2025 年预测：与好友加文·贝克

Jason Calacanis (00:00:00): Welcome back to the All-In Podcast, everybody. I'm your host, Jason Calacanis. I'll put in a bunch of plugs for the projects I'm working on throughout the show to annoy my cohosts and continue the grift, but it is 2025, and we are doing our bestie awards. It's gonna be amazing today. We've got so much to do. Today with us again for the second time, a truly amazing bestie, Gavin Baker from Atreides Capital. Am I correct? Is it Atreides Capital? Gavin Baker (00:00:26): Atreides Management. Atreides Management. Jason Calacanis (00:00:28): Oh, Atreides Management? Okay. And, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:31): Just call it House Jason Calacanis (00:00:33): Oh, gee. Nope. That's not getting him in trouble. IP. Gavin, welcome back to the program. Let us know, just briefly, what what does Atreides do? Gavin Baker (00:00:42): Thanks for having me here, Jason, Chamath, and Dave. Atreides, we're, we're a crossover firm. We invest publicly and privately in consumer and tech, and we go from Series A to mega cap. Jason Calacanis (00:00:55): Got it. Okay. So you are a capital allocator. You place bets on technology, on the most important new companies in the world. We'll get into that. And this is our prediction show. We did our bestie awards. David Friedberg (00:01:06): How big is your firm, Gavin? Speaker 5 (00:01:09): This Jason Calacanis (00:01:09): is You just met the guy Friedberg. You don't just ask him how big his firm is. David Friedberg (00:01:12): The audience wants to know. Is this guy a player? Like, what's the deal? Tell us. Gavin Baker (00:01:16): You know? Roughly $4,000,000,000. Okay. Jason Calacanis (00:01:19): Alright. So that's about half an inch bigger than Chamath. He's really worried now. He's not that he's a size queen. We're gonna do a really great prediction show today, and we're gonna do some super predictions this year. Each bestie gets to make a super prediction or two during the show, and we're gonna take those super predictions, Chamath, and we're gonna put them on Polymarket. Yes. That's right. If you don't know, Polymarket is a prediction market where people can place a wager, a bet, an investment in one or the other side. And, there may be Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:09): Image good? It feels like it's blurry. Jason Calacanis (00:02:11): It's a little blurry. That's the, avalanche coming. And so I guess is that the MAGA avalanche? What is this avalanche? Is that people screaming across the border? What's the metaphor here, Chamath? Is that the huge orgasm, that you're about to lay down in 2025 rocking me. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:28): No. No. This is a shout out to my friend, Ruben Östlund, who's the director of a bunch of really amazing movies, including the one behind me, Force Majeure. Jason Calacanis (00:02:37): There you go. Alright. We did an amazing partnership with Polymarket. Friedberg, you wanna detail the partnership in some way you I think you helped work on. David Friedberg (00:02:45): Well, we obviously have talked to Shane at Polymarket for some time, and we set up a deal with them where we could put our own markets up on the site. So we're gonna talk about a couple of our predictions this year, and then Polymarket will post them up on their site and people can trade them, obviously, ex-US. And, we're really excited about it because it'll allow us to kind of track how we're doing and give us the opportunity on an ongoing basis to create market. So there'll be an All-In section on Polymarket where you can kinda go in and see the All-In market. It's gonna be really cool. Jason Calacanis (00:03:16): Awesome. Fantastic. And so, we just got we're all wrapping up our ski trip here. Nick, I understand there was some footage, some found footage from the besties skiing. Is that true? Oh, here we go. Look at this. Here I come down the mountain. Gavin, I want you to rate everybody's skiing. Here I come. Gavin Baker (00:03:36): Looking great. Jason Calacanis (00:03:37): There comes amazing. Looking good. And then here comes somebody. I think the technical term Joe Lonsdale uses for that third person is a beep beep. Okay. Here we go. And look at this technique coming down. Look at Chamath. Chamath, you really advanced this last season. Look at him cutting those S turns, Gavin. What do you think? Scam That's great. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:59): Listen to me. I made a very strategic decision to stop snowboarding so I could learn to ski with my kids. It is so hard to learn how to do something in your forties. No? I mean, if you've never done it, but I do appreciate what you and your brother did for me last season. I learned a couple things. So it's been Yeah. It's my Jason Calacanis (00:04:15): third there with the Black Bomber. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:17): My third season. It was great. Jason Calacanis (00:04:19): I am absolutely amazed at the progress you're making. Friedberg, I'm amazed you made it onto the mountain. You were out there a number of days. You're getting it done. David Friedberg (00:04:28): I needed new boots, and I tore my MCL last season. So I got it. It got really tweaked when I went out there, but I'm good. It was great. I had a lot of fun. I mean, I think I've seen four days. Yeah. You just Jason Calacanis (00:04:37): need four days. Okay. I finished my 16th day yesterday, but I took today off just to get prepared here. I got 16th I did the executive program. Gavin, I go out for an hour and a half to three hours. Zip, zip, zip, 10 runs, and I'm done. Gavin Baker (00:04:48): I only ski in the morning. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:50): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:04:50): That's the way to go. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:51): Same. Same. Same. End end at 12:15, have lunch, relax, Jason Calacanis (00:04:55): get a little work done. Gavin Baker (00:04:57): Need a healthy mix of après-ski and ski. Jason Calacanis (00:05:00): Gavin, how would you compare yourself to what you just witnessed in that video? Your skiing ability, where would you rank yourself? Clearly, it's me, Chamath, Friedberg in that ranking. Where would you live in the ranking? Gavin Baker (00:05:12): Well, I would say I'd make two observations. First, like, I'm in the bottom percentile in terms of natural athleticism. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:18): Okay. Gavin Baker (00:05:18): But I do have many, many thousands of hours skiing. Jason Calacanis (00:05:21): Great. K. And I Gavin Baker (00:05:23): would just leave I would just leave it with that. Yes. Jason Calacanis (00:05:26): Oh, wow. Well, then we'll be going out with you next year, new bestie. Alright. We gotta get to it. We're gonna start off with politics, gentlemen. We gotta keep this moving because there's so many predictions. We're gonna do our 2025 prediction for biggest political winner. Now last year, well, yeah, I think we got it kinda wrong. Friedberg, you said independent third party in the U.S. And we did see some of that with, you know, the breakout of Robert Kennedy, maybe. Chamath, you said independent centrist. We didn't get there with that one. And I said dark horse presidential candidates. Maybe I get a quarter point credit there with Wait. Hold on. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:02): What do you mean we didn't get there? Independent centrists won the election for Biden. Jason Calacanis (00:06:07): Independent centrists won the election? Really? That's what you believe? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:10): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:06:10): Okay. I didn't think that it was the independents, but okay. I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:13): think independent centrists swung the election for Biden in 2020, and then I think they swung the election for Trump in 2024. Jason Calacanis (00:06:22): Is that statistically correct you then, Friedberg? Do you you you bother that? Independent centrists did the election? Or David Friedberg (00:06:28): Gavin, what do you think? Gavin Baker (00:06:29): I think it's right. Like, I think a lot of there are a lot of people, not just centrists, but a lot of people who had been lifelong Democratic voters who voted for Trump. So I do think Trump won the centrists. I mean, Trump won everything, essentially. Jason Calacanis (00:06:46): Yeah. Okay. Chamath, who's your prediction for the biggest political winner of 2025? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:50): My biggest political winner for 2025 are fiscal conservatives. I think that we are going to test a very important concept in 2025, and I hope it works, which is that of austerity. And the reason why austerity has to work is that the only thing left after austerity is cutting entitlements. And I think that in doing this, we are going to figure out how much waste, fraud, and abuse exists in the United States federal government. I think that that's going to spill over to a lot of state elections. And I think that the fiscal conservatives that have been clamoring for a more restrained approach to spending will have their day in 2025. Jason Calacanis (00:07:40): Okay. Fiscal conservatives from Chamath. Friedberg, what's your prediction for the biggest political winner of 2025? David Friedberg (00:07:47): I also took a class-based approach. I chose young candidates. So Trump's cabinet picks have an average age of 40 to 45 years old compared to the Biden cabinet where the average age is a little over 59, almost 60 years old. And I do think that this marks the beginning of a new trend in the kind of age range of political candidates shifting younger. So I think that this is something we should expect as candidates start to emerge for the midterms by the end of 2025. We'll start to see younger new names start to pop up that deliver resonant messages and aren't part of kind of the old guard of, you know, the aging political class. So I think that's a trend that's kind of underway now. Jason Calacanis (00:08:30): Excellent. Young candidates. So we got fiscal conservatives, young candidates. Gavin, what do you got for the 2025 prediction for biggest political winner? Gavin Baker (00:08:37): I would say Trump and centrism. Jason Calacanis (00:08:39): For my choice for 2025's biggest political winner, I went with something similar to you, Friedberg. I said Gen X and the elder millennials. If you look at the notable Gen X appointments, you got Elon with those, you got Sacks obviously, Marco Rubio. My God. It just goes down. And then if you look at the elder millennials, J.D. Vance, Vivek, Tulsi, just a lot of young people. And this is gonna be absolutely fantastic, I think, because they're gonna start thinking not just about themselves, as the boomers are doing with Social Security, taxes, real estate, all the different issues that they tend to pick for themselves. They're gonna start thinking about maybe their own kids and themselves. So, yeah, it's obviously a sea change is underway. So there you have it, folks, for our predictions for political winner. Let's go with political loser here. Prediction for political loser. We'll start off with you, Gavin. We'll do this a little, round robin here. We'll snake it around. Gavin, what do you think? Who'll be the biggest political loser of 2025? Gavin Baker (00:09:37): I think Putin. I think Putin is going to lose bigly. So if you were Xi Jinping, you know, Xi Jinping, Russia is a client state of China at this point. And if you're Xi Jinping, what is happening is now a disaster for you because Europe is starting to rearm and which will only accelerate this year. That will allow America to take resources out of Europe and put them in Japan and South Korea and all over the Pacific. And that makes it a lot harder for you to do what you most wanna do, which is reunify China and Taiwan or invade Taiwan. Let's call it what it is. And I just think Xi is going to begin decoupling from Putin. If you're Trump, you wanna show that you're independent, that you're not enthralled to Putin in any way. So I think Trump is gonna be a lot tougher on Putin than people think. And I think he's gonna get a very, very, a deal that's very, very bad for Russia and Ukraine. And, you know, you've lost half a million people. And for what? Jason Calacanis (00:10:51): For what exactly? Yeah. And it's a thousand over a thousand days into this. Nobody from the West, you know, in NATO or America. No soldiers have lost their lives from our side. We've just given them weapons, and so it's a humiliating defeat so far for Putin. I agree with you. Friedberg, your prediction for the biggest political loser of 2025. Friedberg's prediction. David Friedberg (00:11:12): I'm gonna predict the pro-war neocons who are gonna go head to head with the J.D. Vance and Elons and others of the world. And I think that they're gonna lose. And I think that there's gonna be this kind of big crack in the establishment of this neocon movement that's been very pro-conflict around the world. And we've heard it in the speeches and in the commentary from J.D. and others, and I think this is gonna be the year that it's all gonna kinda come to a head. I think they're gonna end up on the losing side. Gavin Baker (00:11:42): Can I, Gavin? Can I take the other side just a little bit? So I think you're That's why Jason Calacanis (00:11:47): you're here. David Friedberg (00:11:47): Yeah. Yeah. Gavin Baker (00:11:48): I think it's right in reality, but I think, you know, Trump said something very interesting about John Bolton. He said, the guy was absolutely crazy, but it was awesome having him in the room when you were negotiating deals. Speaker 5 (00:11:59): Right. Gavin Baker (00:12:00): Because people looked at this guy looking angry, red in the face, so excited to hit the nuclear button, so excited to go to war, and you ended up with much better deals. Right. So I think you're gonna see probably a lot more bellicosity from the Trump administration than anyone expects. And that's just to get a good deal for, you know, between Russia and Ukraine, and then it's to get China to kind of decouple from Russia. So I think, in reality, I think you're right, David, but I think there will be a lot of rhetoric that is at odds with what you're saying before David Friedberg (00:12:31): you end Gavin Baker (00:12:31): up being right. David Friedberg (00:12:33): We already see it with Canada, with NATO, with Taiwan. There's a lot you know, we're gonna do this or this, the tariffs. Obviously, there's just a lot of very aggressive posturing leading up to the negotiations that are hopefully gonna get the US good deals. We'll see. Jason Calacanis (00:12:48): Chamath, you have a prediction for your 2025 biggest political loser. Predictions. Hard to do. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:54): The biggest political loser of 2025 is going to be progressivism. So November of last year, right after the election, I flew to London and went up to Oxford, and I spoke at the Oxford Union. And my speech was a full-throated defense of MAGA, but it was mostly an explanation of MAGA. And it was sort of the antidote to progressive instincts that had been riddling the Western G8 countries and was starting to basically come unglued. And when you look at what's about to happen in 2025, in Canada, Justin Trudeau is going to lose massively to Pierre Poilievre. In Germany, AfD looks like they will win. In France, if there's a deadlock and it goes into an election, more than likely Marine Le Pen is going to win. And then in the UK where you see this unfolding child rape scandal, where allegedly upwards of hundreds of thousands of young girls over the course of 20-plus years were being raped by organizations of Pakistani Muslim men who were then not prosecuted for fears of stoking Islamophobia, as it turns out by the current prime minister, Keir Starmer. And if all of that comes to pass in the UK, I think you're gonna see the Labour government fall and I think you're gonna see Nigel Farage win. So what do all of these countries look like by the end of 2025? It's very much a repudiation of this class-based identity politics. And I think that has enormous ripple effects all throughout the world. And so I think the biggest political loser for 2025, I think, stands to be progressivism, quote unquote, what they what we labeled progressivism. Jason Calacanis (00:14:48): I took something very similar. I said the racist vocal minority of each one of these parties. And there's a little bit of this on either side. You have DEI on one side, and then you just have outright racism on the other side. And it's probably 5% of MAGA and 5% of the left. And just to recap last year's political predictions, for 2024, our predictions for political loser was, I said Netanyahu. Friedberg, you said Ukraine. And Chamath, you said the Koch family, the GOP. Nailed Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:17): that one. I nailed that one. Jason Calacanis (00:15:19): Friedberg, any thoughts on last year's? Or anything else? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:22): On the Republican side more than the Koch family, do you think? I mean, explain for the audience who maybe aren't as deep into it. Well, I think essentially 2024 was the end of the Republican Party as we knew it. And I think what stands in its place is what I would call the MAGA reflection of a coalition of people that will be housed under the label of republicanism, which is to say that these folks aren't necessarily Republicans. These folks are believers of the MAGA philosophy. They're just using the Republican vessel in order to run their candidates and get elected. And in that overturning of the status quo, what you had was this one family who was at the center for the last few decades of political machinery that essentially decided candidates, that it decided agenda, that it decided policy, and that was the Koch family. And they spent an enormous amount of money to get that, which they stood up frankly, literally the day after Citizens United happened in the Supreme Court. And I think that in that lens, those billions of dollars of investment have essentially gone to zero because I don't think it means much of anything anymore. And if you look at the new class of donors who will decide quote unquote Republican policy, it's going to be the Miriam Adelsons of the world, the Elon Musks of the world. And that's very different than how I think the Kochs used to decide things. Jason Calacanis (00:16:54): Do you think there's too much money in politics now, Gavin? Gavin Baker (00:16:57): I think there's too much money in politics now. It's a good question. You know, I might feel very, very differently if I didn't agree so profoundly with the largest donor in this political cycle. Jason Calacanis (00:17:17): Yeah. Gavin Baker (00:17:18): I would say the reality is, like, the money as long as the money raised on each side is roughly equivalent, I don't think it really matters. That would be my take. You just want some equivalence. That's all. Jason Calacanis (00:17:34): Alright. Let's do our 2025 predictions for biggest business winner. Friedberg, why don't you start us off? Biggest business winner for 2025. What's your prediction? David Friedberg (00:17:43): So I feel like we're at a really interesting inflection point that is gonna make 2025 the year of autonomous hardware or robotics. If 2024 was the year of kind of compute build out and the rollout of AI systems in software, I think 2025 will be the year of the robot. You know, there's a company we just placed an order with today actually out of China called Unitree. Gavin, have you looked at this company? Gavin Baker (00:18:14): Yeah. It's pretty wild, actually. David Friedberg (00:18:17): It's an incredible business, incredible product. So their GO2 robot is $1,600, has an API. Here it is. You can run a payload on it. It's got lidar on it. It's got kind of intelligence guidance systems on it. This is the robot system that was used on some of those videos we looked at earlier this year where there were machine guns mounted to the back, and it was basically a new kind of field soldier. It's an autonomous field soldier. But, really, you can use it in scientific applications. We're looking at using them on our test farms where it can wander the farm and take images and report data back to us. And at such a low cost at, like, less than $3,000, you can do some incredible things with it. So this business just raised a couple hundred million dollars last month from mostly Chinese investors to a Chinese company. And I think that there's gonna be, you know, other similar type businesses. You know, it kind of takes a long time for things to work, and then all of a sudden they happen faster than you could have ever imagined. I think this is gonna be the year where we're all gonna look at humanoid robots and autonomous systems and be like, oh my god. I can't believe this is here. So this could be the year. Jason Calacanis (00:19:20): of the world. It's such a great, strong choice for the biggest winner. And, I think the quote you're looking for is how did you go bankrupt slowly and then all at once? That's how these technology changes. I'd admit I would love to have one of these for the ranch to just run around and do the perimeter security. David Friedberg (00:19:34): Sorry, Nick. Pull up the you guys gotta watch this if you haven't seen it. Nick, find the video of the GO2 with the wheels on it, managing terrain. Oh, yes. And everyone thought this was a BS video that it was, like, CGI wasn't real. It was AI generated. But, like, this thing is just incredible. Here it is. This is a real video of this thing. Jason Calacanis (00:19:52): Yeah. And it could learn from an LLM too. Right? Like, a large language model. David Friedberg (00:19:57): Look at this thing. Jason Calacanis (00:19:58): Teach it how to do something. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:19:59): Gavin, is this real? Like, what's your attempt Gavin Baker (00:20:01): to real. Yeah. Yeah. I wanna get the G1, which is their humanoid robot. David Friedberg (00:20:06): Yeah. They'll pull up the humanoid. It's really cool. Gavin Baker (00:20:09): Yeah. It's a little more expensive. Yeah. But yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:20:12): I mean, $16,000 is the cost of a used Prius. Let's be honest. That's in spitting distance of being affordable for the G1. David Friedberg (00:20:19): Look at this thing. $16,000. And this thing, you can, you know, you can basically command it to do things for you in your house, or in your factory or in your workplace. Jason Calacanis (00:20:30): Oh. Come on. I knew you would do it. Oh, David Friedberg (00:20:32): come on. Jason Calacanis (00:20:33): I was gonna say maybe we could get a poker dealer. Maybe Beau you know? I wonder if this thing could deal. David Friedberg (00:20:37): Cards or wine. Do you guys remember that robot that was on stage for our All-In Holiday Yes. Spectacular 1X? So my brother made an observation. He said, as soon as that robot came out, it's like everyone just wanted to abuse it. He's like, humans have this very interesting nature where, like, the robot emerges and all that humans want to do is, like, hurt the robot. It's like a very strange revelation of human behavior. Yeah. Like, it just it's like, oh, here's something I could dominate. Here's something I can tell. Jason Calacanis (00:21:06): It that you were controlling. By it. We wanna make sure that we're at the top of the species here, and it doesn't feel like it's gonna be for much longer. I mean, these things will kick our ass pretty soon. David Friedberg (00:21:15): Oh, anyway, these things are amazing. I think this is gonna be the year of the robots. That's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:18): my prediction. Jason Calacanis (00:21:19): Year of the robots is your prediction. I love it. Gavin, what do you got? Gavin Baker (00:21:22): I profoundly agree. I think year of the robots, inclusive of FSD. You know, I think FSD works today, and it's gonna it's gonna cross into mainstream adoption where I already notice. Particularly, if I'm taking an Uber late at night, I really, really prefer to have a Tesla. Just sometimes you get an Uber driver who's tired, and I just feel a lot safer if they have the FSD running. And then, obviously, using it for yourself is amazing. But I think it's gonna continue compounding at an accelerating rate. I think in a lot of ways, what I'd say broadly is, I think for a while, it's going to be big businesses are winners. Big businesses that use AI thoughtfully. And the reason is is that with what is happening, what what O3 showed us, OpenAI's new model, a combination of reasoning and test time compute. Like, I think if you're a big business and you can pay $1 million to let an AI think for six weeks about the most important question for your business, that's gonna be a profound advantage relative to small businesses that can't afford that. And by the way, we are the other, like, infrared compute is gonna be the kind of derivative winner of that. We're gonna run out of GPUs, accelerators, compute in 2025 the same way we did in 2023. Jason Calacanis (00:22:55): Okay. So you're also long NVIDIA and chipmakers, Groq, etc., because we're finding new uses for all that compute. Gavin Baker (00:23:04): Absolutely. Jason Calacanis (00:23:06): Okay. Very good. Chamath, do you have a prediction for your biggest business winner of 2025, sir? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:12): I think the biggest business winner of 2025 is going to be dollar-denominated stablecoins. Oh. I'll make two points. In 2024, two critical things happened. The first is that stablecoins essentially became uncoupled from crypto volatility and started to be used for wholesale useful functions in running businesses. And there's an image here that starts to show that. So independent of crypto volatility, what you saw were stablecoin usage just rising up and to the right. That's an incredibly important decoupling that happened in 2024. The second, and this data is still just trickling in, but it's an incredible stat. Stablecoin usage at the end of Q2 of 2024 was about 1,100,000,000 transactions that summed to $8,500,000,000,000 of transaction volume. If you compare that to Visa over the same period, it was more than double Visa's transaction volume. So I think what we have now is something that has fundamentally crossed a point of no return. Similar to how last year I thought that the big trend was going to be Bitcoin in 2024. I would say that the big trend in '25 is stablecoin usage. I think we're going to finally attack the duopoly of Visa and MasterCard. I think you're going to see an innumerable number of use cases that sit and use stablecoin rails. I think when Donald Trump becomes president, I think you're gonna see him go after incredibly high credit card transactions and costs. You're already seeing cracks in consumer credit anyways because of these high APRs. All of this stuff is going to come to a head in 2025, I think. And I think stablecoins could quadruple or quintuple by the end of '25. I think it's just gonna be an enormous market. Jason Calacanis (00:25:33): Great choice. Should they be regulated, Chamath? We saw at some of these congressional hearings, Tether was kinda dragged for being the primary transfer and monetary tool for terrorism, for getting around sanctions and for human trafficking. Should it be regulated and how? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:53): I don't think I'm qualified to say how it should, but I think the point is that there are these immutable logs that sit in between and on either side of all of these transactions. And so I think the knowledge is there, and there are a whole bunch of third-party services that add that intelligence layer. I think the thing to really question is if you just took 300 basis points of drag out of the global economy. Jason Calacanis (00:26:22): Massive gains. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:23): How valuable would that be? And I think it would be valuable just in the United States alone to the tune of $1 trillion. So the idea that you wouldn't do it at this point is somewhat quizzical to me. So I just think that the economic justification for this now is just so profound. Jason Calacanis (00:26:41): Gavin, let me ask you a hard question there as well. Should the United States government give up the, let's face it, you know, they have a bit of a stranglehold. They've got a bit of a monopoly on U.S. dollars. These things are a competitor, and we were sitting here on this program for the last couple of years talking about the BRICS and them starting their own currency. Aren't these in some way similar to that, and they would take people off the USD standard? How do you look at that? Because that is the criticism that some people in power have put forward. David Friedberg (00:27:13): I do think that they might be very good for the Gavin Baker (00:27:15): world, but I do think they would be very bad for America if they replaced, if some constellation of stablecoins became the new reserve currency. It is such an advantage to be able to borrow in your own currency and to give that up lightly. That just means you control the real size of your debt at all times. Oh, wow. We have a big debt. I mean, this is a little bit like what we just did. Let's just let inflation run hot, and, oh, wow. That debt's a lot smaller than it was effectively. So I think it would be a big mistake. Jason Calacanis (00:27:57): Friedberg, you have any thoughts on it? We've been talking about currency here, a whole bunch over the last couple of years. Any thoughts on stablecoins and just the monopoly we have on it? David Friedberg (00:28:08): I don't know enough about stablecoins. Jason Calacanis (00:28:11): Well, that'll be one of our big topics for the year, and we should definitely invite Jeremy Allaire from USDC. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:18): Jeremy Allaire. I mentioned, by the way, that I had this small little product that I exposed to the world, which is just our research, and we sit it on top of Substack. Again, the tools aren't very good and we use Stripe. And Jeremy reached out to me and he's like, I'll just rebuild all of your payment rails Speaker 5 (00:28:42): on Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:42): using US dollar stablecoins. And it's a no-brainer because I'm spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in transaction costs that now I can just save and use to hire somebody else or just pay the team more. And so I just seem like Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:28:56): You're paying 10% to Substack and the 3%. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:59): If it's obvious for me, it's obvious for everybody else. Jason Calacanis (00:29:02): All right. My biggest business winner prediction for 2025 is Tesla and Google. I think this is going to be the year of AI and robotics, obviously. But I am just absolutely amazed at the comeback that Google has made with AI, and I'm absolutely in awe of what Elon did with Colossus. For those of you who don't know, Jensen Huang, Michael Dell, they all obviously participated in building out XAI and they were shocked. They couldn't believe that they stood up 100,000 GPUs in under 45 days, was it, Gavin? Yeah. Something in that neighborhood? It was a tremendous effort and, David Friedberg (00:29:39): you know, I just think Tesla. Right? Is that Tesla? Jason Calacanis (00:29:41): Well, Elon, Tesla, XAI, and Google. That cohort who are investing heavily in AI, those three names, I think, are gonna be the biggest winners next year. They're gonna come out with some things that people didn't anticipate. I don't think people are anticipating what Google's gonna come out with because Gemini deep research, I keep telling people this and I'm using the app, is so impressive. Drop what you're doing right now, pause the podcast, download Gemini, and just start playing with deep research on your desktop. Pay the $20 for it. It is mind-blowing. It blows anything else in the market out of the water, period. Full stop. It is a step function higher. Alright. I'll just leave it at that. Gavin Baker (00:30:23): Jason, shouldn't you, just going with the vibe of the podcast, shouldn't you explain what it is? David Friedberg (00:30:28): What you Jason Calacanis (00:30:28): Sorry. Okay. So what it does is Good call. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:31): Good call. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:30:33): If you wanted to create a model, let's say, and I did this where I said, hey. Make me a model based upon what it would take to replace all the cars and trips in the United States with full self-driving cars? What would that cost to do? And if you ask that to ChatGPT or Bard or, you know, Claude, it's gonna give you a decent answer. What deep research does is it goes and it figures out what the subcomponents of each of those questions would be, and then it fires off multiple threads. And then it searches the web in real time, which Google is extremely good at. And then it summarizes it, gives citations, and it produces a report that looks like something that Gartner Group, McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group would have spent, I don't know, 30 days on Gavin and $1,000,000, a half $1,000,000. It's bonkers how good this is, but the amount of compute it takes is extraordinary. That's why ChatGPT released something similar that's $200 a month, the 01 Pro, I think they call it. And then this one is like $20 from Gemini. Anyway, given what Google has access to, YouTube, your G Drive, your Google Docs, etcetera, your Gmail, it's gonna do things that you wouldn't anticipate. Like, if you were asking this question, it might look in your Gmail for possibilities to answer those questions or YouTube videos of channels you subscribe to. So this is going to, I think, knock people's socks off and solve problems that people didn't know they had. Is that a pretty good explanation, Gavin? Gavin Baker (00:31:57): Yeah. I think it's great. Jason Calacanis (00:31:58): For last year, our predictions for business winner, Chamath said bootstrapped or and or profitable startups. I think that's a really great pick and that came to pass. We're seeing some of those go public and raise money at higher valuations or not go out of business. Friedberg, you said commodities businesses. I'm not sure how that did. Do you know? Did you check? David Friedberg (00:32:16): On that? Flat. Yeah. We didn't have a lot of the, okay, inflationary pressures that I think were underlying that thesis. So got it. It ended up being, I'd say, a loser relative to other indices you could have bought this year. Jason Calacanis (00:32:29): I said training data owners like Reddit, New York Times, Google, etc. Reddit stock up to 24% in 2024, and they launched their own Reddit Answers. David Friedberg (00:32:37): A good call. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:32:38): I think I got that one. New York Times stock is up as well, and they fired off that lawsuit with OpenAI. Alright. Now we're gonna move on to the 2025 biggest business loser predictions in 2024. Chamath said pro sports teams because they hit peak valuations. That's looking like a pretty good prediction. Friedberg, you said vertical SaaS companies because of AI disruption. That's another one that seems like a great prediction. I said smartphone manufacturers. Apple stock was up 30% in 2024, but I think we've all seen that these smartphones aren't advancing, and people are taking their time. The sales of those are down. Services are up. Gavin Baker (00:33:12): I would take the other side on pro sports teams. It feels like that market is about to be institutionalized, and funds are gonna start buying pro sports teams. Jason Calacanis (00:33:22): Okay. Gavin Baker (00:33:23): That ultimately, and ultimately, capital markets have way more resources than kind of the wealthy individuals who've done it to date. So I just think it's the amount of money that can go after pro sports teams is about, you know, 10x, 100x. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:38): No. I think you're totally right. The reason I said that last year was it was pretty clear to me at the time, and the NBA was the canary in the coal mine, that there was a viewership problem in professional sports. And specifically in the NBA, the game has devolved into essentially rebounds and dunks or 3-pointers. And the issue with that is that it becomes just meaningfully less interesting to watch. At the same time, because of the fact that the TV deals are really what determines the discounted value of these sports franchises. The TV deal was so enormous that it creates no reliable rivalries anymore because people will hopscotch teams almost every year because the compensation that they can get is just so obscene, quite honestly. And I think what happens is sports will have a decent run until the next TV deals get done. And I think if you, for example, take pharma ads outside of TV, so like that pool shrinks. If you have less viewership and so you can sell the remaining ads less effectively because there's just fewer of them and then there's fewer buyers and it shrinks yet again, then the dollar pool that the television networks and the streamers are going to be willing to pay for sports will go down. And the group that will be the most price sensitive are exactly who you said, Gavin, meaning the non-trophy buyer. So like, when I bought into the Warriors, I bought it purely as a trophy asset and I was price insensitive. But I agree with you that now that you have the PE firms on the cap tables of these sports franchises, those folks are all DCFs, those folks are all Excel models. I don't think that they're buying things for emotion. I don't think they've grown up thinking I wanna own this thing, not using institutional LP dollars. So I just think that's why I said that in 24. So I just wanna Jason Calacanis (00:35:34): On behalf of Phil, how much and I, we appreciate you made that vanity investment for the number of times we got to sit in your courtside seats. Yeah. Because I never went to the games. We made with NBA players. That's great. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:44): I never went to the games. I should have gone to more games. Jason Calacanis (00:35:46): I went to your games and almost got thrown out of your seats. I got a red card one time. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:50): It's true. Jason Calacanis (00:35:51): Is it true? David Friedberg (00:35:51): You did? Jason Calacanis (00:35:52): Oh, oh, you don't call me? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:53): I got a, I got David Friedberg (00:35:54): a—no. I got a call. I got a call. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:56): I think it was from the Warriors or it's from the NBA. Something to the effect of, "Chamath, this guy that was sitting in your seats was almost kicked out." And I said, "Excuse me?" Because I knew Jason Calacanis (00:36:04): that it was Jason. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:05): Game in fairness. And he was like jawboning our own players. Jason Calacanis (00:36:10): I was getting into it with Bogut and with David Lee because I told it Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:14): was unbelievable. Jason Calacanis (00:36:15): I told Steve Kerr, "Listen, you're up 30 on my Knicks. Sit these guys down. This is Bush League. What if Steph Curry gets hurt out there?" And, you know, Bogut told me to shut up on Andre Iguodala. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:26): Bogut told him to basically go pound sand in a more—he Jason Calacanis (00:36:28): basically did. That was the funniest thing ever, Gavin. This is what happens when you get Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:32): Bogut's one of our friends. He's one of our good friends, so that's why it's so funny. Jason Calacanis (00:36:35): But if they can't, they come over Friedberg and they tap you on the shoulder. I'm with my wife. She's mortified. And the guy hands you a card and the card says you've been warned one time and one time only about abusive, you know, behavior. If we have to warn you one more time, you will be escorted out. Ridiculous. Speaker 5 (00:36:56): So I Jason Calacanis (00:36:56): look at the guy and I say, "But," and he goes, "Read the card." I read the card. I say, he goes, "Give me a thumbs up." That was it. I never— David Friedberg (00:37:04): That was it. Jason Calacanis (00:37:05): You're not supposed to. Then, 3 years later, I'm sitting in the same seats. I'm interacting with Draymond during the finals games, and then everybody's hokey dokey with it. When you say interacting, what Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:14): do you David Friedberg (00:37:14): mean when you say interacting? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:15): Wait. Hold on. Gavin wanted to make a point about what Jason Calacanis (00:37:17): it is. Speaker 5 (00:37:17): No. I Gavin Baker (00:37:18): just just come back to Chamath because I, for sure, these private equity guys are doing DCFs. The NBA has been terribly managed. I think if LeBron said they have a big problem, you know, and I'd separate the NBA as the worst managed. The NFL is probably the best managed. But the one kind of counterpoint I would say on the TV rights is Google bought Sunday Ticket and are extremely happy with it. Amazon and Netflix also bought, you know, both bought NFL games and are really happy with them. And so I just think those three companies, it doesn't really matter to them if pharma ads go away. In 18 months, you're gonna be able to dynamically create an ad for each individual person and show it to them. And if you're a high-value user with a, you know, that Google knows that you're about to book a vacation, you know, they'll dynamically generate, you know, whatever, you know, hotel destinations you want and show click here. So I just think sports, as long as they command the eyeballs that they do, and I, for sure, if the NBA doesn't fix it, the value of those franchises will start to decline. But just the fact that all of the biggest tech companies are so happy with the sports kind of rights that they bought, they're gonna buy them all. Every sport will Jason Calacanis (00:38:35): go under those companies. Gavin, maybe maybe you're closer to this, but why wouldn't Apple, Amazon, or Google just back up the truck to the NBA and say, we'll take the whole thing, and then anybody who's got an iPhone gets the NBA for free, and then everybody else has to pay, and they figure it out on the back end. They lose a, you know, $5 billion, they make $2 billion. Who cares? It's a rounding error for Apple. Gavin Baker (00:38:57): I agree. And they, you know, I mean, they all, all except for Apple, really. And Apple, they have, I think, an MLS deal, but they all kind of stuck their toe in the water. And I think they feel like, wow. The water's warm. Let's dive in. Jason Calacanis (00:39:10): Okay. Gavin Baker (00:39:11): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:39:12): And the new deal's an 11-year deal for the NBA, so these things don't come up that often. But we'll see over time. Maybe somebody will buy one of these media companies and inherit them. Okay. Biggest business loser for 2025. What's your prediction, Gavin Baker? Gavin Baker (00:39:27): Government service providers. Jason Calacanis (00:39:29): You do Gavin Baker (00:39:29): not—you do not want to have the United States government at any level as over 35% of your revenue. Jason Calacanis (00:39:36): Good choice. Yes. Obviously, in the age of Doge, they might not be spending wildly and they might actually look at the bill. They might check the bill. Gavin Baker (00:39:44): Crazy thought. Crazy thought. Jason Calacanis (00:39:45): Yeah. Crazy thought to actually check the bill. You never know. Chamath, who do you predict will be the biggest business loser of Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:53): Well, this is a little bit precarious, but I don't know what the percentage drawdown from here will be, but I think when we look back, the absolute dollar drawdown of the Magnificent Seven will be in the trillions of dollars. David Friedberg (00:40:17): Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:17): And the reason is not necessarily because of the underlying fundamentals of these companies, but I am a little bit worried, and I tweeted this a few days ago, about just the general concentration of the top 7, 8, 9, 10 companies in the indices. I think it's approaching 40%. And I think that when you look at these historic concentrations, they've generally foreshadowed a big drawdown. Okay. And unfortunately, I don't see how you can sort of, you know, inoculate yourself from that risk. So independent of the quality of these companies, because I think these companies are exceptional businesses, I do think you've just had too much concentration. And I think it is a setup to retrade and give back. And in that, it could even be 10%. But 10% in the Mag 8 will be a couple trillion bucks. Jason Calacanis (00:41:15): Right. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:15): And so on an absolute dollars Jason Calacanis (00:41:17): would be a lot. Yeah. An absolute dollars. A lot. Okay. Friedberg, who do you predict? You predict Mag 7, government service providers for you, Gavin. Friedberg, who do you predict will be the biggest business loser of 2025? David Friedberg (00:41:27): I'm sort of on the same vein as Gavin. I went with the kind of old defense and aerospace providers, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon. Jason Calacanis (00:41:35): Defense 1.9. David Friedberg (00:41:36): Driven by kind of China dominance, driven by U.S. defense budgets that I think are gonna need to shift towards a more kind of tech-oriented and ROI-driven rationalization and pricing and spend. So the Palantirs and Andurils, obviously, the world will benefit. And I also just think, like, there's a lot of failure at scale with these businesses. They've gotten too clunky and too bureaucratic as we've seen with Boeing from their space program failure in 2024, to the challenges with their airplane business. But I think that this government contracting business across the board is gonna be deeply challenged this year with all the new blood. Jason Calacanis (00:42:11): So the cost-plus are gonna suffer is what you're saying, and Andurils will thrive, Chamath? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:16): Would you guys add just a question. Would you guys add the traditional consulting companies then to the mix as well? Like, if you're That's David Friedberg (00:42:24): a good point too. That's a Jason Calacanis (00:42:25): great one. Yeah. We think what we talked about with Deepgram. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:28): Like the Wipro's, the Tatas, the HCLs, the Accentures. David Friedberg (00:42:31): Cognizants. Jason Calacanis (00:42:32): HCLs. Yeah. The Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:33): The EYs, all these folks that are in real trouble if that if that also happens. Jason Calacanis (00:42:37): That's right. The efficiency that they'll gain will also be felt by their customers and their customers might not hire them. David Friedberg (00:42:45): When you got a bunch of software entrepreneurs that are now advising and informing the federal government on how to run their operations, I'm pretty sure that some of these service providers are gonna get washed out. So it's a good idea. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:55): The thing to keep in mind is, like, cost plus is a fancier way of saying time and materials. And time and materials is a fancy way of saying human labor arbitrage. And I think that all of that stuff will get extremely scrutinized in 2025. Because if you are buying, you know, $800 wastebaskets and, you know, $9,000 umbrella hangers because of time and materials and all of this other crazy stuff that's in the system and all of that gets washed out, then a lot of these folks and their business models will get put under severe stress. Jason Calacanis (00:43:30): The alignments, you know, you show me an incentive, I'll show you the outcome. The alignment of cost plus is to just keep being inefficient and waste. And these defense contractors are taking 60, 70, 80% off the price of each piece of munitions or vehicle. Gavin Baker (00:43:48): Yeah. Cost plus was terrible. No. Just cost plus was terrible. That's all. Jason Calacanis (00:43:53): For my biggest business loser prediction, I had to go through a lot of the people I've criticized. I didn't start fights with over the past year. Commercial real estate came to mind because these leases are gonna keep coming up, and I think, like, they kicked the can down the road a little bit. So I started there. Then I looked at MicroStrategy, and that made no sense to me that they were trading at 2, 3, 4 times the book value of their Bitcoin, and I think that's not sustainable. I looked at Truth Social, which is, like, doing $4 or $5 million in revenue and is valued at $7 billion. That makes absolutely no logical sense. But I think the one that is the most overpriced of all of this, and I think is going to see their peak valuation is OpenAI. I think the headwinds for OpenAI are being absolutely underappreciated. Like I said before in my previous prediction, Google is kicking ass. XAI is just getting started in building out so much big iron. Microsoft was basically on another podcast almost, like, laughing at OpenAI for selling them the source code and that they didn't even need OpenAI anymore because they had it all. They don't need them, and they own all the big iron. I think OpenAI's valuation made no sense. I don't think they're gonna be able to keep charging the prices they're charging. And I think AWS, Apple, Google, XAI, this cohort are going to really take that $157 billion valuation and make it the peak valuation of the company. And I do think there's a nonzero chance they could lose their process in these court cases of transferring a $157 billion in value from a nonprofit into a for-profit. I think that whole thing could blow up in David Friedberg (00:45:45): some small stuff. Prediction is OpenAI will not be able to convert from nonprofit to for-profit in 2025. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:50): I think Jason Calacanis (00:45:50): that that's a small piece of it, but that's a really interesting super prediction. Insert Polymarket graphic here. Super prediction. Will OpenAI convert? Is that something wrong? 25. David Friedberg (00:46:02): Yeah. By the way, you know, they're projecting, I think, in the leaked financials, $12 billion of revenue next year at JACAL. So unlike a lot of the other things you were talking about, this is a real business with real revenue, real scale, real growth, real technology. It's a little bit distinct from kinda being a meme stock or being a Jason Calacanis (00:46:20): Exactly. That's why I'm picking it because I think it's easy to pick a meme stock. It's harder to pick a real company. But I do think that that revenue, which, you know, a lot of it is consumer and a lot of it is developers. The developers I know all wanna do open source. They don't wanna have to be beholden to OpenAI and Sam Altman. They would much rather and they're already setting their queries across multiple different stacks and trying different ones. I don't think there's any loyalty to OpenAI or Gemini or any of these services. I think they'll just go with eventually open source in many cases. So, anyway, that's my thought on OpenAI. 2025, biggest business deal. What do you got, Chamath? What's your biggest business deal for 2025 prediction, Chamath? What do you got? You said Starlink to go public last year. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:04): That hasn't happened yet. That one. Yeah. Totally worked on that one. I think that this is the year that we will see the collapse of the traditional auto OEMs. Oh. And I think that the deal that happened at the end of 2024 with Honda and Nissan, I think is a bit of a signal to what the industry has to do, which is to go through a massive wave of consolidation. I think that Tesla is just in an incredible position with the quality of their vehicles and the quality of their software and the quality of their autonomy with FSD. So I suspect that after a couple of more meaningful product releases, it's just gonna trigger the realization by the public capital markets that these auto OEMs are uninvestable. And I think the result of that will be a wave of auto mega mergers. Jason Calacanis (00:48:07): And for people who don't know, Honda and Nissan signed an agreement to merge and Mitsubishi is involved because they're part of, I think, Nissan's alliance. This would obviously get rid of all of the redundancy. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:19): But, yeah, I think this is gonna touch like the like the European OEMs are in real trouble. You know, what does Volkswagen do? It's not clear. What does Stellantis do? It's not clear. These are all businesses that are effectively melting icebergs. And so, typically melting iceberg businesses, when they get put under pressure from smart investors like Gavin and and and his ilk, they're forced to merge. Mhmm. Jason Calacanis (00:48:44): They say, you're short these Gavin. Gavin, you got a spread trade? Are you short these names? Gavin Baker (00:48:49): I I would rather not talk about specific positions. I would just say I agree 100% with Chamath. I think these There you go. They're gonna lose their Chinese business because they don't Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:58): Yeah. Gavin Baker (00:48:59): Make competitive products anymore. If there's not massive protectionism and we're seeing sides of that, they'll be caught between Tesla and the Chinese OEMs. And I think the only way that this doesn't Chamath's the only risk to Chamath's prediction is just government intervention because they're such big employers and, you know, often seen as national champions. But absent really significant government support, they're all in deep trouble. Jason Calacanis (00:49:29): Okay. Well done. Friedberg, last year, you said there'd be some blockbuster deals for rights holders, licensing data for AI training, and Reddit did in fact sign two of us. So, a great prediction from you for last year on biggest business deal. What do you got this year? See if you can go two for two. David Friedberg (00:49:45): Or is it just Reddit? I should probably look it up. Jason Calacanis (00:49:50): What do you got? David Friedberg (00:49:50): I'll just follow on my year of the robot theme. I do think that there's gonna be massive funding deals similar to what we saw this past year for compute build out. I think we're gonna see massive funding deals for hardware-based manufacturing build out in the United States. And I think that those deals may take the form of kind of traditional equity from private markets, or they may have some component that includes government support to kind of motivate and drive and accelerate onshore manufacturing. We're not gonna go in the U.S. to making stuff that is like last century. I think we're going to need to move manufacturing to the next decade, next century of production. I think that's going to mean making some of these autonomous and robotic type systems that are going to become really critical for us, particularly with China doing this massive ramp-up and build-out for both drones and robots and autonomous vehicles. So I think we're going to need to kind of onshore a lot of this, and so that'll be a big amount of capital that's going to move. And so you'll see a bunch of these big blockbuster deals for hardware build-out in the U.S. Jason Calacanis (00:50:55): Gavin, what do you think should be the biggest business deal in 2025? Gavin Baker (00:50:59): I think the biggest business deal is that there are going to be deals. I think you're going to see a tidal wave of M&A after four years of not being able to get anything done. I think there's an enormous amount of pent-up demand. So kind of point number one. Point number two, something will happen with Intel, and that will be big. And hopefully, it's good for America. And then I do think you will see a lot of these frontier AI labs that are independent be acquired. You know, I thought your points were well taken, Jason, about, you know, everything that, you know, Google is bringing to bear and X.AI. X.AI owns their own compute. Then you guys can choose whichever one of these three you like, but the ultimate AI winner will be the one with the lowest cost of infrastructure, the lowest cost of compute. And, definitionally, you can't be the low-cost provider if you're renting your compute from someone else. Jason Calacanis (00:51:53): Because of markups. Gavin Baker (00:51:55): Yeah. Because there's a markup. If you're buying your compute from Azure or AWS or Google, you are at a disadvantage relative to their internal services over time. Jason Calacanis (00:52:06): So the full stack wins. Great prediction for me. Last year, my prediction was that ByteDance would go public or TikTok would get divested or some version of this. We are about 18 days away from figuring out if the Supreme Court will do just that. My prediction for this year, I was looking at all the media companies, gentlemen. There were so many possibilities there. Warner Brothers, we talked about Apple and Disney, you know, a couple years ago. But I think the age of autonomy is here, and I think there are going to be some partnerships that will happen between Amazon, DoorDash, Uber, Tesla, Waymo, and that cohort. And I would not be surprised to see Tesla could buy Uber right now for about 10% of its market cap. And Waymo could spin out and partner with Uber. Amazon could buy DoorDash fairly easily. And with the wrath of Khan being over, the wrath of Lina Khan being over, Gavin, it is possible that mega deals like these could go through. And if a couple of mega deals go through like this, whoever, you know, teams up here could win autonomy, delivery, food delivery, and e-commerce. This is a ginormous space and I think listen I don't I haven't spoken to, obviously, my friend about it. But Tesla buying DoorDash and Uber or Amazon buying DoorDash and Uber could be the greatest service ever created if you're wanting to build a super app. Gavin Baker (00:53:34): The only thing I would add, and I think dovetails with what you said and, and Friedberg's kind of year of the robot, is autonomous drones. There's a company called Zipline, which my firm is an investor in. Jason Calacanis (00:53:46): Fantastic. Company. Gavin Baker (00:53:47): Yeah. But autonomous drones, they really are the best way to deliver almost anything to suburban America. And then I think over time, it will be sorted out so that they could deliver in cities as well. So I just think that that might be a little bit of a wild card for some of these delivery services. Jason Calacanis (00:54:07): Well, in Amazon in I believe it's Texas is actually doing these now. They've got 60,000 SKUs is my understanding already being delivered, and they just drop it in your backyard, and it's there in 45 minutes. Well, we talked about David Friedberg (00:54:20): this, like, two weeks ago. Yeah. You know, Meituan in China has got this, and they have food delivery happening with these drones. By the way, just kind of dovetailing off of this, I think the other big deal potential in 2025, just to be very specific, is a deal with Waymo. You know, Waymo launched in SF in August 2023 in kind of an open market way. Uber and Lyft were 66 and 34 percent market share at the time. And in 15 months, in November of 2024, Waymo is now at 22 percent market share of rides in SF, which is the same as Lyft, and Uber is now down to 55. So Waymo ate into both Uber and Lyft's market share by on the order of 12 points, in just 15 months. And now they're launching in LA, in Austin, all over the country. They're already in Phoenix. So I think you could see a massive and by the way, you know, they also just moved the hardware platform over to a new device that's supposedly gonna bring the CapEx significantly down for new launches. So you'll see much improved ROIC metrics, which means that there's a much kind of more efficient way to use capital to scale. So the system works. It is scaling. They are opening up in new markets. You could see something happen with Waymo this year that could either be something like a massive financing, an IPO, or a merger or acquisition with one of the big ride-sharing companies. I don't know if that makes as much strategic sense as I've thought about it a little bit, but I do think you could see a big deal with Waymo. This company is, if you guys have not been in a Waymo, I think we all talked about this, but it's an incredible experience. And everyone I know of every age group that has been for a ride in Waymo comes out of it saying that is the future. This is gonna absolutely dominate how I'm gonna get around, clearly, certainly in the urban area. Jason Calacanis (00:55:56): Most people say it's slow right now and monotonous and they don't Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:00): like it, but, you know, because Jason Calacanis (00:56:01): it does take weird routes, but that'll be fixed over time, obviously. David Friedberg (00:56:04): Totally. Jason Calacanis (00:56:05): And, just in case anybody thinks I'm talking my book here, I have exposure to almost all these companies in a significant way because I believe in the entire space. One and a half percent of rides in the U.S., and globally it's less than 1 percent, are done by ride-sharing. The TAM is gonna go to 20 percent in a very short period of time and it's going to be across the board. There's gonna be a lot of winners here. And to my favorite, Uber, obviously. They have deals with eight people and it's a global market. BYD produces cars for half the price of any other car manufacturer, and they have full self-driving, and it's pretty darn good from what I understand. So this is gonna be a global competition. And that means if you wanna win that global competition, something like Uber and DoorDash, Waymo, Amazon, BYD, you're gonna see some interesting partnerships happen very quickly, I believe, because there's so much at stake. Alright. Any final thoughts on biggest business deals? I think I maybe have a good one here. Consolidation in the transportation space. Okay. Moving on to 2025, most contrarian belief. Last year, enterprise value of OpenAI goes down from Chamath. It roughly doubled. But I just picked it as my prediction. So I think we're simpatico on what we think long term. Friedberg, you said increased probability of a nuclear weapon being used for the first time since World War II. Thank the Lord that that didn't happen. Again, this is contrarian beliefs. People are going out there. David Friedberg (00:57:29): I didn't predict it was gonna happen. I just said the probability went up. It was a it's a tough it's a tough thing to call. Jason Calacanis (00:57:34): Obviously, it's most contrarian belief. I think it's fine. Doctor Doom strikes again. It's all good. I picked Apple would become the player in AI, and they did launch Apple Intelligence, but it sucks. I mean, it sucks. It's terrible. I just bought the Google Pixel Fold 9, and the Gemini works perfectly. It does everything that Siri is supposed to do. If you say, please play this song, if you say, please download this app, if you say, add this to my calendar, it does it and it does it in one-fifth or tenth the amount of time that Apple takes, and Apple gets it wrong every time. It's a piece of garbage. It's a disgrace. Disgracead, Apple. Gavin Baker (00:58:18): Apple Intelligence is even worse than Copilot, which is saying something. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:22): Jason, would you like to announce you bought the domain? Jason Calacanis (00:58:27): Discratiad.com. I own it. I'm not selling it. Right now, it redirects to Jake Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:33): Paul. Gavin. Gavin. Jason Calacanis (00:58:35): Do you have any David Friedberg (00:58:35): It redirects to Jake Paul. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:36): What word he's even saying when he says that? Jason Calacanis (00:58:39): Discratiad. Discratiad. It's discratiad is what people used to say in Brooklyn for somebody who is disgraceful. It is Italian American slang. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:51): How do you spell it? Jason Calacanis (00:58:52): Hold on. I gotta I don't even know. Do you not Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:54): even know? You own the domain. You don't even know. David Friedberg (00:58:57): D I s g r a z I a d, Disgratiad. Jason Calacanis (00:59:02): Yes. And if you type in discratiad, it goes to Jake Paul. I bought it when I was watching the Tyson fight. It was so disgraceful. I was saying to my brother, Josh, the black bomber, this is just this and he just said, D'Scratziod. And I just said, I wonder if that's available as a domain. I'm redirecting D'Scratziod right now, Tim Cook, to Apple Intelligence, the website. Gavin Baker (00:59:24): Do you guys think Tyson threw that fight that it was part of the deal? 1,000%. Jason Calacanis (00:59:29): Yes. David Friedberg (00:59:29): I so agree. Percent. Gavin Baker (00:59:30): I would love, I think somebody said Saudi Arabia was offering to host a remake, or whatever. Remake. A redo, a rematch, a rematch of the fight where the winner would make $50,000,000, and then we'll see what's what. Jason Calacanis (00:59:43): And the loser gets zero. Yes. Gavin Baker (00:59:44): And the loser gets zero. Jason Calacanis (00:59:45): This is a good use of the kingdom's money. The people wanna know we will all fly out there and do an All-In episode from the fight. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:53): Did you see this thing where is it Logan Paul is fighting Conor McGregor in India and Conor McGregor is gonna get $250,000,000? What? Yeah. It's like a whole is it boxing or Jason Calacanis (01:00:07): is it MMA? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:08): Stunt? I think it's boxing and it's meant to sort of like bring a bunch of tourists into India to show them the country. But it's a quarter of a billion dollars to Conor McGregor. Speaker 5 (01:00:17): How Jason Calacanis (01:00:18): do we get in on this grift? Friedberg versus Baker, Palihapitiya versus Calacanis. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:24): Oh my gosh. Jason Calacanis (01:00:25): We need to get in our own celebrity boxing. Who would we do? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:28): Come on. Keep going. David Friedberg (01:00:28): I gotta drive home. Let's go. Come on. Jason Calacanis (01:00:30): Too much fun this episode. Chamath, what's your most contrarian belief prediction for 2025? We're going out on a limb here. This is going out on a limb, folks. Don't judge us. The spicier the take, the better here. This is where you can go freestyle. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:44): I think that you're going to see a banking crisis in one of the major mainline banks. Jason Calacanis (01:00:50): A banking crisis. Wow. There is a small chance it happens, but that's a contrarian belief. Okay. Gavin Baker (01:00:57): Why, Chamath? Why? Jason Calacanis (01:00:58): For what? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:00): Well, I think if I had to kind of build the case for this, it would be along the following lines. If you add it up, the total indebtedness of Pax America, which is U.S. government debt plus corporates, plus mortgage debt, and you actually sensitize it to rates that are around, call it 5%. What you quickly realize is on a dollar basis that because the amount of debt that we have has just massively exploded, that 5% rates today on 70-odd trillion dollars is actually equivalent to 10% rates 25 or 30 years ago because we only had a fraction of that debt on a dollar basis. And so the pain that you feel at 5 or 6 percent can very quickly ripple through the economy the way that it did when rates 25 or 30 years ago were 10%. And so I think that when people look at rates, they forget the actual total dollar impact because when somebody or collectively, when we have to come up with 3 or 4 trillion dollars, how do you do that? And so I think that there is a non-trivial risk. I think it's small. This is why it's contrarian, but I think it's a risk where if you have a mark-to-market problem, if you have a credit default problem amongst the corporates or amongst enough individual consumers, what I think that happens more than anything else is that it triggers a reserve issue. And I think that the reserve issue in one of these mainline banks, I have two that I think are more obvious than others, but I don't wanna name them. Jason Calacanis (01:03:01): Okay. Fair enough. I love this contrarian take. This is great. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:05): I think that there's a small but reasonable chance that that happens. Jason Calacanis (01:03:09): I love it. It's a great, great contrarian take. Small chance, but big impact. Gavin, what do you got? Gavin Baker (01:03:14): Well, first of all, we use Gemini deep research to, just ask it to look at the total, you know, Pax Americana debt outstanding, apply the current market interest rate to it, and then look at that, you know, interest expense relative to GDP and generate that chart over time, that would be a cool chart. That would be interesting. I don't I I don't I don't disagree with Chamath. You know, any anything is possible, and, you know, there there could for sure be be a problem at a big bank. I don't know that I would say it's likely, but, you know, anything is possible. My most contrarian belief is I think that America at some point over the next four years will print at least one year of greater than 5% GDP growth, real GDP growth. I think productivity is gonna go vertical because of AI and deregulation. Jason Calacanis (01:04:13): And I Gavin Baker (01:04:13): think there could be a world where this is the late nineties. And it doesn't sound like a big difference, you know, 5 or 6% versus 2 or 3%, but it is a massive difference. You know, at 5 or 6%, you know, the economy is doubling. You'll call it every 12 years roughly. First 24 years at 3%. I mean, it's just it's a massive difference in terms of kind of the wealth of the country and individual Americans. As far as a specific prediction for '25, because I don't know when that will happen, I think you will see the frontier labs stop releasing their leading-edge models to prevent knowledge distillation and their IP effectively being stolen. You know, DeepSeek from China, it was really impressive, but it thinks it's Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:59): You know? Yeah. So I Gavin Baker (01:05:02): just think you will see the labs keep their best models in-house, distill them, and put small models out over time. Jason Calacanis (01:05:12): Fair break, do you have a contrarian belief? And I did put into Gemini Advanced 1.5 Pro with deep research the question: Which banks have the greatest chance of being insolvent or having a financial collapse or crisis? So it's doing its research right now. It'll be done in about 10 minutes, I think, which gives you an idea for how much research it does. It's nuts. Fred, what do you got? David Friedberg (01:05:31): I think that the party line is that socialism was defeated in this election cycle and that there was a resounding kind of vote from the American populace against socialism. And I actually think my contrarian belief is that we'll see a rise, a dramatic rise in socialist movements in 2025 in the United States. Jason Calacanis (01:05:54): Okay. David Friedberg (01:05:54): And I think that we are gonna see, as Gavin pointed out, an acceleration of progress. We're gonna see an unleashing of economic growth because of deregulation and AI. But I do think that some markets we've also talked about the downfall of U.S. auto manufacturing and some other industries. There's gonna be a real significant shift in 2025. Some industries and some companies are gonna be huge winners, and some companies are gonna be huge losers. There's gonna be some parts of the economy that are gonna be big winners and some parts of the economy that are gonna be big losers. When you have this sort of a change this fast, there are often large contingents of people that are left behind. And when that happens, I do think that the socialist policies and the socialist movements gain steam. When Perón came to power in Argentina in the mid-1940s, that country was experiencing 8% GDP growth to Gavin's point about accelerating growth. Growth does not mean that it benefits everyone equally. And I think that some folks will see people go from being billionaires to 100 billionaires to the world's first trillionaire, and it will also start to fuel this rise. So I think that we will see an increase in the breadth and depth of socialist movements in the United States. By the way, particularly with the government cutting funding to programs that benefit individuals, employment being cut in the federal government and through federal contractors, there's just a lot of rapid change that's about to kind of really upset a lot of people. Gavin Baker (01:07:20): I totally agree. I think AI, you know, people are fond of saying that when we're in a world of AGI or ASI, money will be meaningless. But for a short period of time, money will matter more than it's ever mattered before because the amount of money you can spend on AI, on test time compute, is going to give you a massive advantage whether you're a company or an individual. So I just think AI is going to really amplify inequality for some period of time. Yeah. I hope I'm wrong. Like, I hope, you know, AI leads to, you know, all sorts of, you know, opportunities being created for low-income people and beyond. David Friedberg (01:07:59): There's just gonna be a lot of employment and income disruption in 2025, and it's gonna fuel socialist movements. And I think that this is gonna be a more difficult year. Everyone thinks it's kind of rosy red because we're all working in the tech industry in Silicon Valley, but the reality on the ground for most Americans could be a lot harsher than any of us anticipate, and that could make for a very difficult political environment and social environment. Jason Calacanis (01:08:23): This is a great contrarian prediction, Friedberg. I would build on it that I don't think this is just gonna hit blue collar. I am seeing in the venture industry and in entrepreneurs all over the place, people who are super qualified, who had six-figure salaries, even to mid-six-figure salaries, not be able to find work or not find work at previous compensation levels. Why? Because people are doing more with less. It's much better to invest and do deep research in AI and automate stuff or deprecate stuff or delegate stuff to other regions than to hire Americans in some cases. And that philosophy that's happening isn't just gonna hit truck drivers. It's gonna hit developers, potentially, designers, writers, marketers, marketers, or Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:08): what you guys are saying? What's the contrarian part? Gavin Baker (01:09:11): Socialism. Socialism is gonna rise. Jason Calacanis (01:09:13): On the rise. Speaker 5 (01:09:15): I think Gavin Baker (01:09:15): it's pretty interesting. David Friedberg (01:09:16): Because I think you don't think it's contrarian? Jason Calacanis (01:09:18): You think it's obvious? David Friedberg (01:09:19): I think the party line has been that socialism was getting knocked back this year with this election cycle, and it was a mandate against socialism and some of the socialist policies that were being put forth. And I think that the contrarian view is that we actually got this really wrong, and socialism is gonna be on a big rise. Gavin Baker (01:09:37): But just to build on what you said earlier, like, wokeism and progressivism will decouple from socialism. I think wokeism and progressivism, you know, will be on a declining trend, but socialism in terms of the government Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:53): Like, policy situation. Role. Gavin Baker (01:09:54): Yeah. Ex yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:09:55): I think Gavin Baker (01:09:56): that's an interesting idea. Universal why Jason Calacanis (01:09:58): don't we have universal health care? Why don't we have pre-K or, you know, in every state and, you know, these kinds of things. I think Americans are right to ask those questions. Now other behaviors are obviously abhorrent, but you do have the right to ask why we can't figure this out and why our government has failed us in something as basic as, you know, providing after-school programs or universal health care or universal childcare. These things are easy to do. And when you see everybody getting rich and the polarization of wealth, I can understand people saying, why don't we have these basic things when other countries have them? It's a reasonable bond. David Friedberg (01:10:31): You're making the assumptive statement that these things are easy to do, which was what was said about education. It's like, let's give everyone access to college education with the federal student loan programs. And what happened was when we introduced those programs, those schools started to charge more, and the tuition went up every year. And, eventually, the cost of education inflated away from the benefit you were getting from it. And this has happened universally in health care. It has happened in housing. It has happened in education. It has happened in every market in the United States where the government has stepped in to provide capital to support that market. And the market basically no longer operates in a free way. Jason Calacanis (01:11:08): I appreciate the challenge to it, and I'll explain to you why I believe it's easy. If you just put this down to the states and you make it more competitive, I think you solve the problem. If you introduce school vouchers and you create competition, if you take universal healthcare and maybe you run some experiments where different states get that money from the federal government and let them run 50 different experiments. I think we could actually solve some of these problems, but you're correct. Anything that the federal government does, it eventually becomes corrupt and inefficient. My most contrarian belief was OpenAI loses its lead, loses its nonprofit to for-profit transition and becomes the No. 4 player in AI. The total collapse of OpenAI is my most contrarian prediction for 2025. David Friedberg (01:11:50): That's a good one. The total collapse Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:52): of OpenAI. Doubling and tripling down. Jason Calacanis (01:11:55): Hey, man. I'm trying to make this spicy. It's a spicy category. Let's do it. David Friedberg (01:11:59): I got it. Jason Calacanis (01:11:59): Jeff Bezos could still be Jeff Bezos David Friedberg (01:12:01): could still run for president, Jason Calacanis. Great. Jason Calacanis (01:12:03): I don't know. Everybody who all his friends left the company. Maybe he's great. Maybe he's a stand-up guy. I mean, everybody quit, but maybe he's David Friedberg (01:12:12): Gavin, are you familiar with Jason's prediction that Jeff Bezos is gonna run for president? That was my thing. Jason Calacanis (01:12:17): I was not predicting I wanted him to. I wanted him to. And he bought The Washington Post and he quit the Amazon job and he bought a house in Washington, D.C., and he went down to Mar-a-Lago. Don't be surprised if Bezos, after he gets through his midlife crisis and going to Coachella and partying and having a great time, which he deserves, if he comes back and says, you know what? I wanna serve my country. I still stand by the back of David Friedberg (01:12:40): The Washington Post, or do you think he's gonna hold on to it? Jason Calacanis (01:12:43): Well, let's stick with that one because that's one of my predictions. David Friedberg (01:12:46): Jeff Bezos will sell The Washington Post in 2025. That's a good PolyMarket. Jason Calacanis (01:12:50): Yeah. Sell it to Kara Swisher. Sell it to Kara Swisher. Yeah. They'll run it right into the ground. They'll double down. Okay. Best performing asset. Everybody loves this one. Best performing asset. Hey. We can we you can put a price on this. Best performing asset last year. Chamath did a spread trade. He was long public tech stocks, short private, late-stage tech stock index. Nasdaq top 100 tech stock ETF was up 10% in 2024. Friedberg, you went with your uranium ETF, not Uranus, uranium ETF, and your AURA was down 1% in 2024. I know. Sideways. You know what? David Friedberg (01:13:29): I've I looked at the components of that ETF last last week when we were preparing for this. Jason Calacanis (01:13:33): Mhmm. David Friedberg (01:13:33): It has absolute junk in it. Like, it was not the right way to kinda trade uranium. But, anyway, that was my outcome for the year. Jason Calacanis (01:13:45): I went with the on-demand economy with Uber, Airbnb, and DoorDash. Uber was up 30%, but now it's only up 3% with the robo-taxi headwind. Airbnb is basically flat, and DoorDash up big, 74%. Shout out to Stanley Tang. Great job to the team over there. So, Chamath, get your flowers there. Let's do our best performing asset. Let's let our guest go first. Gavin, what will be the best performing asset of 2025? Gavin Baker (01:14:09): I think the companies that make high-bandwidth memory, going back to we're gonna run out of compute. It's actually a pretty shocking stat. High-bandwidth memory is a bigger part of NVIDIA's cogs on GPUs than Taiwan Semi is. And today, there's two companies that can make it, Hynix and Micron. We'll see if Samsung gets their act together. But HBM memory, it's in NVIDIA GPUs, AMD GPUs, Amazon Trainiums. And particularly in a world of test time compute and inference being so important, high-bandwidth memory is arguably more important than it ever was, and it's been sold out for the last two years. So high-bandwidth memory would be my pick. Jason Calacanis (01:15:01): Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:02): Good pick. Jason Calacanis (01:15:03): Great pick. In fact, what do you got, Chamath? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:05): So let me preface this by saying that this is a pick that 92 times out of 100 goes to absolute zero. Jason Calacanis (01:15:17): Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:19): And six out of the remaining eight times you make 10 extra money and then the final two times you make anywhere between 100 to 1,000 extra money. Jason Calacanis (01:15:32): Okay. Sounds like a bit better. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:34): Okay. So this is a loser trade, okay? But I would be long CDS. So what am I buying? I am buying insurance. I'm buying insurance using credit default swaps. I'm buying what's called protection that there is no default event in 2025. Again, I'm not going to tell you which companies or what maturities, but just the general idea for me is I would like a little bit of an insurance policy in 2025 so that the men and the women that we have voted in have the chance to do their work in peace. I think that there is a small chance of some volatility next year. I hope it doesn't happen. I hope that this trade, like I said, 92 times out of 100, loses money. I hope it loses money, but if it hits, it will be the best performing asset of 2025. It will be the equivalent of Ackman buying CDS right at the beginning of the COVID crisis. Jason Calacanis (01:16:42): How does one buy those? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:44): You have to have an ISDA, you talk to the big investment banks and they'll price it out for you. But again, and I just want to be clear, this is not something I think will happen. It's not something I want to happen. But I do think that if you look back in terms of just the tonnage of dollars you can make and the massive risk asymmetry that it presents to you, when you look at the concentration of the S&P, when you look at just the total gross amount of debt that we have, when you look at rate spiking, all of these things say having a little insurance may not be a bad thing. So I hope I can hear you well. Gavin, you're nodding? Jason Calacanis (01:17:22): You wanna Speaker 5 (01:17:23): No. No. Gavin Baker (01:17:23): I was just I was just thinking. I mean, if you're if, you know, Chamath's prediction of a bank failure is true, you absolutely wanna own CDS. You know, I mean, you'll you'll forget a 100x. You'll do a 1000x, Jason Calacanis (01:17:36): What do you offer, Bert? David Friedberg (01:17:39): So I went with Chinese tech stocks, Chinese tech ETFs. Jason Calacanis (01:17:47): Wow. David Friedberg (01:17:47): I think that the market, everyone's kind of dumped Chinese tech stocks over the last couple of years. Everyone's taken this isolationist stance on positioning portfolios and saying, hey, we can't do business with China. It's over. But I do think that the Trump administration, particularly with their recent request on TikTok, the ban on TikTok being kind of halted, they're trying to line up what I would call kind of, like, the great deal with China. So I don't know anything about what they're actually trying to do. But I think that Trump and leadership in the U.S. government want to kind of open up the Chinese market to American companies in order to give Chinese companies access to the American market. And I think that they're going to get a deal done given the position with China. I think that they're very likely to kind of get a deal done. That's one driver. I think there are three drivers. The second driver is that, obviously, the cost of build-out of electricity production in China is unfathomable. They recently approved a $137 billion hydroelectric dam facility, which is going to add another, I think, couple hundred gigawatts of electricity production in that country, not to mention all the nuclear build-out we've talked about in the past. So the cost per kilowatt-hour is already lower. The amount of electricity available is going up. And then I think that the Chinese Communist Party has this incredible ability to throttle up and down free markets and entrepreneurship. And this is a moment where you could kind of see them making the throttle go the way towards enabling more innovation, more free market activity, and it's going to be one of the motivators for them to do a deal. So when you put all of this together, I do think that there are a lot of Chinese tech companies that have been beat up under the assumption that this is going to be a very difficult conflict with the U.S. in the years ahead. And I think that that may not be the case going into '25, and I think that these stocks are pretty cheap. I was just looking at Alibaba, and it trades at a pretty decent multiple. David Friedberg (01:19:35): It seems like these stocks could be poised for a pretty good run in '25 if the macro works out. Jason Calacanis (01:19:41): This feels like a contrarian take. I mean, Trump, I don't think is going to find a way to balance the relationship with China very well, and I don't think you can rattle up entrepreneurship after you cut everybody's knees out the last time. Plus, I don't trust any accounting statement coming out of China because they could fudge whatever they want. But, wow, what a great potential, you know, buy low, sell high. The good thing is you'll know if I'm right or David Friedberg (01:20:07): you'll know if I'm right or wrong in a year. Exactly. Jason Calacanis (01:20:09): We'll know exactly. That's right. Pull the ETF. Absolutely. I mean, Gavin, what do you think of this hot take here from Mr. Gavin Baker (01:20:16): Really cheap. I've had a, I would call it a no China guideline ever since the Longtop Financial fraud more than 15 years ago, where it's just amazing. It was, you know, a lot of great investors owned it, and, you know, they talked a great game, and they had a Western auditor. But then it turned out that the fraud was happening at the local post office, where they're opening up the documents that the local auditors had signed off on, changing them, and then sending different documents, you know, whatever, FedExing them. Yeah. So I just think it's a hard place if you're, I think, if you're not Chinese to make money. But I tend to agree with a lot of what David said. I think Trump and Xi both want a deal. I think there's a deal to be done that leaves Putin out in the cold, as I referenced. And if that happens, can't you bar the door? I mean, there are really, really high-quality companies, you know, that are some of them are mid-single-digit multiples. Jason Calacanis (01:21:21): And it's a big market. So if you did get it right and you do get it right David Friedberg (01:21:24): And by the way, the Chinese companies serve a global market. It's not just the U.S. They serve, you know, Africa, South America, I mean, the whole Southern Hemisphere. Jason Calacanis (01:21:34): Well, yeah, if you look at BYD, it's all over Europe. David Friedberg (01:21:38): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:21:38): Yeah. It's huge. David Friedberg (01:21:40): Look. I mean, the Chinese companies, and they have the best unit economics. They have the best cost of production. I mean, everything is advantaged. Particularly, if you believe it's the year of the robot, there's gonna be a kind of a massive demand around the world for automation and for rebuilding manufacturing capacity all over the world. And I think that China could service those markets more efficiently than any other kind of country of origin. So it's a pretty pretty powerful set of macro drivers as well. Jason Calacanis (01:22:10): I think the Magnificent 7 is gonna be the best performing asset. I'm taking the other side. Chamath, I think in an earlier prediction said maybe not so much. I think that what they've learned in the last couple years is that there is an incredible earnings expansion you can do by not hiring people and outsourcing jobs to other parts of the world and automating. And the gains we'll see from AI, which they're producing for other companies and for consumers, they're applying first internally. So the internal application of AI will allow these companies to have earnings growth that people will not be able to comprehend over the next couple of years. So I'm going with Magnificent 7. We got a lot of different takes here going different directions. What a great episode so far. Alright. Worst performing asset. Last year, Chamath said, late-stage tech stock index, MultiSaaS, Friedberg, you put into Brilliant, Spreadtrader, short vertical SaaS, long AI cloud providers. SaaS has had a little bit of a rebound, but Google up 36% for AI cloud. Microsoft, 14%, Amazon, 46%, all in 2024. I said LLM startups like OpenAI, Anthropic, too many players. Open sourcing will kill pricing. Obviously, the one valuation we can track is OpenAI, and it doubled. But I do think I'll long term have that one work. Worst performing asset of 2025, Gavin. Gavin Baker (01:23:35): Enterprise application software. David Friedberg (01:23:36): Okay. Gavin Baker (01:23:37): This is basically just a bet. My 2025 is gonna be, I think, the year of agents, particularly in the second half. Agents just being AI models that can take action on your behalf, that can do anything online that a human can do online. And if the labs and the big cloud providers dominate agents, which seems likely, going back to, you know, the low-cost producer is gonna win. Enterprise application software, I think, is gonna be in a lot of pain. And, you know, some of these companies are talking a big game about agents. But at the end of the day, they don't have their own models. They don't own their own compute, and I just don't see them being ultimate winners in the world of agents. You know? I could easily be wrong because they do, you know, they have some customer data, maybe a little bit of a data moat, and they do, you know, have strong customer relationships. But, you know, most companies have relationships with AWS, Google, or Microsoft as well. So I think enterprise application software will be in pain. Jason Calacanis (01:24:43): Okay. And Chamath, what do you got? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:47): I think Gavin just absolutely nailed it. I'm gonna double down on what he said. I think that there's a term that we will start to use more. I started to use it internally at 8090 over this last year in 2024, which is the software industrial complex. These are these large bloated, in many cases, enterprise software companies that effectively have convinced incredible numbers of organizations to spend a tremendous amount of money essentially wrapping a bunch of heuristics and business rules around a CRUD database. And along with that, what they have perfected really is a go-to-market and sales motion. The golf trips, the steak dinners, you know, we mentioned this before what Alex Karp railed against. None of those things equate to product value. And increasingly in the world of agentic software and AI, I think that you can rebuild a lot of these workflows in very efficient ways. Jason Calacanis (01:25:54): Mm-hmm. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:54): And I think the go-to-market is going to be driven by CEOs and CFOs who start to exert a little bit more pressure on their CIOs to manage spend. And in that world, I just think that these next-generation AI businesses are built, frankly, an order of magnitude cheaper than the companies that they compete against. And so even if it's just feature for feature the same, I think the software industrial complex, these old mainline traditional enterprise software companies, I think you're gonna start to see fissures in those businesses in 2025. So I agree with Gavin, different words, but same result. Jason Calacanis (01:26:34): And you put your time and money where your mouth is on this one. Eleven months ago, you founded 8090 to get 80% Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:41): The traction in less than a year to me is shocking. And I don't think it speaks necessarily I think we're decent. We're very good. We have great engineers. But my 30-person engineering team, I think, does the work of 300 people. By next year, it'll be doing the work of 3,000 people. Maybe it will only grow by 10 or 20%. And the reason is we use these tools. We're productive to an order of magnitude that I didn't think was possible. Mhmm. And as a result, we're just able to price it differently. So even if it's the exact same product, its cost structure is just meaningfully lower. And so this is what I mean where the ROI calculators get blown up. All of the traditional go-to-market motions get blown up because in an RFP or in any other sales environment, what you do is somebody says it's $100, and you show up and you say 10. Jason Calacanis (01:27:34): Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:34): And at 10, it's still hugely profitable for you. Gavin Baker (01:27:37): And just to add just one last thing is just, you know, fundamentally, these enterprise application software companies, the software industrial complex, and I agree with everything Chamath said. You know, they're fundamentally based on making white-collar human employees more efficient. And what the AI companies are gonna do is just say, hey. We're just gonna replace that worker. And it's just a fundamentally different mentality. Jason Calacanis (01:28:01): And this goes shift. Yeah. Gavin Baker (01:28:02): And it goes to, like, there may be a lot of pain that accompanies this and, you know, David's points around the, you know, potential rise of socialism. Jason Calacanis (01:28:11): What do you got for worst performing asset, Mister Friedberg? 2020 I'm David Friedberg (01:28:15): probably just gonna triple underline vertical SaaS again, proceed pricing model being challenged, pricing being compressed as companies explore in-house tools built with AI that replace these kind of traditional business practices. Yeah. Moats are gonna be destroyed. Gavin Baker (01:28:31): Yeah. Geez. This is where Jason Calacanis (01:28:32): this is where we're at right now. It was an obvious one on my list, but I wanna make a different one. I wanna make a different one. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:28:39): Oh, how about OpenAI? Do you have anything OpenAI really? Jason Calacanis (01:28:41): No. No. No. OpenAI is breaking up. Tell me why OpenAI talented people left. Yeah. But, you know, I don't know where they are. Where are all the other OpenAI employees? Are they on vacation? They're skiing too. Right? Gavin Baker (01:28:51): They've all started competitors. Jason Calacanis (01:28:53): Oh, right. That's what happened. Correct. Yeah. They all left to compete and have revenge startups. Wow. That's an interesting trend. Okay. So consumers make five big decisions in their life as we all know. College of staff and kids. David Friedberg (01:29:04): billion revenue. I mean Jason Calacanis (01:29:06): Well, that's that's a projection. Gavin Baker (01:29:08): But also $6 billion in losses too, David, against that $12 billion in revenue. Yeah. David Friedberg (01:29:13): Yeah. $6 billion this year or $6 billion next Gavin Baker (01:29:16): year? I think the $6 is for next year, but I Speaker 5 (01:29:19): Yeah. Gavin Baker (01:29:19): I don't know. I guess David Friedberg (01:29:20): it makes sense why they're trying to charge $200 a month now. Up from 20. Jason Calacanis (01:29:24): They got some headwinds. Okay. Listen. Consumers make five big decisions in their life. We know college, spouse, kids are the obvious ones. And then cars and homes. And the consumer is up against it with record debt. So since you can't trade college, spouse, or kids, really, I think legacy car companies and real estate are going to face continued headwinds and be terrible assets because, listen, we've overbuilt in some cases. There's tons of cars on lots, and people can't afford homes with these mortgages. So I think these are gonna be the two worst-performing asset people in the legacy OEMs, as Chamath pointed out in a previous prediction. And then I just think real estate is the same. If you look at a place like Texas, two years in a row, housing values have gone down. Rent has gone down two years in a row. The same thing's happening in other states where they allowed you to build, and people are leaving states where they don't allow you to build. So that's my worst-performing asset trade. Enterprise was my other choice, but I'll go with something slightly different. Most anticipated trend for 2025. Last year, Chamath, congratulations. You said last year that Bitcoin would hit 100k for the first time. Nailed it. Half-court shot. Well done. I think at the time you made that prediction, it was probably trading at it Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:33): felt like a layup. Jason Calacanis (01:30:34): Felt like a layup to you, up 112%. Friedberg, you said predictive models and AI-driven discovery in pharma and bioengineering. How did that do? That prediction? Well, there was a lot of funding, and David Friedberg (01:30:45): Demis won the Nobel Jason Calacanis (01:30:46): Prize. And Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:46): Nobel Prize. Yeah. David Friedberg (01:30:47): Yeah. So it worked out. Jason Calacanis (01:30:49): I picked efficiency in the form of AI advancements in labor and outsourcing, and I've seen that a bunch with our investment in Athena. Go to athenawow.com. Okay. Got my plug in there. Let's go for most anticipated 2025 trend. What do you got, Chamath? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:31:03): I think that there are a handful of, not to overuse and overuse the term, but canaries in the coal mine for the end of the deep state. And I would like to point to one, which is this obscure thing called the supplemental loss ratio. And, essentially, what it is is a mechanism that the banks can use to include or not include treasuries in how they calculate reserves, etc., etc. Now, why is this an interesting thing? It's not interesting for many people. It's very arcane. But if we are unable to manage the debt situation in 2025, I think what you're going to see is maneuvering at the edges of these arcane regulations that effectively kick the can down the road. And there is a chance that that could happen to help the banks because, you know, we believe that we, meaning collectively America, that maybe Doge won't be as effective as it needs to be, that there's still going to need to be, you know, $10, $20 trillion of debt issuance to refinance the $10 trillion that's maturing this year and to plug holes in the coming years. My point in all of this is we don't need to understand the details except that if we don't move the goalposts here, it is a great sign that the folks that are running the show are the ones that we all elected. Okay. So that is my most anticipated trend. Small, arcane, regulatory changes that allow us to kick the can down the road, stop in its tracks. This is an example. Jason Calacanis (01:32:56): Okay. Friedberg, you got a most anticipated trend for 2025? David Friedberg (01:32:58): My most anticipated trend is around the announcement of buildout of nuclear power in the United States in 2025 as a function of deregulation and some new technologies. I do think that this new government is gonna be much more accommodating. And it's gonna, as I've said in the past, I think it's a necessity just because of the rate at which we have to do power buildouts to meet kind of competitive demand against China. The United States is going to need to add more power electricity production capacity than we can scale up with any other renewable source. So I do believe that nuclear is an inevitability. I think that the deregulation will happen in '25. And I do know a lot of very smart people who are actually starting nuclear power companies and have left very good jobs to go and do this in anticipation of this happening in '25. So I'm very bullish. Jason Calacanis (01:33:54): That's an easy indicator for sure. When smart people do something with their time, that's a great indicator. Gavin, what do you got? Gavin Baker (01:34:01): I think AI and, Nick, I sent you a chart. I don't know if you could flash it up, but, I think AI is going to make more progress per quarter in 2025 than it did per year in '23 and '24. And the reason is just with, with '01 and '03. This is Arc AGI. It's designed. You know, we keep changing the goalposts for the Turing test and AGI. I'm sure we're gonna change it again as we're gonna blow through this. And I just think what has happened is we were scaling around 1 on one axis, which was pretraining, and then we started scaling around inference time compute. And it's very clear that we have now added a third axis of scaling performance, and that is reasoning. And what this is is these models the Internet is composed of answers, people giving answers. And what the models really benefit from is kind of the internal monologue of somebody getting to that answer. And this is, you know, in AI terms, they call it a reasoning trace. And it's one reason, you know, 18 months ago, everybody was like, oh, wow. The more code you train a model on, the better it does and all sorts of things that have seemingly nothing to do with code. But all code, you see kind of the reasoning, the internal monologue, the thought process, the step by step. And so what's happening is you're using models to generate synthetic data that contains these reasoning traces. So you ask a model, you know, solve this problem. It has to be a problem that is functionally verifiable that has an answer or we know the answer. And we say, show your work. And we have it do that many, many different ways and times. And then you pick the best ones, and you kinda feed those back into the model. You apply some reinforcement learning to it. And so now you're scaling along three axes that are multiplicative with each other. And I just I you know, a guy on the Google team tweeted maybe five days ago, it's gonna be a straight shot to ASI, artificial superintelligence. And I think that might be right. Gavin Baker (01:36:13): Ilya gave a talk at NeurIPS, Ilya Sutskever, one of kind of the original pioneers of this field. And he said something that I thought was scary, and he said, these models that reason are inherently unpredictable. So the best reasoning models in the world today are the ones that play games, the kind of AlphaGo, AlphaZero style models, and they are constantly making unpredictable moves that no human grandmaster ever could have come up with. And now these models are gonna be making similarly unpredictable leaps in all sorts of domains, which, you know, hopefully will be awesome, but, you know, it might not be. Jason Calacanis (01:36:53): Well, they're gonna go around corners that people might not have considered that are nonintuitive. And then just to circle back and do a little callback here, remember I asked which banks would have the biggest chance of being insolvent, or having financial collapse or crisis? Tons of misspellings in there as I typed it while we were talking. And you can see what deep my, deep research did here. It went and said, here's what we're gonna do. We're gonna research a bunch of websites and find a list of banks in the U.S., find top banks by U.S. by asset. For each one of these banks, find their latest financial savings. For each of these banks, find their capital adequacy ratios. For each of these banks, find their loan loss. You, you get the idea. And then it went and it analyzed, and then it created a report. This took about 10 minutes. And when you look, it created this final report here where it gave a list, Chamath, of JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, yada yada. It did an analysis of each one. And at the end, you can see all the different websites it pulled. It was well over 100 websites that it pulled. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:37:51): That's incredible. Jason Calacanis (01:37:52): Live data from 162 websites. And, you have to pay for this, but it's only $20 a month in its conclusion. This analysis has provided a snapshot of the financial health of some of the largest U.S. banks. While all banks face inherent risks, Citigroup and Wells Fargo appear to be the highest risk of insolvency or financial collapse compared to JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs. Citigroup's recent net loss, lower CET1 ratio, and high exposure. I mean, you start looking at this. Now I don't know how much of this is correct. I'm no expert on this, but it does seem like it's a pretty good start of where it's getting to. And if you haven't used 1.5 Pro with deep research, just go to gemini.google.com. I'm not being paid to say this. I just think it's the best product in the market, and it's pretty darn impressive. Okay. My most anticipated trend for 2025 was alluded to in an earlier prediction, I think, by Gavin himself. Mine is that exits in DPI, Showertown, and we'll have this incredible distribution as the wrath of Linacon ends and M&A and IPOs will surge. That is my prediction, my most anticipated trend. Okay. Let's go to most anticipated media. I had two that I was working back and forth from. James Gunn's DC Universe with Superman coming out this year, I think is gonna be amazing. Andor season two could be amazing. I predict they're gonna do a Clone Wars live-action series. If you don't know The Clone Wars, watch it with your kids. It's an amazing animated series that takes place during the prequels. But I went with a little of a weird choice here. I think my most anticipated media is seeing what happens with legacy media outlets owned by billionaires and/or people who no longer want to pick a side. Washington Post, CNN, and LA Times specifically are steering towards the middle and trying to get back to classic journalism. Jason Calacanis (01:39:42): The editors are revolting. Kara Swisher is upset, and they're adding some right-wing voices. It is going to be popcorn time for everybody. So enjoy whatever you wanna enjoy. Star Wars, I got a little Star Wars for you with Andor season two. I got a little Superman, or you can watch the chaos in the editorial newsrooms at Washington Post and LA Times. What do you got for most anticipated media, Chamath? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:40:06): It is the enormity of the files that are going to get declassified and released by the Trump administration. I think it's going to be unbelievably interesting, salacious, useful, good, earnest, all of the above. So the JFK files, the Epstein files, the Epstein Jason Calacanis (01:40:31): files, Diddy. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:40:32): Diddy files. Jason Calacanis (01:40:33): The moon landing. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:40:35): Who knows what they find across all of these other fringe, quote-unquote, conspiracy theories that may turn out actually to have some shred of truth. But all of that, let's call it content for lack of a better word, that gets released in 2025 by the Trump administration, I think will be incredibly interesting. Jason Calacanis (01:40:50): What do you got, Dave? Media. Any anticipated media for you? What do you got? David Friedberg (01:40:54): I'm into AI video games. The cost of production comes way down when you use AI and you can have dynamic storylines. You can have new gameplay concepts, things that don't exist today. I think that the creative talent plus the technical talent that you typically find at development houses can be kind of unleashed with tools that have come to market recently. We've seen a lot of generative video stuff. But there's also ways structurally that video games can kind of be rebuilt where the video game engine can run kind of locally. It can be generating parameters that can then use an existing rendering engine. So you can have entirely new storylines and entirely new kind of plot sequences. So I do think that there's gonna be a rewrite of video games in the video game industry with the variety of AI kind of capabilities that are hitting market now, and it's gonna be incredible. It's gonna be incredible entertainment. People are gonna—people that don't play video games are gonna find stuff that they're gonna love. Jason Calacanis (01:41:46): Gavin, most anticipated media, 2025. Gavin Baker (01:41:49): Unquestioned, 1923 season 2. I'm normally a science fiction kind of fantasy or, you know, spy kind of guy when it comes to TV. But 1883 and 1923 were the first TV shows that kind of hit me the way Game of Thrones did, and I'm crazy excited for that to come out. Jason Calacanis (01:42:09): Fantastic. Are you watching Land Man? I'm enjoying Land Man with Gavin Baker (01:42:12): the Broadway. Yet. I'm excited to try it. Jason Calacanis (01:42:14): It's quite fun. Quite fun. Turns out this Gavin Baker (01:42:16): guy, Taylor Sheridan, he's, I mean, it's incredible. He's in the zone. Jason Calacanis (01:42:22): I highly recommend Day of the Jackal. I know Chamath also loved Day of the Jackal. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:42:26): Oh, that was really good. That was really good. Jason Calacanis (01:42:28): That was a good JK suggestion for streaming. Gavin Baker (01:42:31): Yeah. I'm excited it was Day of the Jackal. Sicario yeah. Absolutely. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:42:35): What was their predictions for this last year? Jason Calacanis (01:42:38): Last year, Chamath predicted MrBeast, Friedberg, AI-generated news. I predicted Gladiator 2 and The Three-Body Problem. Gladiator 2 was mid, but okay. The Three-Body Problem, I didn't finish. So I guess mid. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:42:52): Jimmy's show on Amazon Prime, the MrBeast thing was the top unscripted drama in 140 of 180 countries. Wow. Jason Calacanis (01:43:02): Incredible. Alright. We're gonna do our prediction markets here. I'm gonna put up a prediction market, which is based upon immigration and the promise that Trump made to have 15 million people be deported from the country. I think in the first year, I'm gonna set the over under at 5% of that stated number, which is 750,000. So after one year in office, will Trump have deported 750,000 less or more? That's my first prediction. How are you gonna measure that? David Friedberg (01:43:35): You have to there has to be a, like, a source of truth on these things. Right? Jason Calacanis (01:43:38): We'll do it based on the White House's reporting of deportations. Gavin Baker (01:43:41): Yeah. It's reasonable. Jason Calacanis (01:43:43): And we'll check with the Polymarket team if there's a way to do that prediction market, obviously. But I think that was the biggest issue of the election, so I'm putting it up there with just 5% in the first year. Gavin Baker (01:43:52): You know, it is interesting. Obama deported, I think, more than 2 million people. It's like people have forgotten, but he was actually really, really tough on the border. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:44:01): Chamath, do you have a prediction market you wanna put up? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:44:03): The MAG 8 representation on the S&P 500 shrinks below 30%. David Friedberg (01:44:12): Oh, that's a good one. That's a good one. Jason Calacanis (01:44:15): So dispersion would happen to the other stocks. David Friedberg (01:44:17): That's a good one. Jason Calacanis (01:44:18): Less concentration. That's a good one. So we'll finalize these. You'll be able to go another market. David Friedberg (01:44:23): I wanted to kinda play with was Microsoft, AWS, and Google Cloud revenue growth. Who's gonna win in growth in 2025? I don't know how closely you guys track, but I get a sense that Google is kind of accelerating ahead. Gavin, I don't know how much you've Gavin Baker (01:44:38): spent on these three. I mean, Google is I I I would say they're a lot smaller, which makes it easier for them to grow faster. Yeah. Google. Can we talk about David Friedberg (01:44:52): yeah. I mean, I I guess, who has the largest gain dollar dollar gain in revenue in cloud revenue in 2025? Is it Google, Amazon, or Microsoft? Gavin Baker (01:45:04): Well, it probably won't be Google because if they had the largest dollar gain, it would mean they're growing at insane rates. But I think Azure versus AWS will be interesting. Jason Calacanis (01:45:15): Oh, I know the other one I want you to do, which was the national debt. The national debt has grown about $2 trillion per year in each of the previous two presidential administrations. Right? So over the last eight years, we've gone up over $16 trillion, $2 trillion per year average. So I'm gonna set it at and Trump said he would not increase the national debt. I'll just set it at the national debt increases $1 trillion in the next year over under. Speaker 5 (01:45:45): Is that Jason Calacanis (01:45:46): a good prediction of market? Or is it should be $2 David Friedberg (01:45:49): How Jason Calacanis (01:45:49): would you do it? David Friedberg (01:45:49): Yeah. So what I would do is I would set the federal debt for December the U.S. Treasury market report on federal debt in 2025. And I would set it at $37 trillion. And so you basically the U.S. Treasury market report 20 December 2025 above or below $37 trillion. It's gonna be above. I mean, let's just call it $38 trillion then. Jason Calacanis (01:46:12): Yeah. You wanna basically in order to make this when you set a line, Dave, it's gotta be one where people take either side of it. It can't be everybody takes it over. David Friedberg (01:46:21): We'll do the U.S. Treasury market report, December 2025, federal debt above $38 trillion or below Jason Calacanis (01:46:29): Perfect. Which would be how much added in the year? David Friedberg (01:46:31): About one and a half. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:46:33): Yeah. I love that. I love that. That's a perfect one. We'll see if he can make any he he can control the spending or if it'll just be the same. David Friedberg (01:46:39): Gavin, what's your sense on federal debt next year? Gavin Baker (01:46:41): I think like most things, it'll take, like, immigration will take time to get going. Yeah. It's just gonna take a little bit of time, but I think they will make progress. By the way, at some point, if I'm here on the All-In again, I wanna talk about UFOs and the drones. David Friedberg (01:46:58): Let's talk about it now. Jason Calacanis (01:46:59): Do it right now. Are you going full conspiracy theorist? Are you trying to get your seat here by being a little more Alex Jones? Do you believe those drones were aliens? What's going on? Gavin Baker (01:47:09): So I don't know, and I think it's very clear. If you look at all the, you know, statements from the New Jersey mayors and governors, you know, who've met with the police, the FBI, the Defense Department, that they don't know. Now, you know, Trump said someone in the government knows what they are. He also said he was not gonna go to Bedminster anytime soon, his resort there. I just think over the last, I'd say, eight years every 18 months, there's a big story in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, very credible media sources with dozens of interviews with fighter pilots and commercial pilots talking about seeing things with advanced sensors that made no sense to them. And then there's kind of a taboo that went away. There was an article in The New Yorker where they quoted from a bunch of people who were at, you know, kind of the the Skunk Works Laboratories in the 1950s and said they absolutely saw extraterrestrial materials that have been recovered from a crash. That's one reason the U.S. made such big leaps in material science. And, you know, there was the Oumuamua thing where essentially a lot of, you know, astronomers said, hey. This is this is clearly a UFO of some sort, including the head of astronomy at Harvard. And then just the conspiracy theory I would have is if these are actually UFOs and not, you know, government drones either from the United States or China. You know, it seems like the most likely explanation in New Jersey is it's some sort of a drill. And, obviously, once this hysteria gets going, people, you know, misidentify commercial airplanes as drones. And, like, why would UFOs have blinking green and red lights? But it's just interesting that there was, you know, a big concentration of these reports as we're scaling into nuclear technology, 1945 to 1960. Gavin Baker (01:49:20): And then now that AI is getting going, which is the next kind of technological phase shift for humanity, there's another big increase of reports. Great. Jason Calacanis (01:49:30): You could come back. Come back next week. You won. Congratulations. We have our winner for All-In Idol. Gavin is now the fourth bestie. I love this kind of conspiracy, but, I mean, come on. How do we make a Chamath Palihapitiya (01:49:43): Polymarket out of this framework? Jason Calacanis (01:49:44): I don't know that Gavin Baker (01:49:45): we made a Jason Calacanis (01:49:46): Sure, like, Gavin, Gavin, are there Chamath Palihapitiya (01:49:48): documents that you think Trump will release about the past in terms of UFOs? There must be just an entire spectrum of stuff that could be subject to FOIA if we went after it. No? Gavin Baker (01:50:00): Yeah. I mean, I think it depends how deeply it's classified, and, you know, I'm sure if the government doesn't want to give it up, they won't give it up. But, you know, there's all the, you know, there's all this. But Chamath Palihapitiya (01:50:11): You think but look. Let's be honest. You think that there are docs? Like, there's documentation that the U.S. government has that there are UFOs that there have been. We just can't explain it. Gavin Baker (01:50:23): Yeah. And, you know, they call it UAPs now to make it, you know, not flying saucers. But it just feels like something funny. Jason Calacanis (01:50:31): What percentage chance do you put on we have actual knowledge? On a percentage basis, what percentage chance do you put on the government, U.S. government, is sitting on knowledge of extraterrestrial? 20%. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:50:41): At least. Speaker 5 (01:50:42): For the Jason Calacanis (01:50:42): 20% from Chamath. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:50:43): What do Jason Calacanis (01:50:43): you say, Gavin? Gavin Baker (01:50:44): I would say 25. I would take the over on the 20. Jason Calacanis (01:50:47): Okay. Great. So you think there's a sig a non a a significant small chance that this is the case. Freeburg, sultan of science, what chance do you think there is this government sitting on some extraterrestrial life or proof of it? David Friedberg (01:51:01): It's a longer conversation. I don't have time for this, but I gotta be honest. I don't, I don't generally align with the idea that, like, our very narrow range of, like, understanding of technology and biology kind of is what visits us or would visit us. I think that there's an extension of information gathering Gavin Baker (01:51:25): that David Friedberg (01:51:25): doesn't require moving physical biological life forms from one part of the galaxy to another. So I think that the whole premise of, like, UFOs moving bodies around is rooted in the current state of technology of humanity, which is the basis of Arthur C. Clarke's treatment of "2001: A Space Odyssey," not which was done before the screenplay, which was done before the book. And the treatment which you can buy, I think highlights this the best, which is eventually every civilization reaches a sufficiently advanced level of technology that you no longer need to physically move the bodies of the biological organisms around, that you simply are gathering information and affecting information. Because once you have the ability to convert any molecule into any other molecule and you have access to sufficient energy, which you will eventually evolve to be able to do, you can basically turn your local part of the universe into anything you want it to turn into. And then you're simply gathering information from all over the rest of the universe. So I would argue that there doesn't really make a lot of basic sense in why alien bodies would wanna move around the galaxy. Jason Calacanis (01:52:29): I'm just saying it right now. If Trump releases information on extraterrestrial life, I'm voting for him to have a third term. I'm putting it out there. I'm going full MAGA. He gets a third term for me with changing the Constitution. Okay. This has been another amazing episode of the Chamath Palihapitiya (01:52:44): One last question for Gavin. Jason Calacanis (01:52:46): Oh, one last for Gavin. Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:52:48): Do you think extraterrestrial life built the pyramids? Is that the most plausible explanation to the accuracy? Gavin Baker (01:52:57): I don't know. It is so strange the way there are, you know, in so many, I would say, cultures all over the world pre you know, we are closer in time to Cleopatra than she was to the time of the Great Pyramids. Like, that was a long time ago. But it's just weird that in so many cultures all over the world, there are these depictions of what look like astronauts. And then there's all these Renaissance-era paintings that clearly show what we would call UFOs in the skies over cities. So I don't know. I just think it's I'm Jason Calacanis (01:53:36): with you. I love conspiracy, Gavin. This has been such this is just conspiracy Gavin's office. You're Chamath Palihapitiya (01:53:44): if you're, Jason, if you're a questioning person, these things create these weird, you know, open loops that it's a carton or a needle. Jason Calacanis (01:53:50): I think we're in a simulation. So I'm fully I'm fully vested in this. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:53:54): Yes. Anyway, Friedberg's gotta drive back. Jason Calacanis (01:53:55): Friedberg's driving home. I think the pyramids the best most credible thing I saw on the pyramids was that they used water and they raised water in channels. So they put them on wood slats or something, and then they would raise, like, in, like, the Panama Canal. They would do canals and float them up and then place them and then release the water, which, you know, sounds great to me. This has been another amazing episode of the All-In Podcast, and, thank you to everybody Chamath Palihapitiya (01:54:22): Let's have an amazing 2025 to everybody that's listening. Yeah. Let's all kick ass. Gavin Baker (01:54:27): Let's kick ass. 2025. Let's get it. Take Jason Calacanis (01:54:29): care. Alright. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:54:30): Bye bye, Stacy. Jason Calacanis (01:54:31): You all next time. Bye bye. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:54:32): Bye bye. Speaker 5 (01:54:35): We'll let your winners Jason Calacanis (01:54:36): ride. Rain Man David. And it said, we open-sourced it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, Wes. Speaker 5 (01:54:47): I, Queen of Quinoa. Besties are gone. 30. That is why I had a dog taking it. I wish you we should all just get a room and just have one big, huge dorky because they're Jason Calacanis (01:55:08): all just useless. It's like Speaker 5 (01:55:09): this, like, sexual tension that we just need to release somehow. Jason Calacanis (01:55:13): Let your, let your feet, let your feet. Where did you get murdered? I'm doing all this.