone who’s in the business of making the world a better place can come and find everything they need to do their jobs with the absolute utmost efficiency and effectiveness.

The Brazil page is one step in that direction.

I have lots of ideas.

3) It’s more interesting.

Underlying the page’s information—which is arranged in numerous snippets on Brazil’s culture, ecosystems, economy, governance, history, and future—I have my own unpublished dossier of deeper research.

If I wake up one day inspired to investigate, say, the evolution of 20th-century Brazilian music or the current state of Brazil’s healthcare system, I can open my dossier, polish up some content, and create a new subpage on that topic.

So having this broader landscape available is more fun for me and hopefully more fun for my readers.

Is the perfect the enemy of the good?

I don’t know. Does that mean “the perfect” is the ally of evil?

It’s just how my brain works. I feel compelled to see the entire picture, put everything on the table, see connections, and then push forward.

This approach takes a little more patience, but it’s powerful.

You might know the Einstein quote —

If I had an hour to solve a problem I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions.

Food for thought.

This will be a “building in public” project.

If you’d like to follow along, you can subscribe to this Substack (below), find me and GivingTree on LinkedIn, and/or check out the GivingTree website.

Other platforms possibly coming in the future.

See you out there.

My wife’s friend read The Giving Tree and hated it.

My older sister has, for years, opposed the book’s message.

Lots of people feel this way about The Giving Tree. There’s a parody version, Topher Payne’s The Tree Who Set Healthy Boundaries, that jokingly mollifies those who dislike the original.

Yes, the story contains character flaws.

But that’s why I cry when I read it (and cried writing the next part this post).

The story begins with a tree who loves a little boy.

The boy comes every day to play. He climbs the tree and plays make believe, and when he’s tired he sleeps in her shade.

In the beginning, every line is a new page. This part is a fraction of the book’s word count, yet it takes up half the book’s physical space — kind of the way childhood feels like a lifetime.

But the boy gets older, and he leaves the tree all alone.

Decades pass.

Every time the boy comes back, he’s older, and he asks the tree for something he thinks will lead to happiness.

Every time, the tree is delighted to see the boy (who remains “the boy” as he ages). Over the decades, she gives him everything she has.

When I was a kid — from ages, say, seven to 20 — I had a long creative streak, mostly of poetry and music.

Outside of a few shining (yet fleeting) moments, I never shared the fruits of my creativity with the world.

Now I’m 34.

I have a beautiful wife and two amazing kids because my life has gone exactly as it’s gone. I wouldn’t change a thing. I’m still creative.

But I’ve clung to the idea that art, especially music, is my ultimate purpose, that I’ll fulfill that purpose some day. Pardon the cliché.

For most of the past two years, I’ve been physically in one spot, in the apartment where I live in my wife’s hometown in Brazil.

Imagine your self-narratives are a bundle of letters you’ve addressed to yourself.

They’re in your backpack.

Now sit down (say, on a tree stump), open your backpack, grab a letter, erase some words, and write new ones.

Read yourself the new letter and see how you feel. Or just crumple one up and throw it in the river. (Make sure it’s on fully biodegradable paper.)

It’s that easy to change our self-narratives.

If you say, “No it’s not!” well, that’s just another narrative.

Your narratives don’t control you. You control them.

To some, this is obvious.

To others, it might not click right away, even if you “get" what I’m saying. Just keep on your path. It will click in due time.

It’s freeing.

Since I was a teenager, I’ve been telling myself:

On one hand, I have a deep sense of self-worth. On the other hand, I have a surface-level insecurity that sabotages me every day.

This narrative tells me why music is my (so far unrealized) purpose in life. It is the boy asking the tree for its branches so he can build a house.

I’m letting it go.

That doesn’t mean music won’t be in my life. It means I’m unattached.

What’s more important than anything is fully stepping into my confidence. I’m taking out that letter and making an edit:

On one hand, I have a deep sense of self-worth. On the other hand, I have a surface-level insecurity that sabotages me every day.

I’m confident.

So where does that put GivingTree?

I mean the name of my personal brand.

To answer the questions in the title of this post — the intention of the name GivingTree is different from the message of The Giving Tree.

The name GivingTree is about the symbiosis of systems, a meaning which is not quite reflected on my website’s homepage (as of this writing):

It’s not bad. It’s reads cleanly, and it’s accurate.

But it’s trying to sound “like it’s supposed to.” Notice the royal we.

From this point forward, GivingTree may become more personal (if this post is any indicator) or at least less impersonal. It may become a little spiritual.

It may be more about building and presenting something — something to do with the symbiosis of systems.

At the end of The Giving Tree (the book), the boy (now a very old man) has taken everything from the tree, who is now a mere stump.

She says she’s sorry she has nothing left to give.

The boy says that’s okay. He doesn’t need those things anymore. He just wants to sit down and rest.

And he does. And the tree is happy.

See if you can figure out what that means.