- A DIY open-hardware “fluidic heart micropump” Instructable was circulated as an example of low-cost, open-source biomedical prototyping.  
- Consumer genomics services (23andMe, Helix, Veritas) were dismissed as “genetic astrology,” criticized for offering little actionable insight and restricted raw-data access.  
- Participants argued that large-scale sequencing without gene-editing capability mainly fuels association studies, not individual benefit, and worried that firms will hoard beneficial alleles as proprietary “genetic upgrades.”  
- A hypothetical billion-dollar, million-genome project sparked ideas for GWAS-derived dividends and “designer-baby” allele portfolios curated from celebrities or high achievers.  
- A proposed chromosome marketplace would let individuals sell one of their chromosomes to prospective parents, subsidizing pregnancy costs while increasing their genetic footprint in future generations.  
- A genomic-data futures market was outlined: people pre-sell rights to any future discoveries about their beneficial traits, letting investors pay today for later reproductive or enhancement options.  
- Economic modeling suggested a ~$200 k price tag for inserting 5 % of a high-status genome, with market forces (parental status, geography, perceived value) setting final prices.  
- Patent and jurisdictional arbitrage was noted: gene patents could be circumvented by obtaining embryo edits in permissive countries like Mexico.  
- Lightning Network repositories (lnd, Zap desktop, lightninggraph) were shared as potential censorship-resistant funding rails for open bio-projects.