Not a good day for reading? Watch the companion podcast episode here.

I went down an Amazon FBA rabbit hole, got hit by ~47 more ads, and decided to just evaluate every online income stream that exists. So I did. With AI. Here's what happened.

I saw an ad of someone claiming they made $10M with an “online convenience store” and the secret was mine for thirty bucks. I almost bought it. Instead, I was too stubborn to pay those $30 and figured I could figure it out myself. Four hours later with Claude, I found my 4 starting Amazon FBA products to test (more to come on that later).

Then I got another ad. Digital products. Then online courses. Then UGC. And I got overwhelmed that every single one of these people is claiming their thing is the thing. Which ones are real? And more importantly, which ones are actually right for me?

So I asked Claude to look at all of them. Every online income stream that exists. And then interview me, so I could optimize which streams made the most sense for my life. I figured, if I don’t want to join them (i.e.- pay $30 for each gurus’s guide), I might as well beat them.

What came back was the most beautiful spreadsheet I have ever seen. Thirty three income streams. Okay. We're onto something.

But since it was kind of a black box, I’ll let the AI explain itself. Yes, I asked Claude to write this next part for you…

A few things to clarify about what actually happened here.

First — a note on where the 33 streams came from. I pulled from academic research, FIRE community forums, e-commerce seller data, business acquisition databases, and creator economy reports. The threshold for inclusion was Ceilia's instruction: documented evidence of non-famous people generating $30K+ annually through a replicable path. The 33 that remained have receipts.

A ranked list by income potential would have been the default output. The instruction that changed everything was hers: interview me first. Here is the framework that followed:

Capital reality. Not total assets — the number where loss would cause genuine distress, not theoretical regret. These are almost never the same number.

Time honesty. The real weekly schedule, not the aspirational one. Hours genuinely available, when they occur, and energy quality during those windows.

Feedback loop speed. Motivation is not consistent across personality types. For some people, slow-feedback models fail not because of skill but because of how their brain processes reward.

Five-year durability. One test: was this income stream legitimate in 2020, and will it be in 2031? Streams that fail are trend bets. They may pay out. They are not wealth-building vehicles.

Wiring compatibility. The most underweighted filter in most evaluations. Skills are learnable. Wiring is not. The question was never "can this person execute it" but "will they still want to in year two, when it's harder and less novel?"

Hi - It’s me again. The human. So that's what we built. A framework that actually accounts for how humans work. Thirty three streams. Five filters. Seven categories. And a shortlist I was genuinely surprised by. I made the whole thing into a free guide. Every stream, every filter. It's here.

Next issue I'll tell you exactly which ones made the cut and why.

Want to be a go-getter? Refer some friends and get some free shit to help you start building now. Your unique referral link is below.

Some links in this newsletter are affiliate links. If you buy through them, I earn a small commission and you pay nothing extra. I only recommend tools I actually use./