特朗普促成加沙和平协议、国民警卫队进驻芝加哥、OpenAI 与 AMD 合作、AI 回旋交易、金价大涨

Jason Calacanis (00:00:00): Alright, everybody. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. That's right. It's your favorite podcast. It's your podcaster's favorite podcast, the All In podcast. We're back, baby. Chamath Palinha Bhattia is here, our chairman, our dictator. How are doing, brother? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:19): Great. You? Jason Calacanis (00:00:21): Fantastic. You know, you put the Uber stock price and the Robinhood stock price together. $1.50? I'm annoying. 200? I'm insufferable. And $2.50, we just hit. I am off the reservation officially hopping the fence. So, yeah, life's good. Alright. With us again, David Sacks, the czar. David Sacks (00:00:45): By the way, what's the reason why your Robinhood stock is through the roof? Because of the crypto policies of the Trump administration. Jason Calacanis (00:00:51): Yeah. It's fair. Fair. It's half of it. David Sacks (00:00:53): That's why it's gone from, what is it, like, $3 to a $130,000,000,022. Jason Calacanis (00:00:59): I paid less than a penny for my shares, but, yes, it went from 13 David Sacks (00:01:03): Well, this is a typical liberal. You benefit from our policies, and then you trash them. Jason Calacanis (00:01:07): I'm a moderate, independent moderate. Here we go. Now it's it's starting already. It's gonna be a great weekend. I buckle up. And puts the namaste in your payday. Our fifth bestie is back. Brad, welcome home. Brad Gerstner (00:01:21): It's great to be here. Great to be here. I went out and got Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:23): a haircut. Welcome back. Into the fold. Jason Calacanis (00:01:25): Welcome back. Brad Gerstner (00:01:26): I got a haircut on the occasion. I mean, Jason. Jason, do you know how long it's been since I was last on this pod? Jason Calacanis (00:01:33): I don't know. I've invited you, like, 12 times, but I think the emails there's something going on with email. I didn't get any of my White House invitations. You didn't get any all in invitations. Brad Gerstner (00:01:41): Mean, it's been so long since it's been so long since I was on I this went back and listened. The last show I was on, we were still talking about how great Chamaz Fax were before they crashed the entire market, and he's already back. I mean, it was before Saxi Pooh saved the entire crypto industry from prison and certain bankruptcy. And, Jason, it was before you got so tilted with Democrats that you went completely off grid, moved to Texas, and bought a bunch of There Jason Calacanis (00:02:10): it is. Been a minute. It's a minute. Changed in a fortnight. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:14): My god. Jason Calacanis (00:02:15): Wow. Here we are. We're we're all back, we're having some fun. We'll have a little fun with our fifth bestie who's here. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:20): $5,000,000,000 drawdown for me between those memories and Jason Calacanis (00:02:25): Who's complaining? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:26): Who's counting? Jason Calacanis (00:02:27): Who's counting? Counting for a certain number? We gotta start off with the Israel Hamas ceasefire deal. Thanks to president Trump who announced it just yesterday. We tape on Thursdays. He announced it on Wednesday. You'll listen to this on Friday, hopefully. And he announced the first phase of a multistage peace deal. Notably, it was on the day after the two year anniversary of the horrific October seventh attacks, which led obviously to the invasion of Gaza. And this war has been particularly devastating for Gaza. Most of the region's been destroyed. 2,300,000 residents have been displaced. And according to the Gaza health ministry, which I know some people will debate, over sixty seven thousand Palestinians have been killed. The deal is based off of Trump's 20 peace plan, which the White House published last week, and the Israeli government will vote on the deal today, maybe even before the show comes out. Even with all this tragedy, something has gone tremendously right when it comes to these peace negotiations and the peace talks. So, Sacks, tell us what went so right here in those negotiations. David Sacks (00:03:49): I mean, right now, it looks like both sides have agreed to this deal. And the first phase of the deal is for there to be a ceasefire to end active fighting. It's gonna allow unrestricted aid into Gaza. It's gonna allow the release of all remaining Israeli hostages. And Israel's gonna release 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and start withdrawing Israeli troops. So that that is what apparently has been agreed to. And The Middle East has a way of disappointing you. Sometimes these deals don't stick, but based on everything we understand to be the case right now, this appears to be a big breakthrough in terms of the fighting will stop and all the hostages will be released. And I do think it is a big accomplishment by the president in terms of how this happened is because the president was willing to both cajole and coerce and use pressure with respect to both sides of the conflict. Longtime diplomat Aaron David Miller, who advised both Republican and Democrat administrations on Middle East peace negotiations for the last three decades, he said that, I'll quote here, Donald Trump has demonstrated a degree of will unlike any other president, Republican or Democrat. He has pressed an Israeli prime minister in a way that none of his predecessors have ever done on an issue that that prime minister considers vital to his political survival and the way he would define Israeli security requirements. So that was Aaron David Miller, who again was The US negotiator in Middle East peace negotiations for a quarter century. And in fact, he wrote a very interesting article in 2005 called Israel's Lawyer in which he was a little bit self critical of The US's previous efforts and his own efforts, saying that in the past, The US saw its role as being to represent Israel as opposed to being an objective negotiator. And he he critiqued The US's efforts, saying that we might be able to get more done if The US was perceived as more of an honest broker and perceived as willing to be a little bit more neutral in the negotiations. And I think what he seems to be saying here is that Trump was willing to do that. David Sacks (00:05:51): He was willing to pressure Netanyahu as well as Hamas. I mean, obviously, you saw in the last few days that he said that if Hamas did not agree to this, all hell would break loose. So he was willing to basically pressure both sides into accepting this deal. And you have to give him credit for it, for where things stand right now. And you are seeing it. It seems like virtually everyone's giving him credit, even the New York Times, even John Meacham was on MSNBC this morning giving president Trump credit for doing the seemingly impossible. The reason I say even John Meacham is because Meacham is frequently criticizing president Trump as being a fascist or having authoritarian tendencies, and even he had to acknowledge that Trump had pulled off the seemingly impossible here today. Jason Calacanis (00:06:31): Alright, Shammoth. Obviously, this is gonna have a pretty positive impact on the region. So as we look at, you know, if this does, and again, you know, we gotta be cautious here because as Sacks pointed out correctly, in The Middle East, you know, sometimes these things fall apart and they're delicate. But let's assume that this, peace deal does make its way to fruition. And we what is it gonna look like in the region post peace between these two nations? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:59): I mean, I don't know. So let's start with that. Nobody knows. Jason Calacanis (00:07:02): Nobody knows. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:03): I think it's been a very unpredictable place for a very long time. That being said, what is the rational thing that has to happen? I think that most of these countries are facing a very obvious problem, which is they have a resource that is becoming increasingly less valuable. That resource is oil. And so the practical reality is you want peace so that you can focus on the forward monetization of your reserves. So when that oil sits in the ground, the longer it sits in the ground, the less valuable it is to you because it doesn't actually add to your balance sheet. The faster you can monetize the oil, then the faster you can deploy it into other things, including services for your own citizens. Now the longer you wait to do that, the problem that we are seeing is that other solutions come around the corner. Eventually, in the ten or fifteen or twenty year time frame, you'll have an abundance of electrons from nuclear. In the meantime, you have an abundance of electrons from nat gas. You have an abundance of electrons, frankly, from solar. And all of these things will ultimately diminish the net long bid to oil. So if there's instability, you can't focus a 100% on monetization. If there's stability, then the entire focus needs to be on the monetization of of the oil asset. And I think that that's a very healthy thing because it starts to create market driven incentives that will only accelerate all the positive things that are happening. By the way, and the other thing I just wanna say, is personal, shout out to a friend of the pod, Jared Kushner. Ackman tweeted this, which I think is just so superb. But in one week, Jared did the largest LBO ever and then also helped negotiate Middle East peace. It's unbelievable. It's really incredible what these guys pulled off, and it allows that region to be a real pillar of what happens in the next fifty to a hundred years. Jason Calacanis (00:09:09): Alright. And I I think it's well said, Brad, that some stability in the region will help them with the transition from an oil based economy to what you and I learned in our trips there and some of them together that they're looking to transition to private equity, solar, renewables, AI, owning sports teams, venture capital, and so many and tourism, building new cities, all of that is hard to do. And then also getting investments. If people feel the region's unstable and or dangerous, you know, it's not a good place to invest capital. So let's let's keep pulling the string as to what the best case scenario is here if we have true stability in that region. Brad Gerstner (00:09:58): Well, I mean, you nailed it. The conditions for all of those things economic, right, our safety and security. You don't have any economic growth in the region unless you have that. You know, and I think you guys covered it pretty well, but maybe just highlight a broader feature, I think of this presidency. Right? I think we might call Trump, like, the moonshot presidency. If you think about everything he's trying to accomplish, even Hillary Clinton said, if he pulls off peace between Ukraine and Russia, which is also going on simultaneous to these efforts that she herself will nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize. Right? I look at the presidency, there are moonshots going on everywhere. China, AI, reindustrialization, India, Pakistan, Ukraine, you know, and Russia, what he's doing in The Middle East. And if you think about moonshots, we all do these in Silicon Valley. These are high risk, high reward efforts. We wanna back people who go for moonshots. But the reality is most people don't have the courage to go for moonshots because there's a high probability that it won't work. But if you think about this for a second, after the horror of the October seventh attacks, the chaos in Syria, the attacks by Yemen, the escalations fueled by Iran, the idea that the president, Witkoff, and you're right, Shammoth, our friend Jared Kushner, could have overcome all of that. Right? And that could have been all out war across the Middle East. It could have plunged the entire Middle East into utter chaos, but instead, he decapitated Iran. We brought Syria into the fold. We're on the verge of expanding the Abraham Accords, and now you have this historic signing. You know, we saw it with our own eyes when Saxe and I were over there on the president's visit. You know, he is respected as a strong leader and liked in every one of these capitals that you go to. You know? And it's paying off. If this happens, Witkoff, Kushner, and the president all deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Brad Gerstner (00:11:50): If even 80% of it works out, I think it's worthy of a peace prize. Jason Calacanis (00:11:55): Well, and not to mention, we're probably gonna have at least the rumors are that there could be a China deal coming up at the end of this month or into next month. And if we could resolve the issues with Taiwan, even something like strategic ambiguity. And if there's a chance of, Ukraine and Russia being settled, now you've got the trifecta. You know, you got the three biggest hotspots taken off the table. If you can get two of those, it'd be great for humanity. Polymarket showing a 90% chance, 90% chance that all Israeli hostages will be returned by the end of the month, which would be just tremendous. And then also getting aid to these poor people suffering in Gaza would also be nice to see. Anybody else have any thoughts as we as we move on to our next story? David Sacks (00:12:42): I'll just say that the funny part here is, to be said, there's anything funny about the story, watching the entire global left that's been demanding a ceasefire in Gaza for almost two years. They've suddenly gone strangely silent now that president Trump has seemingly engineered that ceasefire. And, I guess the the Nobel Committee is they are announcing this Friday. I do think that a record like this would absolutely win any other president the Nobel Prize or at least get a nomination. President Trump has ended seven wars in seven months before this one. This would be the eighth if he pulls it off. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:15): So Seven. Obama Obama won with nothing. David Sacks (00:13:19): Obama won just for being elected. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:21): He just got elected in Jason Calacanis (00:13:22): the back Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:22): of the Nobel Prize. It was just kind of like a gold star. Jason Calacanis (00:13:25): Yeah. Okay. Well, let's move on to our next topic. The National Guard has deployed troops into Chicago to protect ICE agents, and Portland might be next. Obviously, a bunch of protests have broken out in Chicago after a number of these ICE raids have occurred. And over the last month, DHS has been executing something called Operation Midway Blitz in the city. 800 illegal aliens have been arrested, and there was a notable raid on September 30 by border patrol and FBI agents in Chicago's South Shore neighborhood where 37 illegal aliens were arrested in an apartment complex. Wow. And this included flashbangs and a Black Hawk helicopter. Similar to what we saw in LA back in June, Trump has 500 national guard troops standing by from Illinois and Texas. And, in case any protests get out of hand, Trump says they are needed to protect ICE agents who are being targeted. Illinois governor JB Pritzker and Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson are obviously opposed to ICE actions, and they are calling Trump an authoritarian and, fighting for state rights in this regard. They filed a lawsuit to try to stop it and hearing is scheduled for Thursday. Obviously, the president had some losses in a number of these National Guard activities, and we can get into the details of those. Mayor Johnson also signed a couple of executive orders aimed at slowing down ICE agents. They've established some ICE free zones across the city that prohibit ICE agents from using any city owned property, and another one bans city employees from aiding ICE unless required by a criminal warrant. The White House called this a, quote, unquote, disgusting betrayal and said Johnson was prioritizing illegals over US citizens, your thoughts, sacks. David Sacks (00:15:19): Well, I think the place starts with the Democrat attitude towards crime. We've seen many examples this recently. You had the murder of that young Ukrainian woman, Irina, in a subway by DeCarlos Brown. He was arrested 14 times and still leftist judges and prosecutors refused to punish him or keep him off the streets. There was a testimony of Steven Federico before a congressional subcommittee who recounted how his daughter Logan was murdered by Alexander Dickey, a man with over 25 felony arrests in San Francisco. Here, you got leftists are still trying to get diversion for Troy McAllister who killed Hannah Abe and Elizabeth Platt on New Year's Eve twenty twenty. That was the case that activated all of us to get Chasse Boudin recalled successfully. So look, you have here so many examples of leftist prosecutors and judges and activists always trying to get repeat felons off, trying to get them diversion, never prosecuting them. They're in favor of zero bail. They've turned the jails into a revolving door. And that's why you see in places like Chicago or Washington, DC, enormous amounts of violent crime. Now in DC, the president had the ability to clean up the streets, to clean up the homeless encampments, make the streets safer. No one denied the feds had a right to go in, and they did, and there have been immediate positive results. Homicides and carjackings and so forth have fallen dramatically. Everyone who actually lives in DC is very happy about the situation. The restaurants are full again. People feel safe to go out. So the question is where else can the president basically help these cities and go in? In Memphis, they have been invited by the Republican governor to go in and help, and so they will. Now with Portland and Chicago, the problem here is that frankly, you've got mayors and governors who are opposed to doing anything about the crime problem. David Sacks (00:17:18): And moreover, they refuse to support ICE and DHS in their mission to enforce immigration laws. And then finally, you've got violent leftist protesters like Antifa who've taken to the streets, and they are trying to thwart deportations of violent aliens by ICE and DHS. In response to that, the president has sent somewhere between, I think, three hundred and five hundred national guardsmen to support ICE in Chicago. It's not a broad based mission to clean up the streets because, you know, we still have to figure out what the legal authority to do that is. They're just there to support ICE, and yet you see all this hysterical bluster and rhetoric by J. B. Pritzker and other Democrats basically claiming this authoritarian. It's not. It's a very limited operation to support ICE and DHS in their lawful mission to enforce immigration laws, and there's no question that the president has this authority. Both Eisenhower and JFK sent federal troops into the South to enforce federal desegregation laws. For example, when James Meredith was barred from attending Ole Miss, University of Mississippi, JFK sent in 30,000 federal troops to bust open the doors of Ole Miss. And by the way, they were not national guardsmen. These were the army. So presidents have sent in troops. They have sent in national guardsmen to enforce the law in American cities. He absolutely has the right and power to do this. But like I said, this is somewhere between three hundred and five hundred guardsmen sent to back up ICE who is being assaulted by violent protests and rioters by Antifa. And what you're seeing by the mainstream media and by liberals is an attempt to mischaracterize the situation. Jason Calacanis (00:18:57): Alright. Just to put some numbers on that for the DC National Guard being called out. Obviously, Trump and the president, whatever president is, clearly has the rights to do that for a certain period of time. And if you look at this Washington Post story, I'll send it to you for post. 61% of people said in DC, according to the Washington Post survey that the people in Washington DC said the military police present has made them feel less safe. 79% of people polled in DC. And the same survey said, they don't want the National Guard in the city. So there is a lot of conflicting data here, but overwhelmingly indecent. They Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:36): got data. That's an opinion. No. It's an emotional There's a survey. I can give you different survey. Data. What is the shrine data? David Sacks (00:19:42): If we're gonna do Jason Calacanis (00:19:42): surveys Yeah. Sure. David Sacks (00:19:44): There was a poll last week from TIP Insights, which showed that Trump What's Jason Calacanis (00:19:48): TIP Insights? I've never heard of it. David Sacks (00:19:50): T I p p. It's this was cited by Newsweek. I can put the link on the screen. Jason Calacanis (00:19:54): Okay. I never heard of it. David Sacks (00:19:56): Well, they're a pollster. Jason Calacanis (00:19:57): Well, Washington Post was the one I cited. Yeah. David Sacks (00:19:59): Well, okay. And I'm sure they're perfectly objective. Right? Next, you're gonna be quoting the New York Times to tell me how objective they are. Here's TIP, they're a pollster. These TIP insights show that Trump had a net positive rating among voters in cities 47 to 44, and that his numbers have improved recently. So look, I think this is tremendously popular with the citizens of these crime infested cities. We saw this with DC, that the locals, the residents, including among the black population, were very happy with the fact that Trump's in the National Guard and crime has been massively reduced. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:33): Sorry. Can I say something? You know why it's popular and it's working? Because of what West Moore did. West Moore is the perfect example of what I think a democrat governor should be doing, which is obviously he has to blather on with his anti Trump rhetoric, but what does he do behind the scenes? He sends in state troops, and he makes sure that there's a surge of policing in all of these crime ridden areas because he knows that the policy works. He just wants to get the credit for it, and he doesn't necessarily want somebody else to get the credit. This is where I think what's happening in Illinois is a bit of a head scratcher because if you see how badly run and how crime infested Chicago is and the state of Illinois is, why wouldn't J. B. Pritzker do what West Moore does? I think the honest thing that they should be doing is to recognize that the citizens on the ground in these places want to live in a safe and peaceful place. And with more policing and with more troops, it's just statistically true that crime comes down. And I think at the end of the day, probably the citizens of these places care less whether they're National Guards troops or whether they're state troops, but they just care that they're there. This is why I think asking emotional reactions to me doesn't make as much sense because I feel it's a very partisan way of opining on the person who gives you the resource. Because I suspect if you ask the exact same question inside of Baltimore to the state troops that were sent in by Westmore, a democrat, you'd probably get a different response. But the outcome is the same. Crime goes down. That's what everybody wants. Jason Calacanis (00:22:09): Brad, any concerns about the militarization in the country that is occurring from you? Brad Gerstner (00:22:15): Well, I think listen, nobody wants abusive tactics. But let me just give you some numbers that cause me to believe this feels more like, you know, a bipartisan issue. And we have kind of the pendulum swinging back more than, you know, something that should cause us concern. Court ordered removals and deportations averaged 200,000 per year, '19 97 to 2,000, that's under Clinton, 200,000 a year. They averaged 300,000 a year peaking at 400,000 under Obama. Right? Deportations plummeted under Biden. At the same time, we know that illegal crossings into this country kind of exploded higher. And now they estimate that Trump is back to the trend line of 300 to 400,000 illegal, you know, deportations and removals. These are court ordered removals. So I might have expected the Trump number to be way higher given that we just went through this massive step up in illegal crossings. But I think it's really important to point out that this has been a bipartisan consistent thing that has happened in this country for thirty years. I'm not talking about tactics exactly how it's going on, but the deportations have been going on by both parties and we never it hasn't been an issue before. And so it is curious that it is more of an issue now. And then the other thing I would just underscore is if you look at what Daniel Lurie is doing in the city of San Francisco, he is live blogging on Twitter and Instagram the arrest of a 100 fugitives per night. I think he's had three or four of these nights now in San Francisco to take these people off the street following a mayor that wouldn't even arrest people and no prosecutions because he understands as a Democrat, what citizens expect first is safety. They want the ability to walk their kids to school, to walk to dinner, to play in a park, and not have to worry about being safe. So I think, you know, I I would build on what Chamaz said. I think the smart Democrats are realizing this is a bipartisan issue. This is what people want. Brad Gerstner (00:24:19): It it it's not inconsistent with what, you know, presidents Obama and Clinton did in their administrations in terms of deportations. And so I don't think this is the hill that they wanna die on. Jay Cal, I'd love to hear your thoughts on on on what's going on with these deportations. Jason Calacanis (00:24:34): Well, I've been very vocal that I don't agree with the violent nature of the deportations and what ICE is doing. But obviously, I am very much since Saxe and I worked together on the ouster of Chesa Boudin, obviously, I care coming from a law enforcement family about law and order. I think it's super important and I obviously agree. But I want to level the conversation up a little bit and maybe talk a little bit about the President's approval ratings and how this all connects. So got I a couple of charts I'll share with you guys here, and I'll get your reactions. It's not pretty for Trump right now. His polling is at an all time low. It's worse than the last couple of seasons of the apprentice, in fact. And when you look at this chart here of Donald Trump's approval rating, you'll see there are four dips here, and this is the net approval rating. And you see his liberation day when he did the tariffs. Obviously, he went a little too far on the tariffs, and that was pretty shocking. Went down to a negative 10. That's taking his approval, minusing the disapproval, and that's how you get the net approval. Then the LA protests, remember the violent protests and the ICE agents chasing people down in fields, and Americans didn't like that either. Not releasing the Epstein files in July, another dip down to his lowest of his presidency, about 10%. And then now we're with the Chicago ICE raids and the violent nature of them, I believe, is the cause of this. And going on a little bit even from here, if you look at his wheelhouse, this is where Trump won the election. I think we all agree in the Trump two point o platform, which won a lot of moderates like myself. I know on this show, people like to say I'm a democrat. I've voted actually now republican almost exactly as much as I've voted democrat, and I am a strong moderate. Jason Calacanis (00:26:30): If you look at immigration, his net approval rating has plummeted from plus 10% down to minus about 5%. The economy, he's down 15%. He was up 5% at the start start. Trade, he's rebounded a little bit, and inflation, he's down 27%. And so this is his wheelhouse. And if you look at from Barry Weiss', you know, organization, CBS News, congratulations to Barry on her taking it over, and her sale to, the free press to CBS, only 17% of Americans believe Trump is making them better. This came out this week, and 58% don't want the National Guard in our cities. People oppose what Trump is doing right now, and he is at an all time low. So you have to ask yourself why. And, I think this is because he's drifted from the two point o policies. Closing the border, very popular. Lower taxes, no taxes on tips, extremely popular. Pro business, pro innovation. Thank you, Sachs. You're correct. This all is the best of Trump. Doge, reducing spending, the best of Trump, and relentlessly trying to stop wars and apparently on the cusp of succeeding with the one in Gaza right now. This is what Americans, including myself, moderates, really like about Trump. What don't we like about the Trump one point o platform? The violence of January 6, ICE agents and masks beating powerless, hardworking immigrants sending in the national guards. If you remember from the first administration, the kids in cages, the Muslim immigration ban, partying all the January 6 rioters who beat police savagely, trying to overturn election results. This is what people don't like. They don't like the chaos. And what Americans do love is they love the constitution. And, you know, they they love the rule of law. This is where he can do really well. 85% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the constitution, and 94% say it's really important to protect the liberty and freedom. And what these actions and when you see Pam Bondi and you see Stephen Miller, Trump's ratings go down. When you see Lutnick, you see Besson, you see Sachs, you see Elon and Doge, his approval ratings go up. And so I would like to lobby my friends who are in the administration or around it and the people I know in the administration should think through this because what's at stake is the midterms. Jason Calacanis (00:28:57): The Democrats are gonna shellac the Republicans in the midterms if this continues. Nobody wants this type of violence. Nobody wants to see people beaten. Nobody wants to see mothers thrown on the ground as their children are crying just because they came here twenty years ago, ten years ago when Republicans Republicans who were the biggest proponents of letting people in from Mexico to work here because we need a cheap labor. We, as Americans, have an obligation to these people who we brought into this country to treat them with compassion, and we're not doing that. And that's my little monologue here. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:32): You heard from Brad that the deportations have basically mean reverted. So do you think that there were the same category of people being deported before as in now and that there's just less press coverage and it was okay then and it's not okay now? Or just explain this idea of mean reversion and whether we're getting the same and right people out of the country that we've been doing for the last Jason Calacanis (00:29:55): weeks. So what you're seeing is many lawsuits now of people who are Americans or who are properly documented now suing ICE. Because the way they're pursuing this with their masks and just randomly going after people and racially profiling people is resulting in the wrong people being picked up. And that's really what I find the most offensive about it. I don't mind, obviously, the border being closed. I I said that many times here. I don't mind criminals being deported. I think that's a great idea. But I think we should look at the economics as is of this as well. We're spending $30,000,000,000 on ICE now. We've tripled the budget. We're spending a $100,000, Chamath, per person deported. Okay? That's a large number. If we simply find that 79 year old car wash owner $10,000 every time he hires, you know, an illegal alien, this would stop. There are much better ways to execute this. And so I have to ask myself, what is the intent of this violence? What is the intent of sending the National Guard in? Is it actually a pure intent of wanting safety and security? I don't believe that's all that's at work here. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:03): And then a follow-up question. What do you think is the difference between Wes Moore, the governor of Maryland, sending in state troops and Donald Trump, the president of The United States, sending in federal troops into a state to help diminish crime? Jason Calacanis (00:31:17): Yeah. It would be the constitution and The United States Of America, not a federal government ruling over all 50 states. The way this was set up by the founding fathers was that the states had rights, And amongst those rights is the security of the people in that state. It's a very rare situation where Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:36): Your issue or not your issue, but your diagnosis would be what Westmore is doing is right. JB should probably do that too. Jason Calacanis (00:31:44): I would even take it a little further. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:45): Is that what Jason Calacanis (00:31:45): you yeah. I I think actually the the best thing to do if Trump is intent on saying, hey. Crime's out of control in San Francisco, which we all experienced, and you guys continue to experience if you're if you're in the city. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:56): I don't live in the city. Find Jason Calacanis (00:31:58): this Right. You don't even tell me. But if people did go to the city, I think what I would do if I was the governor and say, you know what? We could use your help. And we're gonna call up the National Guard ourselves, and we could use some help in these 17 locations. We'd love to collaborate with you. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:11): So it's not an outcome thing for you. It's a procedural process that says it needs to go through a different pathway. Jason Calacanis (00:32:16): It's the violence and the cruelty of it that I object to, and it's the inefficiency in terms of the cost of it. I don't believe that mothers should be separated from their from their children or their father should be separated from their children. I don't believe it should be done in a brutal way and doesn't need to be. It could very easily be done with other tactics. And that is what I I take great offense to is both of those things, the inefficiency of it. And then also, I take offense to the derailing of the Trump two point o agenda, which I was in favor of. And I will call balls and strikes. When Trump tips back into those authoritarian tendencies, the the Trump one point o agenda that I've talked about, I'm not in favor of that. I don't like it. I would much prefer to see us be compassionate to immigrants. I would much rather see us take a softer hand and a path to these folks who've been here for twenty or thirty years. I'd see I'd like to see a path to them to become citizens because I think immigrate this country was built by immigrants for immigrants, and I believe we should continue that. But it should be legal immigration. And if people were here illegally because Republicans and Democrats who were super in favor of NAFTA wanted them here, we should take ownership of that and be kind and compassionate to them and give them a path. If they're not criminals, and if they pay their taxes, which almost universally they do, we should give them a path to citizenship. David Sacks (00:33:35): Alright. Well, the first thing I wanna do is point out that you mentioned that Doge was one of the most wonderful and popular things that president Trump did. And I agree that it was a great thing that he did, basically trying to streamline the government and make it efficient, but it was not popular. It had only a 35% approval rating while 57% disapproved. Why is that? Because the media pounded on Doge and Elon and turned him into a villain and tried to mischaracterize what he was trying to do and blamed him for every possible thing that was supposedly going wrong in the federal government. So look, obviously, polling is not always a great indicator even when it is accurate. And I remember when Ann Seltzer told us that Trump was gonna lose Iowa by 10. So obviously these pollsters often have no idea what they're talking about. In terms of the merits of this, you're completely ignoring the fact that there are lawless mobs who are the ones creating the violence. Not our law enforcement officers, not ICE, not DHS. In the city of Downtown Portland, for example, you have literal Antifa terrorists who are extremely organized, they're aggressive, and they're well funded. This is not just some sort of ragtag bunch. The White House uncovered a bunch of left wing NGOs who are funding Antifa along with other leftist protest groups. These NGOs have laundered over a $100,000,000 of our money to fund terrorist violence in our streets. Antifa even has a safe house near the epicenter of the unrest in Downtown Portland that local cops and local media know about, but nothing's being done. And it's this group that has basically terrorized Downtown Portland and led to violent assaults, not our law enforcement officers. But when this violence breaks out because of Antifa, then the media blames the Trump administration for it. So I'm not surprised that the polling reflects that because that that's what the media does. But look, the bottom line here is what is the policy that the Trump administration should pursue? David Sacks (00:35:36): And previous administrations have pursued deportations, and so has the Trump administration. I don't think you can have 10 to 15,000,000 illegal immigrants allowed during the Biden years, and then just say, there's gonna be an amnesty. I mean, what are we supposed to do? This situation was not created by Trump. It was created by Biden. They opened up the border. There were holes in the border walls. Millions of people streamed through. They were bust all over the country. Trump won on fixing that problem, and deportations were part of the mandate. Now he's doing it. Can't just be a one way ratchet. When the Republicans are in power, they close the border, and then when the Democrats are in power, they open it up, allow ten, fifteen million illegals in, and then we can do nothing about it when we take power. No. That's not the way this works. There has to be a correction to what Biden did, which was outrageous. And I remember plenty of liberals while that was going on, they were saying that the videos we saw on Fox News were cherry picked. They said that there was no real situation at the border. We were gaslit constantly about it. Whereas every single person who actually visited the border said the same thing, that it was outrageous that Biden had opened up the border, that people are streaming through. They were running through. And Trump won on a mandate of fixing this problem. And now that he is fixing it, what we have people do is claim that he's the source of the violence. No. Antifa and left wing rioters are the source of the violence. You don't see this violence in red cities, and you don't even see it in blue cities which have offered to cooperate with Trump, like Memphis or like DC. So when you see cooperation from these cities, they are actually cleaning them up. But in Chicago and in Portland, you have violent protesters, and that is the source of the problem. And the media can blame it all on Trump as much as they want, but fundamentally, that is what's going on. Jason Calacanis (00:37:25): Okay. Let's move on to our next topic. Anybody else? David Sacks (00:37:27): I'm surprised as someone who normally supports law enforcement that you're not backing these guys up. Jason Calacanis (00:37:33): Oh, I I support law enforcement. I do not think they should do it the way they're doing it. It's the violence. It's the cruelty that I object. David Sacks (00:37:41): Okay. Jason Calacanis (00:37:42): I don't mind people being held accountable for crossing the border. I don't mind the deportations. I do think Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:48): How do you think it should be done? J. Jason Calacanis (00:37:50): K. Yeah. So a very simple method would be if you went to people who are employing, and because the people who are here illegal are here to build a better life for their families and to live the American dream. That's why they're here. They're here to get a job and to have a better life for their children. If they are working illegally and so they're here. There's the most industrious people I've ever met in my life, immigrants, including the two of you. Most industrious people are the immigrants. We know that. And so a very simple way to do this, if you wanted to do it without cruelty and without burning a $100,000 per person is to go to where they're being employed. And if you saw this terrible video of a 79 year old man being tackled by two ICE agents, and he's suing the government for 50,000,000, that's not the way to do it. You go to that car wash. You say, I'd like to see a risk paper. Everybody runs. They show you the papers. Whichever person is not actually employed there legally and who doesn't have their papers, you give a $10,000 fine. And then you come back the next day, and you give a $20,000 fine. And if you did that, this would be incredibly effective, and you wouldn't have the brutality you have. Under no circumstances, and I've talked to many of my relatives who are cops and many of my friends, they look at what ICE is doing, and they see it as being unnecessarily brutal. All you have to do is go to where they're working and give the fines and then round people up who are, in fact, criminals. No problem with any gang members or any felons to be taken down and to sometimes you have to do that with force, obviously, if they're criminals. But for everybody else, we can do this compassionately, and we can do it much more efficiently. We could do it by just paying people to self deport, and we can increase that rate. And, actually, that actually has been working. The story hasn't been told yet. Jason Calacanis (00:39:35): I think we'll see that in the statistics that of the three or 400,000 people we wind up deporting, probably a third of them are gonna be people who self deported. And we'll we'll we'll share those statistics here as we go. But it's David Sacks (00:39:47): strictly I'll the just note that in DC. DC is the city where Trump was first able to basically get involved in trying to stop the crime because he was able to bring in the National Guard, and everyone understands the feds run DC, so he has a free hand. Have we seen any of the problems that we're talking about in DC? No, we haven't. It's calm. People can go out at night. They're going to restaurants again. The citizens are happy. Why? Because the things you're talking about are the result of violent Antifa protests in Chicago and Portland. Because the local politicians like J. B. Pritzker have an incentive to blame everything on Trump, and they've been turning a blind eye to these local gangs who are creating all the problems. Jason Calacanis (00:40:32): Yeah. We're in a strong agreement that Antifa, and I'll add to it, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, who brought tons of guns to the capital and who ran January 6. I agree with you. All of those radical organizations should be handled. We're in strong agreement. David Sacks (00:40:50): Just the that you're bringing up the non sequitur of January 6 tells me that you've lost this debate. Jason Calacanis (00:40:55): I'm not looking to to win a debate with you, Sax. I'm not in the debate club. But you can win whatever debate you want. I'm just giving my opinion. But the more and just to give a little nuance here, with the Doge thing, I agree that it was unpopular with the Libs. But what I what I was talking about was the moderates who won Trump the election this year, which you had a big part in, David. You you turned a lot of the moderates, you know, the fiscally conservative, but socially liberals in our community, the tech community. You you're directly responsible for that. I might argue this podcast and you and and Shamatha and your support of Trump and the two point o agenda was a big part of him getting elected. I've heard from people in and around the administration. They believe that that was a key part in their success this time. So when I say that the people were in support of Doge, I'm talking specifically about moderates and the people who backed the Trump two point o agenda just to clean that up. I do agree with you that yeah. But you can roll your eyes David Sacks (00:41:46): on that. Well, no. My my point is just Jason Calacanis (00:41:48): trying to win a debate with you. I'm just telling you my my opinion. David Sacks (00:41:50): Polls can give us interesting information, but they're also a snapshot in time. And what really matters is the results of the policies. And I think that if you look at DC hold on. You look at DC, just a couple of months ago before Trump went in, the left was basically shrieking hysterically that it was authoritarian, that it was fascist, and so forth and so on. They had all these arguments. It's been brutal to the population. Trump goes in there, and it's worked amazingly well. Jason Calacanis (00:42:13): I will let you have And the last David Sacks (00:42:15): I don't think we should be abandoning the poor populations of these inner cities to the predatory crime that they've been subjected to for decades, that their Democrat politicians have done absolutely nothing about. Quite frankly, these cities are something like ninety ten Democrat. If we can just make them seventy five twenty five, then I don't think Republicans will lose elections anymore. So I'm glad Trump is trying to do this. We've seen these examples over and over again. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:40): This is why Westmore is doing what he's doing. David Sacks (00:42:43): Exactly. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:43): I think the tactic works, and I think, Jason, we are moving away from whether the tactic works or not to who is trying to frame themselves to take the credit. And if you look at the democratic path to the presidency, we've heard this before, but Wes is sort of at the front of the line. And I think he's seen that this is the right place to be on this point. So I think it's like he doesn't want the success if it doesn't accrue to him. That's why he sent in state troops in Maryland into all the hotspots. I think what will be interesting is in three or four months from now when we see the incremental crime stats data and whether we see Wes wrap that up in a big bow and say, look what I did. And I think if you do see that, then I think what you will have seen is a successful policy that was co opted at the state level because they wanna take the credit for it. And Alright. You'll find an adequate number of journalists who will want to paint that as a, oh, wow. Look at this invention that has happened. But the artifact will be that Trump initiated and instigated it. Now if people copy it, that's a smart thing to do if it works. Jason Calacanis (00:43:53): Absolutely. You cannot deny that law and order is at the top of everybody's list in terms of just living a productive life. Alright. Next up on the agenda. Oh, bestie Brad, you're gonna love this one. AMD and OpenAI just closed a massive GPU deal. Could be worth 60,000,000,000 or more over the next five years. Obviously, two companies are are run by friends of the pod, Lisa from AMD and Sam from OpenAI, both been on the pod. AMD stock rocketed up 35% since the announcement. OpenAI committed to purchasing six gigawatts worth of AMD's next gen GPUs. A little bit of an interesting wrinkle here. AMD granted OpenAI warrants. K. That's interesting for up to a 160,000,000 shares or 10% of the companies. And with that massive increase in their stock price, Brad, I think this means that OpenAI is gonna get a lot of GPUs essentially for free. Big dialogue has started, Brad, around these round tripping, conflicted party transactions. Is that how some people would describe them, specifically the SEC? Do you have concerns about the AI trade and the amount of circulation of shares, GPUs, and cash that's going on right now? And I know you're in the thick of this. Brad Gerstner (00:45:14): Yeah. And and maybe before we get into round tripping and circular revenues, which I do wanna hit, I think it's super important that we talk about that. Let's just break down the deal a little bit because there's a lot and going I think it I think it's important we put context around it. So first, this is a bet the farm bet by Lisa Hsu. Right? She's given away 10% of the company if the compute gets deployed. She said a couple weeks ago, we're in year two of 10 of a compute build out across the country. So I I I have a couple of charts here. Why would she make a bet the farm bet, Jason? Right? That's an important question. NVIDIA just did a huge deal with OpenAI. They didn't give away any other company. In fact, they got the right to buy part of OpenAI. So look at this chart. This is pretty wild. Just in '22, in 2022, two and a half years ago, NVIDIA and AMD had basically the same revenue, $25,000,000,000. Right? This year, NVIDIA will do 10 x that at roughly, you know, 210, $230,000,000,000, and AMD will do 33,000,000,000. Right? Not much more than they were doing when the companies were tied in 2022. So NVIDIA's captured nearly a 100% of the incremental AI data center revenues over the course of the last two and a half years. And I think there's this notion that somehow NVIDIA just popped out this special AI chip. But I think if you listen to Jensen, understand, study the company, it's because they have this ecosystem of software and networking, extreme co design, the unit of compute is no longer the chip, right? It's the entire data center, which is composed of, you know, five to 10 different chips. Performance per watt, Right? Power being the constrained resource here is everything. And NVIDIA's just crushed the competition. So now put yourself in the shoes of Lisa. Right? Brad Gerstner (00:47:04): And she's clearly not on the wave. This tsunami has come, Jensen's riding it, he's capturing a 100% of the wave and she's not even yet on the wave. Her MI three fifty was just not competitive, and so they have one shot. Either the MI four fifty gets adopted and they get back into the game, right, or or they're out. She's a total warrior. I think she believes in the four fifty. She went to her board and she said, listen. This is we gotta take the shot here. We gotta bet the farm. If it works, she's gonna get a 150,000,000,000 of incremental revenue just from OpenAI, right, for building out five gigawatts. And on top of that, of course, it could unlock a lot of the other market because now it will have validated that they have a a chip that works. But it's far from a done deal, far from a conclusion whether the four fifty is gonna work. Can it compete against Vera Rubin? Can it compete against Rubin Ultra? All super important questions. So that's one you you know, that that's the AMD deal. Jason Calacanis (00:48:07): Why have we switched from saying, oh, Colossus bought, you know, x AI's data center a hundred thousand h one hundreds, February to now framing these in gigawatts? I think it's important for people to understand why that's now how deals are being framed just in the last three months has changed. Brad Gerstner (00:48:24): Yeah. I think I think there are a couple constraining features. Number one, chips change. Right? So a 100,000 h one hundreds is not, you know, is not apples for apples with the number of GB two hundreds, you know, Grace Blackwell two hundreds or GB three hundreds. And so it's hard to talk about them. You're comparing apples and oranges when you're comparing these data centers. So a unifying metric of compare, right, is the the the power that goes in. Everything starts with the power. It's the constrained resource. So we can compare a gigawatt of power because it's remember, it's power in and it's tokens out. And we can compare that over time and normalize across all these different chips. And it's not just these two companies. You got Tranium by Amazon, TPU by Google, Cerebrisk, Grok, etcetera. There are a lot of folks in this game. And so, again, I think what you saw this week in this flurry of announcements, right, is that you have the market leader that's basically captured 90 to a 100% of the incremental demand for the biggest thing the the data center and the chip market has ever seen, and every other player is looking at what they have to do to have a shot to capture part of this wave. They're high risk, high reward bets. The other thing I would say is and again, shut me up and anybody can jump in if they want to, but I wanna decompose. We're hearing these estimates of a 100 gigawatts, four to 5,000,000,000,000 of build out over the course of the next four years. If you look at that same chart I just showed you, that's not what Wall Street estimates are. Right? There is a lot of disbelief on Wall Street as to what's gonna get built out. So if you look at that estimate, you know, starting in 2027, it basically flatlines '27 through '29 for Nvidia. Right? Less than 10% CAGR in terms of the growth for Nvidia. Brad Gerstner (00:50:16): They have by 2029, them doing 360,000,000,000 in revenue compared to 210,000,000,000 of revenue this year. To put it in gigawatt perspectives, that means going from four to five gigs per year in '25 to nine gigs in '29. That's a big step up, but a long way from the 100 gigawatts you were hearing, you know, bantered about on CNBC this week. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:39): That's for a different reason. Nick, put this put this quote up there, which is this famous quote from Nathan Rothschild where he said, I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British empire, and I control the British money supply. Why is that quote so interesting as applied to AI? I think that what you're going to see, and you're seeing it in those revenue graphs, is that there is a traffic jam that's happening in growth where it won't be the ability to actually build next gen silicon, but it'll be the energy inputs that will constrain it, and it will be the ingredient inputs that constrain growth. And so the companies that then control those elements of the supply chain will actually come into power and rise to power. So what is one example of this? One example of this is when you look at the architecture of NVIDIA's chips, one of the things that they have made a huge bet on is HBM. And this is a memory structure. And what's so interesting about that is when you look at the HBM market, it is effectively NVIDIA who takes up the majority, the majority majority, and then Google. And now AMD's next architecture actually needs to sit on top of HBM. Now they're gonna have to go and step into that supply chain and try to ask for share. Where will that share come from? And this is where the people that then control that supply, SK Hynix and Samsung, will have leverage. Now this is what's interesting about a deal that OpenAI announced two or three weeks ago. Sam was in Korea, and you saw him shaking hands with SK Hynix and Samsung. And my initial thought then was why is OpenAI doing a deal with a memory maker? And then it occurred to me, wow. He's buying forward capacity on HBM because now he can allocate that share. So when I saw that deal and I saw that equity, it reminded me of this Rothschild quote. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:45): Sam has allocation, and now Sam can allocate allocation, and then as a result, get a tax. And I believe that the warrants and the equity are effectively that. What's a different example? Brad mentioned this before, but energy will be the gating item beyond a shadow of a doubt. And so if you control electrons, any form of electrons, hydrocarbon to electron, electron to electron, photon to electron, doesn't matter, you will then be in a position to start asking for equity upside participation in these companies in a way that you could never do before. You would just have been a linear member of the supply chain, a low margin participant. So when I look at where we are, I think that the really interesting question now is to ask what is the second and third order degree inputs that are critical to allowing the big foundational model makers to allowing NVIDIA, to allowing AMD, Broadcom to thrive? And that is where I would start to look because those that control those resources are going to dictate the pace and the scale of this AI expansion. Jason Calacanis (00:53:56): Okay. Coming around the horn here to you, our czar of AI, David Sacks. When you see this massive amount of deal making occurring, it's gotta warm your heart a bit. American exceptionalism at work here, people swinging for the fences. What's your take on Brad and Chamot's overview of where we're at here in the 2025 in the AI race? David Sacks (00:54:18): Yeah. I I don't really like to take sides on these deals for the obvious reason that we wanna be supportive of everybody and just have a healthy environment for competition. So as long as there's investment going on and as long as there's a lot of competition, those are good things. That's what we wanna see. So I tend to think this OpenAI AMD deal is evidence of that. There was the OpenAI NVIDIA deal. There was the NVIDIA xAI deal. There's just a ton of investment going on, and that's what we wanna see. That's all really good news. Was struck by Brad's chart about NVIDIA's revenue in the out years. The amount of CapEx or investments that go into data centers and compute more than a few years from now, I think that's really hard to predict. Jason Calacanis (00:55:01): Impossible, right? Yeah. David Sacks (00:55:03): Very hard. Because on the demand side of the compute, it's gonna depend on new applications that get created. So for example, the demand for tokens depends not just on AI chatbots, but on the new agents that are coming along. You have these new video generation models, Sora. Now XAI has just released something. So we don't really know what the demand for tokens is gonna be. I think it's gonna be huge. I think there's a lot of applications that haven't even been invented yet. We are in the very early stages are gonna drive demand. It's a little bit like in the early days of the internet. We had this .com bubble where everyone thought there had been too much fiber built out, And then all the fiber ended up being used because, you know, social networking came along, Facebook came along, YouTube came along. When all that original fiber in the nineties was built out, they didn't even know that photos and videos were gonna be a thing. So the bandwidth eventually all got used up. I think in a similar way, all of the compute will eventually get used up by new applications. I guess the thing we don't know is how much more efficient will the infrastructure get at producing these tokens. So that would be the offsetting factor is Yes. The chips are getting so much better. I mean, we're moving faster than Moore's Law here. Every year, NVIDIA is releasing a new generation of chips, and it's doing inference at multiple times the efficiency of the previous year on, I guess, a token per watt basis or whatever you wanna measure it. So that's an offsetting factor. And then there could be more efficiencies created in the model architectures with sparser architectures. So those will be offsetting factors as all the efficiencies we get. But then you have to, you know, if I'm kinda arguing with myself, then you've got the Jevons paradox, which is as the cost per token comes down more and more, that's gonna enable AI to be used in more and more context where previously it wasn't economically efficient, now it will be. So that's gonna fuel the demand. I mean, David David, I think it's a huge boom. David Sacks (00:57:03): Yeah. Brad Gerstner (00:57:03): Yeah. Your point is a your point is a great one. Everybody's looking for the bubble. Right? We've got this pattern recognition. Everybody's like, what? It's dark fiber. It's gotta be dark fiber. There's no way that you can 10 x your revenues at NVIDIA without it being, you know, a bubble. But the reality today is NVIDIA trades at a lower price to earnings multiple than it did when it was 200 a share. Think about what the term dark fiber means. We were laying fiber in the ground that remained dark. We did not have the demand for the fiber. There is not a dark GPU in the world today. There's not gonna be a dark GPU in the world next year. Jason Calacanis (00:57:38): There's no dark GPU. I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:40): don't think that's the question. I think the question is, what is the ROI on input and output tokens per use case? What is the ROI of a random use of a model? And I think that that is a very good question. How many of those tokens are generally gross margin negative? How many of those are unprofitable? How many of those are profitable? And I think that's what they're trying to ask when they ask that question. They may just not know the technical intricacies to ask it that way, but I think that's what people are trying to debate when they're trying to guess. And I don't think we totally yet know. Jason Calacanis (00:58:15): Just two things I wanted to add here. There are other solutions which have not yet hit the ground. I mentioned BitTensor. I think it's an open source project that's worth looking into. I started a little fund of my own with my own capital to start exploring this because there are gonna be other solutions that come to fill all of this Jebin's paradox that's happening. Chamak, your thoughts. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:36): Well, I think the thing to remember is token generation is this very complicated quadratic that just consumes a ton of power. Jason Calacanis (00:58:43): Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:44): And there really is no way to ignore the fact that even with more complicated capabilities, the models are becoming much more complicated. These context windows are getting longer or bigger. And so I just think that we are in this massive, massive capital race. And, unfortunately, I think what that will create is the need for all of these other things. Like, for example, there may be architectures where you just have to use SRAM because you can't get HBM. I don't think we know what that does to a whole bunch of these use cases today because it may just be completely unperforming. Separately, I think Meta was the one that published this. There's a big disconnect right now in the market around the failure rates of certain classes of hardware and not at the chip level, because at the chip level, these things are really performant. But at the server rack system level, these things are, you know, failing nine to 20% of the time. That's very complicated. How do you deal with all of that? And how do you deal with these cascading failures? All these things, because we are pushing the boundaries of physics, We're at, you know, two and three nanometer scale. Yields are good, not great. All of these things, I think, have to get worked up. Jason Calacanis (01:00:01): And that's what makes it such a great opportunity and so exciting, I think, Brad. Let's talk about the TAM. I've been working a bit on what is the TAM of this. And in the modern developed world, what we used to call the first world, you got about 500,000,000 business users. They spend on average, Brad, about $3,000 on SaaS products. So if you were to just put those numbers together, it it gets pretty large pretty quick. Trillions of dollars in revenue for those users. And if you look at consumers and just use an analogy, maybe Brad, I think that I'm interested if you think this is a valid one. Consumers pay for, you know, Netflix and Disney plus whatever it is, probably a couple $100 a year. So then you have a billion users in the developed world. I'm not counting frontier markets and the developing world. We're talking about a TAM that's gonna be a couple of trillion dollars a year, I think you would agree. So the build out of a trillion dollars doesn't seem as farcical if that is in fact the prize. And I think I've set the TAM very Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:00): low here. It's not a it's not a trillion. That's just the CapEx. Then you have to think of what the OpEx is. The OpEx is probably the same multiplied by the useful life, which is probably twenty years. So if you think there's a billion of CapEx going in, you have to expect that there's tens of CapEx going in. There's tens of trillions of OpEx over the useful life of all of this stuff. Upgrade cycles, people, power, water. So it's a much bigger spend than we think. So we have to be careful that we're not underestimating, frankly. Jason Calacanis (01:01:29): Absolutely. And then there's what the life of these are. Right, Brad? Like, what is the use for, like, Core Weave digs these things last four years? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:36): Well, they underwrite to six. They underwrite to six. Jason Calacanis (01:01:38): They're at six. Other people are saying four. So that seems a little challenge too. David Sacks (01:01:44): Here's a rule of thumb is that each gigawatt data center is about $50,000,000,000 of investment, roughly. Between the chips, the land power shell, it's about 50,000,000,000 per gigawatt. And you have, you know, OpenAI and Elon. They're talking about scaling to 10 gigawatt data centers. That's a $500,000,000,000 investment Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:06): I think that's right. David Sacks (01:02:07): Per data center if it gets that big. I mean, to be clear, they're still working on the one gigawatt data centers. But from there, they're gonna go to two or three gigawatts next year. And then from there, probably to five over the next couple of years. So you could get to a 10 gigawatt in, I don't know, probably five years, something like that. Brad's kinda convinced me that we should all be taking the over on this as he usually does. Jason Calacanis (01:02:28): Welcome home, Brad. We appreciate you. David Sacks (01:02:30): When I think about NVIDIA's market, I think the big question to me is, so I would bet the overall demand because I think that it's very hard to underwrite demand for applications that don't exist yet, but I'm confident they will be there. The thing I don't know about their business is whether the GPU market bifurcates between training and inference. I think everyone understands that NVIDIA has by far the best training chips, but there's a lot of competitors, including Chamathi or company Grok, and there's Cerebras, and obviously AMD wants to compete. And then obviously Huawei is kind of a wildcard there. We can talk about that. And then obviously I should mention all the ASICs that the big Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:11): AI companies are making. Yeah. David Sacks (01:03:13): So yeah, using broadcom IP, you've got the Google TPUs and, you know, Brad, you mentioned Trainium, is Amazon's chip, and I think OpenAI wants to develop their own chip. So I think the question is, given that inference will be 99% of the market and training's only 1%, could NVIDIA be in a situation where they've got training locked up? But when it comes to inference, there's just a lot of other alternatives because people have developed cheaper inference chips. I'm not saying that's gonna happen. To me, that would be the big question. Brad Gerstner (01:03:40): Well, I David Sacks (01:03:41): mean, listen. You know, I Brad Gerstner (01:03:43): think first, I go back to the point you made. We're at this critical juncture in a global AI race, and we should all be celebrating the fact that there is this level of investment going on in The United States. This is the definition of creative destruction. It won't all work, but the risk capital, the entrepreneurial boldness of Sam and NVIDIA and Lisa, this is what's going to keep us ahead in the global AI race. None of this would be happening if Washington had not unlocked power. Jensen said this on on my podcast or our podcast last week, you know, on this, we've unlocked power, we've unlocked capital, people are now able to underwrite to these deals. So first, I just think that this is incredible. We have this level of competition. In terms of NVIDIA's ability to stay ahead of of everybody else, listen. I think at the end of the day, it's power in and it's tokens out. It's perf per watt. If I've talked to many CFOs of hyperscalers and they said you could price the competitor chips at zero. Jensen said this publicly many times. Price the competitor chips at zero, and it's still more effective and economic decision to choose NVIDIA. And I think that's what it comes down to. They have to be at perf per watt because power is the constrained resource going back to what Chima said. Jason Calacanis (01:05:00): Okay. I want you to just give me a number, Brad. The total TAM of this in five years, what's the of in the modern world, what's the spend gonna be? Just think about that for Brad Gerstner (01:05:09): a second. Jason, I think you made a great point about about Total TAM. We see about a $100,000,000,000 already in incremental generative AI revenue in 2026. That has to grow to well over a trillion by 2030. If you look at it on a top downs basis, a $125,000,000,000,000 global GDP. If you get a 10% improvement in productivity, that's 12,000,000,000,000 a year of productivity improvements. If you get a 5%, that's 5 or 6,000,000,000,000. That's what's leading Masa and Sam and others to place these these heroic bets. Jason Calacanis (01:05:42): Okay. Great. We just have to lightning round this. Here is the round tripping discussion that people are obsessed with. NVIDIA at the center of this, a $4,500,000,000,000 company, largest company in the world. And as you can see here between x AI, OpenAI making language models, AMD, Intel, CoreWeave standing up data centers, you know, and so many other companies. Oracle's obviously in the mix with their cloud, Google with their cloud, Gemini. They have their own chips as well. What do we take away from what we all saw, Chamath and I, up close and personal with AOL and and their partnerships? And I guess I'll start with you here, Chamath. Is this analogous to the round tripping we saw on the .com era? Are these conflicted party transactions concerning to you at any level? Is CNBC and everybody hand wringing about this over their skis, or is it a legitimate concern? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:38): I'm not sure that they're framing the concern properly. There are a lot of industries where these things are standard practice and well accepted. One example that was explained to me this week was how the auto OEMs dealt with car dealers, their car dealer networks, where you would give what's called the floor loan, where if you're trying to sell a Ford f one fifty, you give your dealership a loan. They then buy the car. It pulls forward the revenue for Ford, then the dealer goes and sells the car to you, and, you know, they take the ARB, and they pay the financing cost. So this kind of stuff has been well established for a long time. So I think what I would rather ask is, where is the PCAOB expert that says this is not good? I just think that these are too complicated for me to understand. They get into the vagaries of accounting law. But I suspect that these companies are well advised, and I think that there are other industries that have been doing it for many years. And I think that if there was a real issue, it would have ex been exposed much sooner, quite honestly. Jason Calacanis (01:07:47): So PCAOB, public company accounting oversight board. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:52): Is that you're referring to? I I just think there there's just and by the way, there's all the quarterly regulatory filings that are required, all the Starbucks compliance that's required, the umpteen numbers of auditors that are looking at these things. I think it does come down to the fact that there are many industries that use this forward flow agreements, if you wanna call it, factoring flowing agreements, if you wanna call it that. And I just think that it's newer in our industry, but it's important to acknowledge that it's very well established in many other legacy industries. Jason Calacanis (01:08:20): And there's a lot of it all of a sudden. So I guess, Brad, the uniqueness to our industry is one piece, or I'll give it to you, Sax. The the uniqueness to our industry is one piece, and the number of these is just making people's heads spin a little bit and makes their mind wander, but conflicted party transactions have to be very well documented, you know, in SEC filings, etcetera, and and these are largely public companies. But go ahead, Sax. David Sacks (01:08:42): Well, look. These companies all have lots of very expensive lawyers and accountants. So I'm sure that from a, you know, gap standpoint or security standpoint or compliance standpoint, what they're doing is fine. Now when people talk about round tripping, if you wanna talk about the the spirit of it, the underlying concept behind it, I think what it comes down to is that NVIDIA is effectively extending credit to its buyers. Why do they need credit? Because this build out is so capital intensive. I mean, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:09): Every it's very model is quadratic. It gets worse. David Sacks (01:09:12): They're all running around the world looking for capital. There's a photo of Sam the other day. I I forgot what country he was in. Might have been UAE or Saudi or something. In any event, they're all looking for as much capital as they can get to fund this build out. And in certain cases, obviously, Nvidia is extending effectively credit in exchange for equity or whatever it may be. And I think the question you have to ask is simply, are these companies that are on the receiving end of this credit effectively creditworthy? In other words, will this investment yield economically viable results? Right? Because if, let's say, NVIDIA extends credit to OpenAI and then OpenAI then buys chips from NVIDIA, NVIDIA recognizes that as revenue. The question is, is there economic substance to that or is it basically a shell transaction? And my view on it is that there is substance to the transaction because there is downstream demand for AI in the applications that are eventually gonna get built and for the APIs that are being put out there, for basically the tokens that are being generated. I mean, Brad will have the exact numbers, but I think OpenAI's revenue ramp rate is at something like 5,000,000,000 to 25,000,000,000 to 100,000,000,000. Brad, can you tell us the years on that? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:26): I mean Brad Gerstner (01:10:26): I don't wanna get over my dis keys about what's been disclosed, but I think rumors Yeah. That there is a bit Yeah. They'll they'll they'll exit this year at over 20,000,000,000 run rate. I think there are a lot of people who think they could hit 50 next year and a hundred after that. So this, again, gets back to your point, David. There's no dark GPUs in the world today. The tokens are being consumed. Every consumer in the world wants answers. They don't wanna use 10 blue links. Every enterprise wants to deploy this to make their enterprise better. National sovereigns wanna do this in order to advance their military and other other things. I wanna come back to this very point. We should be on the lookout for sham transactions. When you have moments of excitement like this, they, of course, will lead to somebody on the edge doing stuff that is a sham. What's a sham? There's no economic substance. There's no end buyer for your product. So I call up Saks. I say, Saks, I I've got a bunch of inventory. Nobody wants to buy it. I'm gonna wire you a billion dollars, buy a billion dollars of my product. I'll post it to revenue, and we're good to go. It doesn't cost him anything, and I get to book a billion in revenue. Clearly a sham, clearly illegal, not at all what's occurring in the case with NVIDIA. Just put it in perspective. '25 through '27, NVIDIA will generate $450,000,000,000, half a trillion dollars of cash flow. What they're investing is mice nuts. They are making equity investments in companies that are mice nuts. It's not credit to these companies. The companies don't in the case of OpenAI, they don't even have to use NVIDIA chips. They just told the world they were gonna buy all this AMD. Right? They're rumored to be building their own chips. So the point of the matter here is, of course, it lubricates the system by making these investments, but they're tiny equity checks in these companies. I think about it this way. Brad Gerstner (01:12:10): You know, Google Capital is one of the biggest investors in Duolingo. Duolingo is one of the biggest advertisers on Google. Nobody's crying foul that Google is somehow round tripping revenue back into, you know, Google advertising. Right? So long as there is end demand for the product, and it's not a sham, I think these things are fine. Jason Calacanis (01:12:28): Alright, I think we'll leave it there. There's going to be a lot more news on this. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:33): But people love the picture of the plug plugging itself into its butt. Jason Calacanis (01:12:38): Or the or there's another one of a power strip plugged into the power strip. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:43): Can you find the plug plugging itself into the butt? Brad Gerstner (01:12:45): The elephant. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:46): Yeah. That that Jason Calacanis (01:12:47): that There it is. That's what we're talking about. Yes. I somehow I don't think the on off switch is gonna make a difference here, by the way. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:53): When I whenever I see this, I think, is it dangerous to do that? And then I remember, no. There's actually no electricity or current. No. It's good. But it it I always think that it is anyways. Jason Calacanis (01:13:03): I mean, I think the concern we'll have is if there's a downdraft, and right now they're saying, hey. 10 to 30% of a correction the next year is, you know, what people are buzzing about. And I guess it's always some percentage of a correction. If there's a correction, some stocks go down, the tide goes out, then we figure out who has a sustainable business and who's wearing shorts and who's not. And that's what happened exactly in the .com bubble. The tide went out. Amazon had enough revenue to continue. Other people did. And some people, maybe they were caught with no shorts in the ocean. David Sacks (01:13:36): Whenever you have a boom like this, there's obviously gonna be winners and losers, and there's gonna be a lot of losers. But the the question is whether the winners will pay off the the losers. That's what venture capital requires. But I just think it's amazing how much of a boom is going on. And I think Brad's made the argument that it hasn't even peaked yet. 40% of US GDP growth this year is AI. And AI companies have accounted for 80% of the gain in US stocks this year. I know a lot of people are wringing their hands and pointing to this as like evidence that somehow we're in a bubble. But to me, it's a wonderful thing that The US is on the forefront of building out this technological revolution and building out all of this infrastructure. And I think it's ultimately gonna pay huge dividends. Yep. And we just need to not screw it up. Jason Calacanis (01:14:20): Yeah. David Sacks (01:14:20): And there's just so many people who, I mean, to be honest, just wanna screw this up with excessive regulation at the state level, excessive regulation at the federal level. They want the bureaucracies in Washington to manage and approve everything. If we go down that path, we could sabotage this. If we just allow it to happen, if we allow the innovators to do what they do best, I think this is gonna drive four or 5% GDP growth for the next few years. It'll be a really wonderful thing. Jason Calacanis (01:14:47): I mean, it's a great place to wrap. And if only we had somebody who had decades of experience and had a really logical bent to them about free markets who could advise our president, we would be in great shape. Oh, wait. That shoe sucks. Good job. Alright, everybody. Gold rally is off the charts. Shout out to our friend Vinny Langham who told us about this from the last year or two. Jeez. It just broke 4,000 for the first time ever this week, up over 50% for the year. Gold's outpacing Bitcoin, which is up 30% itself, and all the other major indices. Nasdaq's up 19% in the same time period. S and P fourteen down 9%. Silver is surging even more than gold. There might be some utilization reasons for that. Silver gets used in a a lot of different components, whereas gold very rarely does. At the same time, the US dollar down 8% year to date. Here's a chart from our friends over at Visual Capitalist about gold versus US treasury, something we talked about here, US treasuries. Shammoth, you wanna take this, and then we'll go to Brad? What are we seeing here with gold? Or is this like a safety trade? Is this an anti USD trade? What what what's behind this? Too much money supply? What's happening? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:04): No. This is just people confusing correlation and causation and making stuff up to look smart. Why is gold up? Gold is up because there are many more net new buyers. Who is the most important net new buyer? It's Tether. Tether has been issuing a stablecoin called Tether Gold, where they'll actually custody the gold on your behalf, and it's the amount and volumes of it are rising. At the same time, central banks are rebalancing. And then yet at the same time, you have a lot of macro funds that have essentially decided that central banks aren't to be trusted, and they don't know what to do. And so they're not necessarily long bonds, they're not necessarily long currencies, and so they're long gold. So I think it's a mixture of things. There's no panacea explanation. But if you had to put it into a couple buckets, it's net new speculation, net new stablecoin related issuance, and a loss of confidence in central bank policy around the world. Jason Calacanis (01:16:58): And this is, in some ways a good backstop, Brad, for governments maybe to stop spending and maybe a little austerity. You called austerity in the tech industry in 2021. Thanks for that. I bought a bunch of stocks that went on on Facebook and a bunch of other ones when you were talking about this. So also China seems to be flipping into gold too. I've been reading about that. So what's your take, Brad? Brad Gerstner (01:17:23): Yeah, I mean, listen, there's one there's one camp that says this is all because the world's falling apart. And we're all panicked about global governments, balance sheets. I think that's part of it, but I think Chamath nailed it. Right? You got a total of change in the new demand picture for gold. Right? As evidenced by you know, we have a Bitcoin of gold, BTC, you know, Bitcoin, but we also have it in the form of Tether. Right? You're now going to allow people to have exposure to the actual underlying gold by buying a crypto asset. So you have new demand for it. You do have people concerned about the state of the world, but it's always been a speculative asset plus a store of value. Right? And I've got a couple charts here. You can throw them up if you want. One is simply looking at the correlation with the S and P 500 over the last ten years, and the other one's looking at it with US debt. And I I I it's probably chart crime. I'll go back to what Chumha said. I can make up any story I wanna make. It tracks the the growth in US debt. It tracks the growth in risk assets in the S and P 500. The fact of the matter is it's a combination of all of these things, and hats off to the people who are up 50% this year on gold. Jason Calacanis (01:18:27): Alright. Is that simple, Sax? Anything you wanna add? David Sacks (01:18:30): There is one other big factor. I mean, maybe Chamath mentioned this, but China's central bank has been increasing its gold reserves for eleven consecutive months. They added 40,000 ounces in September alone. As of the September, China's gold reserves totaled 74,000,000 ounces valued at 283,000,000,000. So they've been gradually substituting away from US dollars, US treasuries towards gold. And I, you know, some of this is geopolitical. China's our chief competitor in the world. They probably don't wanna be dependent on the dollar and US treasuries, so they're diversifying away. Also, you can't forget that this trend really started during the Biden administration with the Ukraine war because the Biden administration used the US dollar as basically a geopolitical weapon. They cut off access to SWIFT. They froze Russian assets in the banking system. And so a lot of countries looked at that and go, oh geez, you know, if I am totally reliant on the US dollar complex, then I can be on the receiving end of US foreign policy that I don't like. And so it was, I think, pretty natural that the BRICS countries would look at that and start to develop alternatives. And just by the way, when the BRICS talk about this currency that they're gonna develop, they're not talking about a man on the street type of currency. The best guess about what they're gonna do is it'll be some sort of gold backed certificates where they can settle up huge international trade flows using gold certificates. So that might be part of what's driving this as well. That's a very long term project by the BRICS countries. I don't think we're gonna see anything in the next few years. Jason Calacanis (01:20:06): And that's, SACS, their way of sending a message to The US. Hey. Don't use USD to yank our chain. Yeah? Is that your interpretation? David Sacks (01:20:14): Well, I don't know if they're trying to send the message or they just don't wanna take that risk. Right. They understand that if they're part of the US dollar complex, then they can be affected by things like cutting off SWIFT, by sanction, by banking sanctions, their assets in theory could be seized and so forth and so on. So obviously, they're gonna try and reduce the possibility of that externality. Jason Calacanis (01:20:36): Yep. Makes total sense. Alright. Let's wrap on Polymarket. My guy, Shane, friend of the pod, announced that the New York Stock Exchange's parent company, ICE, a different ICE, Intercontinental Exchange, had invested 2,000,000,000 at a 9,000,000,000 post or somewhere in that range. They will now distribute Polymarket's data to thousands of financial institutions globally. And it looks like Polymarket will be launched in The US imminently. There's actually a Polymarket for Polymarket being available in The US for trades. Polymarket was only founded in 2020. They were valued at twin at 350,000,000 last year before the election and 1,200,000,000.0 earlier this year. Founders Fund made a nice investment that turned out to be a pretty great trade. 98% chance now that poly market will go live in The US in 2025. I think that's found money right there. I mean, I mean, place a bet there. Shama, your thoughts on this new category and why it's so important for it to exist. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:43): I talked to Jeff Sprecher the day he did the investment just to congratulate him. One of the things that he said, which I think is true, everything is becoming a market. And you're gonna see this convergence where eventually you'll have sports that look like markets. You'll have knowledge that becomes a market, and then you'll ultimately have equities and debt instruments also behave this way. Meaning, they'll be tokenized. They'll be very fungible. You can just take a long or short position on almost anything. And so I think you're gonna see this convergence. What does it mean? I don't know. But it puts a lot of really interesting assets under the microscope. If you built, like, a high frequency trading organization, what does it mean when all of a sudden some crypto pool shows up and it can do HFT much faster than you and basically chops the cost to zero because you don't have an infrastructure and a corporate org. What is it gonna mean to the betting sites like FanDuel and DraftKings where now a bunch of these trades can happen here as well? So I think what Shane is leading the charge on is democratizing this and financializing all this infrastructure to run extremely liquidly via tokens effectively on chains, and I think that that is a huge deal, broadly speaking. Jason Calacanis (01:22:59): Yeah. I'm I'm loving this for the Oscars, and I was just thinking, wow. If you're a movie studio and you're releasing a film and you if these markets become big enough, you could hedge your bet on your own film. I mean, this could have profound impacts on every industry. Yeah, Brad? How do you think about it as somebody who trades? Brad Gerstner (01:23:19): I just love the fact we now professionalize the wisdom of the crowds. I mean, we've known for a hundred and fifty years that crowds are smarter than experts. And all these people hanging out in ivory towers controlling the conversation. Now the those emperors have no clothes. Right? The reality is, I think it was this guy Francis Galton who coined the phrase nineteen o seven. He got a group of 800 farmers together. They had to guess the weight of an ox, and then he had five experts. And guess what? The crowd got a a lot closer than the experts to the weight of the ox. And here we are 150 later, and you're gonna have, you know, very, very big companies, right, that are now taking it to the next level, creating liquidity. And when people put money on something, the crowd gets even smarter. So it's a, you know, kudos to you guys, you really your partnership with them, you've taken them to a higher level, and it's awesome to see. Jason Calacanis (01:24:09): It's just a great great lesson for entrepreneurs. There was a website in trade. I don't know if you guys remember that from, like, the early two thousands into, like, the 2010 that was doing this. They had regulatory issues, but the idea was out there, and people just didn't go all in on it, so to speak. And here we are. Shane has crushed it. Another amazing, respectful, fascinating, insightful episode of podcast. Welcome home, fifth bestie, Brad Gerstner. Go check out his other pod, b g two. Great to have Brad back in the mix. Brad Gerstner (01:24:44): It's great to be chopping it up with you. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:46): We have to get Brad and Friedberg on the same pod. Oh, yeah. Let's do it. What do David Sacks (01:24:51): people prefer? A science corner or a market corner? Jason Calacanis (01:24:55): Oh, you're Brad Gerstner (01:24:56): you know Jason Calacanis (01:24:57): what mean? David Sacks (01:24:57): In the comments. Tell us in the comments. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:00): I will allocate my two votes, I can tell you. Wow. Jason Calacanis (01:25:04): Freeburg taking a stray. He's not even here. What? David Sacks (01:25:08): He's not even I'm just Jason Calacanis (01:25:09): No. You're just he's wondering out loud. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:11): Yeah. You're wondering out loud. Jason Calacanis (01:25:12): Corner. You I mean, maybe there's an asteroid coming, or we could talk about the markets and have great charts. I don't know. Anything's possible on the world's number one podcast. Your favorite your podcaster's favorite podcast, the All pod. We'll see you all very soon. Allin.com. Sign up for a email and get special information on what Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:33): we're on all your success, Jason. Congratulations. Jason Calacanis (01:25:36): What success are we talking about here, Richard? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:38): On behalf of the Trump administration, congratulations on this. Jason Calacanis (01:25:41): You. Well, I hope that's a good David Sacks (01:25:42): trip driven success. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:43): Congratulations. Jason Calacanis (01:25:44): Absolutely. Yes. And Trump two point o. David Sacks (01:25:46): What else can we do for you? Jason Calacanis (01:25:47): Well, yeah, I want to bring that David Sacks (01:25:48): up with the cancer. What other stocks can we can we push Actually, for Jason Calacanis (01:25:52): I do have one thing. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:53): Do you do you have another gaggle? Jason Calacanis (01:25:54): Laws. That would be a big one for me. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:56): You'd like to loop into this conversation. What other people I would you Jason Calacanis (01:25:59): call balls and strikes here. It's a very important role here Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:02): to have steelmen. You know what I've noticed? Jason Calacanis (01:26:03): Man of steel is here. The people is a steelman. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:06): The people that constantly say they call balls and strikes are never the ones that call balls and strikes. Jason Calacanis (01:26:10): I got my eyes on your balls, Jermoth. David Sacks (01:26:12): Don't listen to what they say. Just look at what they do. Exactly. Jason Calacanis (01:26:15): Yeah. Welcome to Texas. Come by the ranch anytime. David Sacks (01:26:17): Welcome to Texas. Exactly. Jason Calacanis (01:26:19): I have the great state Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:20): of Texas. How's that ranch, Trevon? Jason Calacanis (01:26:21): It's so great. I carry I carry a pistol on my waist. It's incredible. This place is great. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:26): You're welcome. David Sacks (01:26:26): To quote Jack Nicholson and a few good men Yeah. You live under the security blanket that we provide, and then you question the manner in which we provide it. Jason Calacanis (01:26:35): Absolutely. That's called checks and balances. To our amazing panel, great job. And, to our silver servant, David Sachs, get back to work for the American people. You're doing a great job. Give me a blessed. Love you, boss. Best news. Bye bye. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like it's like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.