• A new Nature Medicine paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03164-7) presents a 204-protein “proteomic age clock” that strongly predicts all-cause mortality and disease risk; the top and bottom 5 % of proteomic age diverge by ~1.16 hazard ratio per year.

• Participants in the Rejuvenation Olympics (https://www.rejuvenationolympics.com/) are already planning to use the clock as a leaderboard metric, spurring discussion on whether lifestyle, supplements, or drugs can deliberately modulate these proteins to improve healthspan.

• Channel members debated whether simply degrading the 204 age-associated proteins (or a smaller 20-protein subset that correlates almost as well) would meaningfully reverse aging; concerns were raised about causality, off-target effects, and the possibility that some proteins are compensatory rather than pathogenic.

• Senolytics and broader protein-clearance strategies were weighed against the need to address DNA damage, scar tissue, and other non-proteomic aging hallmarks; a yeast study showing 80 % lifespan extension via a synthetic gene oscillator that alternates between two senescence modes was cited as evidence that multi-factor interventions may be required.

• A 2-million-reaction, 1.4 GB USPTO chemical-reaction dataset (https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Chemical_reactions_from_US_patents_1976-Sep2016_/5104873) was shared as a resource for automated chemistry and drug-discovery pipelines.

• Discussion pivoted to startup financing mechanisms: SAFE notes have largely replaced convertible notes in Y Combinator batches, while SAFT agreements (used for token sales) were critiqued after Telegram’s legal troubles, highlighting unresolved regulatory risks for crypto-based early-stage funding.