风投行业现状，兼答听众：长寿、去中心化与量子计算

Jason Calacanis (00:00:00): Sachs, is there something you object to here? The poker 1 in net worth? David Sacks (00:00:03): No. I mean, that's fine. I don't give a shit about longevity or quantum computing. But Jason Calacanis (00:00:06): -- Here's the good news, David. It's not all about you. There's people. You could have two people who like the topic, and then you could just ask them a probing question. David Sacks (00:00:16): That's fine. That's fine. Just just tell them when it's over. I'll do email. I'll do mouth. David Friedberg (00:00:22): To let your winter ride. Jason Calacanis (00:00:25): Rainman, David Saffens. We open source it to fans and make discoveries. Hey, everybody. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the All In podcast. I'm Jason Calacanis, and with us today again. The queen of Kinois, David Friedberg, sands his dog in the background. Sorry for those of you who love his dog. David Friedberg (00:00:56): He's on a walk. He'll be back in bike 10 minutes. Jason Calacanis (00:00:57): He'll be back, and he'll be in the seat. And the rain man himself David Sachs, ultra focused on SaaS and marketplace start ups and involved in some illegal traffic King of Red Pills straight up from Honduras to Cuba and then through Miami, making the Red Pills making their way to California. And Finally, Daddy's back? The Spackmaster himself? Besty C. The dictator is banished. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:30): Back count replenished. Jason Calacanis (00:01:32): You mean, reorganized. By firing on all cylinders. So so, you know, live by the spack, die by the spack. That's what what they always say in this business. But you know what? We have been absolutely inundated with I kid you not hundreds of questions from you, our loyal audience. And when this thing is over, we are going on World Tour. We'll see you in Vegas. We'll see you in at the Royal Albert Hall, in London and Miami, all cities are on the agenda. Let's take our first question from you, the audience. To what extent are you guys interested David Friedberg (00:02:07): in? How's everyone doing? Jason Calacanis (00:02:09): I've already answered the questions, but how's our I mean, definitely look at this guy. got his ass kicked and he's back. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:14): I'm doing really, really great. What about the rest of you guys? David Friedberg (00:02:17): You guys played poker this week? Jason Calacanis (00:02:19): Oh. You played poker. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:20): It was a bloodbath. Well, although, you know, it's so funny because, like, we played I played a very big game the week before, and then we step into our game, which is, like, I think, still quite big. But I could not rub 2 cards together to make a hand, and I I went off like a rocket ship. I just lost it. Some of them just Jason Calacanis (00:02:39): said -- And despite that, Despite that, he every time I Chamath and I were heads up at hand, he just smashed me. Absolutely smashed me smesh. And then I was like, you know what? I'm not gonna be bullied anymore. And then I stand up to him, and he's got the nuts each time. I was down there. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:54): I did Jake, I did run you over. I mean, the number of just complete bluff. Bluff. I ran on you. Oh, that's crazy. Jason Calacanis (00:03:01): And I'm just like, he's totally got my number today. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:04): After Bluff, after Bluff, after Bluff. And then I showed him the nuts Jason Calacanis (00:03:06): five times in a row. It David Friedberg (00:03:07): was beautiful. Jason Calacanis (00:03:08): So I'm stuck a model y, and I come back and I win a used Prius. I'm just leaving it at that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:15): I lost a midsize home in Phoenix, Arizona. Speaker 5 (00:03:19): I think you lost Jason Calacanis (00:03:19): a Bentley. Okay. Don't cancel us Please, Saxx. David Friedberg (00:03:24): Zach, did you play? David Sacks (00:03:25): I wasn't there in that game, but I played in LA game a couple of nights ago and Jason Calacanis (00:03:29): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:30): Any celebrities? Yeah. Me me Saxx and Jason Calacanis (00:03:33): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:34): Oh, god. You guys don't count names Jason Calacanis (00:03:35): or podcasters. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:36): No. There was one there was one unnamed celebrity we can't say. Jason Calacanis (00:03:39): What what but with an actor? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:40): No. We can't say it, but we all won. Jason Calacanis (00:03:42): Well, just give us a genre. I mean, an athlete. An athlete. Okay. David Sacks (00:03:45): Yeah. I won in in that game, but I lost I lost in a different game this past week. And It wasn't pretty. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:52): Wait. Sacks to Sacks here. Are you David Friedberg (00:03:53): what game are you playing? Jason Calacanis (00:03:55): Yeah. I think he may be playing. David Sacks (00:03:56): Actually, I mean, beep that out with you, Nick? Speaker 5 (00:04:00): Beeping out, but Jason Calacanis (00:04:01): we could all laugh Speaker 5 (00:04:02): at him for being so precious. Oh, you I'm sorry. Do your LPs think you're supposed to be in San Francisco investing in startups? David Sacks (00:04:08): No. No. They they they know I go wherever the deals are. Speaker 5 (00:04:11): Oh, really, Miami? What'd you get a deal? What'd you get a deal on some croquettes and a Cuban sandwich? Jason Calacanis (00:04:17): 2 for 1? Just don't cook these hair. David Friedberg (00:04:20): When do you think you'll make an investment in the Miami based company? Do you think that'll happen anytime? Jason Calacanis (00:04:24): What's happened already? David Friedberg (00:04:25): Has it happened? Jason Calacanis (00:04:26): Are you in the new free are you in the new robotic, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:29): but I've I've invested into Miami company? Jason Calacanis (00:04:31): I've got, like, 6. Yeah. David Sacks (00:04:33): I well, there are some companies that are moving to Miami that I'm already in. You know, Chamath and I are both in Pipe. Right? And and part at least the CEO of the company just moved to Miami. Jason Calacanis (00:04:43): So that's 2 of 4 2 of 4 besties in pipe. Thanks -- Yeah. David Sacks (00:04:46): By the way, how did you miss that, Jake? they they advertise on your show and you didn't think to try Jason Calacanis (00:04:51): to invest. -- that the LP, beep, that we all share, wanted everything, and he couldn't fit me in. And I was like, how about a slice? And he's like, wait Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:59): a minute. Is that LP me? Jason Calacanis (00:05:01): No. There's another LP that Saxon I share. who got their beak significantly doused in that one. But I'm just gonna I'm gonna get the kid to give me 25 basis points in advisor shares. So I'm I'm getting a slice no matter what. David Sacks (00:05:14): Yeah. Good good luck with that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:15): Good luck with that. Good luck with that. David Sacks (00:05:17): The trains off the station. The trains off the station, dude. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:20): That that that companies are gonna make a Jason Calacanis (00:05:22): $1,000,000,000 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:22): in less than 2 years of its existence. Good luck with that, Jason. Jason Calacanis (00:05:26): Okay. Well, it's I we call it a make and I I don't know what you guys are seeing, but my god, Early stage valuations went bonkers. I had one company that raised that that was looking at it. -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:36): front run it. Jason Calacanis (00:05:36): I have all kinds of data for you. Right. So today, we're gonna do some audience questions, and then we're gonna do the state of VC. We're running through a deck. We're running through everything that is changing right now in venture capital and early stage investing, and it is changing very quickly. Here's a question from Leonard Omezix. To what extent are you guys interested in longevity? In your opinion, what technologies could help us live longer and healthier lives? Friedberg, that's got your name on it. Why don't we start with you? David Friedberg (00:06:05): On this one, I would point folks to read the book lifespan by David Sinclair, who's a researcher at Harvard and he's done a lot of kind of leading work on on basically calling aging a disease and and life extension. So the book lifespan highlights, I think, a lot of his research and findings and paths forward for for improving longevity. And basically, you know, it comes down to what he defines as kind of an early switch that evolved in evolutionary biology in every cell, in every living organism where the cell is either in growth mode or repair mode. And the trick is can you get the gene to switch on that puts the cell into repair And if you do that, the cell fixes itself and you and the cell lasts longer, the organism lives longer. And so they've identified a number of genes that trigger this in a number of compounds that trigger expression of those genes. And there's a number of things you can do lifestyle wise to trigger these genes basically to get your often with longer. So fasting is a good one. And then there's a bunch of compounds that you can take that mimic fasting on a cellular level like metformin and rapamycin, Jason Calacanis (00:07:15): I'm on metformin. I think David Friedberg (00:07:16): couple of you guys are on metformin. Right? Yeah. Yeah. And then and then the NAD plus supplements, which you can find. Jason Calacanis (00:07:22): You say m NMMN Subsgments? David Friedberg (00:07:24): Yeah. NMMN and NAD plus. So there's 2 there's 2 compounds, NMM, like Nancy, Mike, Nancy. And then NR, and those you can buy a product called true nitrogen on Amazon, which which has those compounds. And you take about a 1000 milligrams a day, And, anyway, all of the stuffs laid out in his books, and it it supports a lot of the research that's being done. Obviously, fasting and exercise also trigger this gene expression and and enable kind of measures of longevity to kinda be showing up biologically. But I think I think it's a it's an emerging field, and there's a lot of deep work going on And as people have highlighted, the the process of aging is a biological process that theoretically we can stop and potentially reverse. And there's a lot of new work that's being done in stem cell therapy that may kind of elicit some new paths forward here. So, arguably, someone is alive on planet Earth today that could live past the age of two hundred. So it's an exciting field and and lots of kind of path forward. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:21): I'll I'll tell you for what it's worth, my regimen, And -- Oh god. Jason Calacanis (00:08:27): Here we go. thirst trap photo coming in. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:29): No. So so I I do I do the the following. So I take a statin now. It was 10 milligrams, now I'm at 20 milligrams. I take metformin. And all of this I take sort of in a preventative posture because my cholesterol wasn't super high. But it wasn't super low. It's like sort of like in the Jason Calacanis (00:08:54): 160, 170, 180, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:56): but now it's sort of like Jason Calacanis (00:08:57): 120. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:59): And then Metformin, I take preventatively as well. I'm not prediabetic. And then a couple of vitamin d and some other stuff. then here are these things that I do that I think could be valuable for some folks listening. There are these places now that exist that are popping up. One company that you can check out is Koover. They're in LA. They're in Redwood City, so Mid Peninsula for those in Silicon Valley. And what you can do is you can get a head to toe MRI. So, you know, there's no radiation, you know, you could do these things every other week if you wanted to. It takes about an hour And what happens is they can basically look through your entire body, your musculature, your organs, from the literally, from the tip of your head all the way down to your ankles, and they can spot a lot of stuff that may not otherwise be seen. And so, you know, every 3 or 4 years to get one of these scans, you could see a lesion, you could see the beginnings of a tumor, You know, I did one a few weeks ago. Touchwood. It was great. Nothing nothing so David Friedberg (00:10:07): Which doesn't cost? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:09): There's a range of prices. And I think those prices will come down. The range of prices are from, like, 1500 to Jason Calacanis (00:10:16): $25100. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:17): So it's not expense it's not cheap. Sorry. But here's what they're able to do. They're building a corpus of all these images where they're running machine learning on it, and they're getting better at better at identifying anomalies. And so as a result of that, they're able to actually take the MRI images and they can do fewer and fewer scans to get the equivalent resolution. So 2 things will happen. 1 is the scan time will come down. Right? So it was an hour a half. Now it's sort of right under an hour. it can probably be as low as 40 minutes, which is relatively tolerable for most people. And then the cost will come down into the hundreds of dollars because you'll be able to very rapidly assess So I do that. And then the second thing is for anybody with heart disease in their family, I really implore you. One of my friends actually is flying down from Toronto. I'm taking him to my cardiologist in LA and there's a thing called heart flow. And what heart flow is is a contrast CT which basically means they inject a dye, and then they put you under a CT, and they they map out your heart. And you can literally see the calcium buildup. You can see the state of your arteries. And, you know, what probably people don't know is when you have a calcium score, You know, most of us, it's 0. But when it starts to be non 0, it doubles every year. And by the time it gets into the thousands, you're basically guaranteed to get some form of cardiac issue. And so it doesn't seem like anything if your cardiac score is 20 except it goes to 40, 80, 160, and all of a sudden within 6 years, you're really in the red zone for a heart attack or something. I've done it twice now. Every 5 years I do it and touch wood, you know, my my calcium score is still 0. But in any event, that's what I do for longevity. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:57): I kind of preventatively at the cellular level with some drugs and then just trying to catch cancer and the heart disease on the front end. Otherwise, eat 3 balanced meals and exercise and sleep a Jason Calacanis (00:12:08): Sachs, you obviously don't care about longevity. Any thoughts here? I mean -- Saks has looked like he's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:15): a thousand years old since he was seven. No. Jason Calacanis (00:12:16): He was when he in 12th grade. He looked like he was a vice president of the United States. David Sacks (00:12:20): Yeah. Guys, just just just Jason Calacanis (00:12:23): let just let me know David Sacks (00:12:24): when this conversation is over. I've been doing my email. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:29): Oh, it's Speaker 5 (00:12:30): so great. Jason Calacanis (00:12:30): Alright. We got David Friedberg (00:12:31): this -- -- end Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:31): my life now. I fucking hate it. Jason Calacanis (00:12:35): You don't you guys like -- David Friedberg (00:12:36): I just lost 2 years right now. Jason Calacanis (00:12:38): Sachs has got an early spot both on the rocket ship to Mars and He's got an inside VIP to Peter Tiel's blood boy project. And so either way, he's getting off the planet or he's gonna refresh his blood or both. So he's good. Alright. Action Bias asks, please debate decentralization of monetary value Ultimate threat for insiders power erosion. David Sacks (00:13:03): I interpret this as a as a Bitcoin question. So Jason Calacanis (00:13:06): -- Yeah. David Sacks (00:13:07): I think one of the most interesting things happening in the world today is this is what's happening with Bitcoin. Right? It's and and you're seeing the price go up because bunch of institutional investors on Wall Street are all getting into it. Now it's gone from retail to institutional. And the narrative, basically, it's a really profound narrative, which is it's the separation of money and state. So if you think about, like, one of the most important events in human history was the separation of church and state. where we no longer look to the state to determine, you know, what religion everyone's gonna be. Well, what crypto is introducing is this idea that the government cannot control the money supply. I think that's what he's talking about with the decentralization is that you could have a currency that everybody in the world believes in that no government can control. That's the separation of money and state. Now this is just really a narrative right now. I mean and who knows if it will actually come true. But the interesting thing is that if everybody does believe in it, it will come true. And so Bitcoin's been sort of described as the bubble that ever ends because If everyone kinda buys into this bubble, it actually comes true. So I think it's very interesting, and you're seeing because Bitcoin is kinda perceived as the antidote to inflation and money printing by the government. I think you're seeing it take on new urgency now because the government just keeps printing 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 of dollars of of new money. David Friedberg (00:14:36): Doesn't this threaten government? So government doesn't have control over monitoring financial transactions and have control over the accounts in which the financial assets sit. which is effectively the the notion of decentralized and anonymized wallets, then how does the government secure taxation, which is requisite for their ability to fund Well, the good the fund estate. Right? And so what happens to the state? Jason Calacanis (00:14:59): Well, so there there's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:00): an enormous amount of leakage that happens today in assets that actually get financialized but in the gray market. And I think the the beautiful thing is on the one hand, you know, we become less focused on like the m 1 and the m 2 money supply, like the physical printable, distributable money that we can see and touch, and it gets replaced with virtual currencies that are tied to other things. I think what the the the the the person who wrote the question is asking really is more about DeFi and what's happening sort of like on the Ethereum, you know, 2.0, ERC 20 all that stuff, which is sort of much more next gen, I think, than Bitcoin. And I think at some point, we should deep dive into it. But what I would say, Friedberg is all the leakage you have today goes away in a world of DeFi because you will financialize every single asset possible. You know, you'll financialize your homes. You'll financialize your cars, your watches, your jewelry, your art, you'll financialize every random thing -- Maybe even your career. -- and how people will trade it absolutely your career. And and the thing is by by monetizing it and financializing it, you can borrow against it, you can trade it, you can pull forward value into the future against it, but it'll all be tracked. And so as long as a government then says, listen, we're gonna enable it all, but there needs to be an off ramp to taxation And that's pretty simple because a physical house exists in the world. You can't hide the existence of a physical house. David Friedberg (00:16:22): But it's not an atomized. right, Chamath? And so, you know, if if you wanna track it. I mean, that's the challenge. If no. I'm saying if it is anonymized, then the government can't track it, and the government can't actually -- These Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:32): are these are 2 separate things. some assets will live anonymously, and those are the assets that don't need to exist in the real world. But I think what this create is a world where all of these assets that actually truly exist in the real world, it'll be fine that it exists and that people get taxed on it, but it'll be much more legitimate. And I think it'll be simpler. And so I think people will trade off incremental taxation for incremental monetizability. I'll give you an example. Let's use real estate. There is no reason why every single piece of land everywhere around the world isn't written into a ledger with knowledge of who owns it. Such that the person that owns it could trade it could borrow against it, could sell it. Yeah. Fractionalize it. Jason Calacanis (00:17:20): Fractionalize it. Even if you can't in the real world because your neighbors won't let you set it up into four lots, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:17:25): you could do that online. Online. And so today, what'll happen is that, you know, that person has a level of wealth And what they do instead take the United States is they'd lobby lobby lobby to create all this convoluted real estate tax law to make their life simpler. But if you actually unlocked the ability to focus on revenue versus expenses, you just wouldn't focus as much on the taxation because you'd say, well, I can make so much more money. Jason Calacanis (00:17:50): If you judge just to, you know, sort of answer the question here from the from the reader from the listener, I think that you can really judge this based upon how much it's being pumped by the people who own it, and they are absolutely dogged, religious about this. It's like talking to and you know, person who's, you know, met Jesus and now everybody has to be a Christian. And you can also look at the people who are posing it. I don't know if you saw Yellin and then Christine Lagarde. She came out against it. Yellen's come out against it. India might ban it, and then you have, obviously, China's coming out digital wand. So I think it's gonna be there's going to be a dogfight here where governments are not going to easily give up their control of this, and there's many ways they can make a bunch of red tape to slow this down. And in countries that are authoritarian, they can outright ban it. take another question here. David Friedberg (00:18:41): By the way, there's, like, 3 outcomes here. Right? I mean, you you could either see Bitcoin, for example, you know, being banned, and that's gonna be ugly. And and, obviously, there would be significant financial loss at this point. To Saks's point, at some point, there's there's so much asset value tied up in Bitcoin. It it it's too big to fail. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:18:58): Sorry, David, banned by who? Oh, that Jason Calacanis (00:19:00): that's from Chinese government? David Friedberg (00:19:01): This this is what they're trying to do on some of the states. Right? Jason Calacanis (00:19:04): And they're they're trying to make David Friedberg (00:19:05): it illegal for citizens. transfer money in and out of the asset class. David Sacks (00:19:08): I think I think it's I think it's a bigger threat to countries that wanna impose export or currency controls and and export be China Jason Calacanis (00:19:15): in the actions. David Sacks (00:19:16): But but but frankly, if you're a country that's not afraid of currency movements because you're not trying to do so many oppressive to your people, I don't think you have that much to fear here. I mean, there are other ways of trying to hide assets or hide money besides Bitcoin. And every transaction every Bitcoin transaction is written into the ledger. I think it'd be pretty dumb to try and commit a crime with Bitcoin because there's gonna be a permanent record in the blockchain forever of that transfer. And then there's companies that that provide that do kinda sleuthing and try to, you know, unravel Jason Calacanis (00:19:47): -- David Friedberg (00:19:47): So, Max, you think tax evasion in the United States is gonna be difficult with Bitcoin. If I accrue a bunch of value in Bitcoin, am I gonna be able to evade paying taxes on those gains and convert that Bitcoin into physical assets by purchasing from another Bitcoin wallet holder. David Sacks (00:20:03): I mean David Friedberg (00:20:03): How how realistic is tax evasion gonna be and how much would because that's ultimately what the US government would David Sacks (00:20:09): Well, so you would convert cash into Bitcoin, and then you wanna sell your Bitcoin at some point. You're gonna have to sell it. I mean, there would be a a there'd be a realization of Jason Calacanis (00:20:18): that. David Friedberg (00:20:18): No. I'm saying transfer it to a seller of an asset of another asset that that's willing to accept it coin in receipt. And so to anonymize wallets Jason Calacanis (00:20:25): -- David Sacks (00:20:25): I don't know. I mean, that that transaction's gonna live on the blockchain forever, and it's gonna live in the book of whoever the seller is. What are they selling you? A car, a house, whatever. I mean, that that transit a watch I mean, look, if it's a personal item, maybe. But if we're talking about a substantial asset like a house or a company or something, they're gonna need to the other side of the transaction is gonna need to report the realization event. So you're gonna have to have 2 people collude to engage in tax Jason Calacanis (00:20:52): related income. Seems like David Sacks (00:20:53): a really stupid thing to do. David Friedberg (00:20:54): Legally, corporated businesses are gonna be mandated to do effectively identity verification much like we have to do under the Patriot Act with all the the financial law. Totally. David Sacks (00:21:03): Totally. I I yeah. David Friedberg (00:21:05): Ultimately, how the compromise arises. Right? David Sacks (00:21:07): Yeah. I'm not I I I'm not that worried about I I feel like this whole, like, silk row type Bitcoin will be used illegally thing is, like, kind of a old meme about it that I think the the fears are, like, greatly exaggerated. But the the thing that jumps out at me about all the critics of Bitcoin and I'm I'm not like a pumper or whatever, but I do I do own some. is the the thing that, like, all these, like, critics don't seem to understand is the technology. That's the common denominator, whether it's like Howard Marks or Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger, whoever. They're they're all, like, great investors or whatever, but they're not technologists. Jason Calacanis (00:21:41): In blind spot. Yeah. David Sacks (00:21:42): The supply spot. And the thing they don't understand about the technology is that Bitcoin is the first digital asset to ever be created that you can't create infinite copies of. Right? So think about, like, a song or a photo or a video or whatever. Anything that's digital, you've always been able to make an infinite number of copies. Isn't that what the word digital means is that it's infinitely copyable. So how do you have digital money that can't just be infinitely copied? But, obviously, that would destroy the value. And that was the genius of Bitcoin is that every transaction's written into this ledger, the blockchain, is decentralized. And nobody over the last decade or so has figured out how to counterfeit Bitcoin, how to make a duplicate, how to double spend Bitcoin. As long as that remains true, then Bitcoin can serve as money if everyone believes in it. The day that someone figures out how to counterfeit a Bitcoin, how to double spend it, it's all worthless. But a lot of people have been trying over the last 10 years. They've never figured out how to crack it. David Friedberg (00:22:42): By the way, that's a great it's a great transition to the next question. Sorry. I'm not gonna interrupt here. Jason Calacanis (00:22:46): No. It's a perfect transition. And next up, Adil Adil says, can one of the besties explain the power of quantum computing and how it can change industries like medical, Pharmaceuticals, any good companies that are leaders in Quantum Community. David Friedberg (00:23:01): I'll I'll I'll I'll take a cut at this one. So and and the reason I pointed it out is because a lot of people do talk about quantum computing potentially being a path to cracking the hashing functions in Bitcoin Mining and potentially overwhelming the network and effectively counterfeiting the the Bitcoin ledger. And so, technically, a a quantum computer is a computer that uses cubits, which is a a a storage of a quantum state versus a storage of a binary state, which is a bind a binary digit, which is called a bit in traditional computing. classical computing. Jason Calacanis (00:23:39): A 1 and a 0. A 1 David Friedberg (00:23:41): and a 0. And a quantum or cubit, a quantum state can be a much more dynamic function. And so it's a it's a state that is very analog and very representative of kind of a a a much more kind of broader condition than just a 1 or a Jason Calacanis (00:23:55): 0. It could be a 1 or a 0 or neither. Right? It can have neither state as well. What about David Friedberg (00:23:59): it as a wave function? And and so a Cubic can only exist in a in a piece of matter where you can hold the fidelity of a quantum state, meaning it can't be disturbed. So right now, all quantum computing gets disturbed. It all has some error Chrome context to it. And so in order to use cubits to do calculations, we use what's called quantum error correction on those cubits, and so we adjust the the cubits and the output to try and resolve it. A cubit with no errors is called a logical cubit. and the logical Q Bit has not been built, it would require very, very, very low error rates. And there's a bunch of and and and there's a bunch of theories around when this is gonna happen. When are we gonna truly logical cubits, when does the error rate get low enough that these cubits are are are truly kind of useful? Now there is an estimate that the number of logical cubits needed to crack RSA 2048, which is the the big kind of encryption standard, which could kind of break the whole cryptocurrency model, it would require about 4011 logical cubits. Today, the largest the largest quantum computer has about a 100 cubits that are very noisy. And so it's less than one logical cubit. And so we would need somewhere between a 100,000 and a 1,000,000 cubic computer to be able to have enough quantum supremacy to be able to tackle a project like cracking RSA Jason Calacanis (00:25:28): 2048. And to David Friedberg (00:25:29): And by some estimates and some people have tried to estimate when this would happen, And the estimate currently, by some researchers, is that this there's a less than 5% chance this happens before the year 2040. So we're talking somewhere between the year 2040 and the 2060 when we get a a quantum computer that has enough logical cubits to be able to crack a problem like, you know, RSA 2048, and basically make all crypto fail. And between now and then, a lot of people are working on quantum cryptography, which is new methods of encryption that are kind of built for the quantum era and the quantum frontier. Now what's more interesting is that over the next 100 next 10 years or so, the current super noisy, super low fidelity quantum computers can be used to simulate quantum states, which is the condition of atoms and molecules and use that to do better modeling of physio chemical properties of material. that's where the breakthroughs will happen in the next decade. So all the hard discrete problems that we kind of theorize about cryptography and other stuff, that's decades away. In this decade, we are already gonna start to see quantum computers have breakthroughs in how material, how atoms and molecules interact with each other. for example, finding proteins that can do a better job of having an enzymatic reaction in the physical world where we can now potentially pull nitrogen out of the atmosphere to make fertilizer or or drugs or or specific protein targets that can go in the human body and have specific functions by modeling what we can't do with traditional computers. Today, modeling the quantum properties of those molecules and how they interact with other molecules and then building really cool predictive models that we can then turn into products. And that's gonna be chased really hard this decade. David Friedberg (00:27:02): Everyone's gonna be going after it, and we already have enough compute power. I don't think that there's any leader in quantum computing today. These are all still experiments. They're all bread boards, IBM, Google, Microsoft, a bunch of research labs, a bunch of startups, are all kinda basically doing the same thing with different types of Cubic technology, but they all have very high errors. They all have very low cubic computers. And so it's still unresolved. Tooth's gonna come out with something useful. Jason Calacanis (00:27:25): 2 companies to follow are D Wave, which was started in 99. So just to give you an idea of how long people have been working on it. It says twenty two year old company. I know Steve Jervitson's been backing it for now in 3rd decade. And then ionic, is that the other one? i o n q? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:41): I I think, like, quantum Jason Calacanis (00:27:42): facts. Right? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:43): Quantum computing is like fusion. Yes. It's like it's like a technical problem that has attracted people who've had more money than common sense. and it's just basically a way to burn an enormous amount of money over 20 or 30 years. And the problem with that is that you start to build in technical craft, anything that is still in r and d phase 20 years in needs to get scrapped and rebuilt from scratch because everything has changed including the people. even the twenty year olds that started are now in their forties and have kids and just have a comparative demand shift match. David Friedberg (00:28:15): It's a great point, Chamath. Really true. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:17): And so, like, you gotta just scrap these projects and start all over again because the the the problem is you need somebody completely naive to look at this problem in 2021 and say, well, okay. How are we actually going to really solve, like, the coherence problem? I don't know. How are we gonna build the Gatorade? I don't know. And you have these very formulaeic ways that we knew based on what technologies were available in 99 or 2000 to start with. And I think that's probably part of why we've framed the problem as largely sort of this thing of like, okay. Maybe there's like a integer factorization thing you can do, and it's I don't know. I'm I'm deeply skeptical. David Sacks (00:28:56): Yeah. Well, the the I agree. And -- By Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:58): the way, this is why sorry. Can I just say one last thing? This is why alpha fold beat quantum computers to the solution of protein folding and and the reason was they were just like we'll just take a different run at it, completely different people, a completely different technical framework and modality, and a completely different risk profile and age as well. Jason Calacanis (00:29:20): A company to keep an eye on in the fusion space, Commonwealth Fusion Systems. I just have David Sacks (00:29:26): Bob Lombard on the call. David Friedberg (00:29:28): What were you gonna say? Jason Calacanis (00:29:29): What I was gonna say is that the David Sacks (00:29:30): main thing I was thinking about while you were giving that dissertation on cubits or god knows what is Jason Calacanis (00:29:35): that I would David Sacks (00:29:37): is I would never invest in this. That's all I was thinking is I would never invest in this. Jason Calacanis (00:29:41): Yes. You're focused on SaaS and marketing. David Sacks (00:29:43): Yes. We have. -- what Jason Calacanis (00:29:44): -- David Sacks (00:29:44): Yeah. It's exactly what Shamos said. Jason Calacanis (00:29:46): Definitely 7 queens and kings and 5 aces in-depth. David Sacks (00:29:50): These are science fair experiments, you know, with indefinite time frames. This is basic r and d that should be done at universities. these concepts are not ready for commercialization. Jason Calacanis (00:30:01): Exactly what they said about AI, and then now it's infected in every company. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:05): So -- No. That's not true, Jason. No. That's -- Because there Jason Calacanis (00:30:07): was a -- They were saying this, Scott, ai, 10 years old. DeepMind couldn't Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:10): get funded. Completely disagree with you. Jason Calacanis (00:30:12): DeepMind could not get funded in the beginning. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:13): No. Completely completely disagree with you because -- Okay. -- there would there was a commercial, commercial, revenue generating opportunity for AI and machine learning literally from the start of computing. It it took Jason Calacanis (00:30:25): several iterations. There's no use case for fusion energy. I mean, of course, there is. David Sacks (00:30:29): No. I'm not saying that. It's still at the basic r and David Friedberg (00:30:32): d stage. Jason Calacanis (00:30:32): I will -- -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:32): basic r and d. David Sacks (00:30:33): Yeah. I will partially agree with you, Jason, in the sense that I was not investing in AI 10 years ago because I thought at that stage, it was still in the realm of science fiction. But we just announced 2 deals the last 2 days. 2 c deals viable, which is basically an AI voice to the customer. It slurps in all of your customer feedback and then gives you answers. And then the other one is Jason Calacanis (00:30:53): -- The copywriting 1. David Sacks (00:30:55): It's a copywriting AI called copy.ai, which literally writes your site -- Trying Jason Calacanis (00:30:59): to get a slice right now. David Sacks (00:31:01): Yeah. Not Yeah. We we we we might give you a slice, Jason. Stop being so skeptical. But but yeah. But but here's here's what's changed, right, is these are seed companies with just a handful of employees. They're built on GPT Jason Calacanis (00:31:16): 3. David Sacks (00:31:16): So you had this, like, basic, like, r and d done, it creates this platform called GPT Jason Calacanis (00:31:22): 3. It's like AWS. Right? Yeah. David Sacks (00:31:24): Yeah. You can now build companies on top of that. So, I mean, look, you know, what what I invest in are the commercialization of of of new technology waves. Those technology waves happen because of deeper r and Jason Calacanis (00:31:38): d, that's how you risk this. because it there's a same conversation with VR and AR. Like, are these worthy investments or not? David Friedberg (00:31:44): I think I think Saks's point is such a good one because what what he's saying is is what I think has happened over the last century, the government the best role the government can provide is to take on that technology risk, that large capital intense technology risk. This was the case with the Manhattan Project, and we got nuclear energy out of it. It was the case with Apollo Project. We have the space industry as a result now. And it's what happened with the human genome project, and now we have an incredible genomic revolution. and ARPANET, and and that that extensive early stage derisking requires an incredible amount of capital that's very low returning. It it doesn't return anything. It's what Sachs is saying is later is the is the commercialization where -- Do Jason Calacanis (00:32:23): we have a heuristic, a theory, a best practice around when something goes from a research project to being commercially viable. Are there signals? I mean, platform platformification seems to David Sacks (00:32:35): have won. Jason Calacanis (00:32:36): that you pointed out, David. If it's a platform and you can use it easily -- David Sacks (00:32:40): Yeah. I think I I think I think you can tell when the amount of capital required to get it off the ground goes to something reasonable, like a few $1,000,000 as opposed to Jason Calacanis (00:32:49): 100 David Sacks (00:32:49): of 1,000,000 of dollars. Whenever and and, Jason, you've talked about this that any company that's trying to raise 100 of Jason Calacanis (00:32:54): 1,000,000 David Sacks (00:32:55): of dollars or, you know, has a $1,000,000,000 plus, like, evaluation before shipping a product. is presumptively fraud. There's still too much r and d involved. I mean, look, venture capital is a mile milestone based investing model. You take a little bit of seed money, you create a prototype, you get some proof, then you race a series a, you get 10,000,000. You get some customers, then you raise 25,000,000, and you scale the company. And it's based on milestones. It's actually a very efficient way of investing. And when somebody wants to skip over all those milestones, they say, no. We need 100 of Jason Calacanis (00:33:28): 1,000,000 David Sacks (00:33:29): of dollars to launch this thing. You have to ask, why? Is this is this idea really ready for commercialization. David Friedberg (00:33:35): What's Shamal's response to that? because Shamal, you you've done deep tech investing, and you've done -- Are Jason Calacanis (00:33:38): you Virgin Galactic would fall into that or no? Yeah. David Friedberg (00:33:41): like, how do you think about DeepTech Investing ChipMofthen, like, where where like, there's a role for venture capital, private market, you know, dollars. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:48): I've done a I've done a lot Tech Investing. And my whole thing was I've always looked at at the point where something is completely derisked technically and it's about then the exploitation of a market. Otherwise, it's exactly what David said. So I'll give you an example. company called RelativitySpace is now the 2nd most valuable private spaceflight company after SpaceX. Okay? YC company, I led the series a. What were they trying to do? They're they their their stated goal at the time was we wanna 3 d print the entire rocket and the entire engine. And I said, wow. Okay. Well, when we did the math and we tried to figure this out and have the same launch capability as SpaceX, all of it comes down to, okay, well, how do you wanna derisk this? And what Tim and Jordan's first idea was, well, first we wanna basically prove that we can actually get a certain printing capability done because you're talking about these extremely, you know, energy intensive extremely technical printers and effectively writing printer drivers. Right? And to be doing it at a scale where you can hand that off to NASA, and they can take that engine, literally strap it down with chains called the hold down test, fire the engine and say it works. Doesn't blow up. doesn't blow up. And I said to Tim, how much does that take? And Tim was like, I can probably do that on $10,000,000 bucks. I said you're done on Jason Calacanis (00:35:12): $10,000,000. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:13): Yeah. But it was a Jason Calacanis (00:35:14): 100,000,000 -- 100 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:16): the only person that would have written a $100,000,000 check to derisk that doesn't understand what they're trying to prove at that point in time. because what he was trying to prove was the the ability to use the printer. He wasn't saying, I'm trying to build a next generation rocket motor. Right? So similarly with Virgin, you know Virgin got to a point where it's like, it had flown demonstrably in the air. So what did it prove? It proved the flight profile worked. It proved the engine worked. It proved all the navigational componentry worked, and it proved the safety envelope work, which means that it could basically act that's a glider under all kinds of boundary conditions. That's an enormous amount of technical progress. And then at that point there, I'm willing to invest 1,000,000,000 of dollars. And so to Dave's point, Jason Calacanis (00:36:01): you have to have a new model early too. Like, that's one of the things about being an entrepreneur is figuring out how you stay alive while you answer these questions, and you came up with a brilliant one or whoever was doing Virgin Galactic, which is people will overpay Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:16): No. But Virgin was a 15 year process where Richard Branson to his credit did exactly what David said. Here's $10,000,000 get to milestone 1. Here's $25,000,000 get to Milestone 2. He did the exact venture capital model. It's just that he did it by himself. I think what David is saying, which I agree with is you should never short circuit that and say, here's Jason Calacanis (00:36:35): $500,000,000 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:37): pre series a. Jason Calacanis (00:36:37): Yeah. I'll have to agree with that. Sure. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:39): Otherwise, you'll be working at something for 20 years with nothing to fucking show for it. as in fusion, as in quantum compute. Alright. David Sacks (00:36:47): You end up with like, you end up with a a magic leap or Jason Calacanis (00:36:50): -- Theranos. -- David Sacks (00:36:52): Theranos or Well, Theranos was afraid. I mean, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:54): it it looks like it's a fraud, but magically it just looks like it's technically incompetent. Jason Calacanis (00:36:59): Or it's too hard of a technical problem to solve in the amount of time and the amount -- Right. -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:03): technical incompetence. Well, I don't know Jason Calacanis (00:37:05): if it's incompetence. This might be a it might be a 20 year problem as opposed to a file. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:09): But why are you taking this emotionally? the opposite of technical competence. Competence means you can do it. Technical incompetence is the opposite Jason Calacanis (00:37:16): of technical competence. Competence means you can't do it. You were saying that that group of people is incompetent. I'm saying the words -- I'm saying the will followed by Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:20): the word incompetence. Technical incompetence. Okay. Jason Calacanis (00:37:24): When you're saying it, I think you're describing the person not the problem. David Sacks (00:37:27): could have been too hard to lift for them. So you know? Jason Calacanis (00:37:30): Okay. Well, the last question is about access to private equity, but let's just go into this deck here. Now one of the things we wanted to talk to today, which month had a good idea. Venture Capital is changing rapidly. The last decade has seen more change in venture capital than I would argue the 4 decades or 5 decades that Venture Capital has existed. In other words, more change. And we're gonna go through some of those changes, how it affects the entrepreneur, how it affects the investor, Chamath was nice enough to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:56): put a deck together. And then I guess, Jason, we'll figure out a way to post this into the YouTube or something like that. David Friedberg (00:38:01): And Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:38:02): You know what? We'll put in the show notes a link to this Google presentation, and Nick can pull up the slides when we're talking about them. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:09): I think I think if folks can give us feedback This is kind of a new thing for us. We're trying to experiment, which is sort of this is like a half teach and half discussion on something we all wanted to talk about. And, hopefully, you guys get some value from it. but tell us if it's not. So I I wanna thank Carmen Collins on my team who helped put this together. But let me just go through this state of venture capital. So a couple of high level points. There's, like, some really important trends at play. The first is that there really is now underneath a massive change in the players in this game. Founder demographics are changing slowly but surely. We're gonna go into that in a second. traditional VC investors are getting disrupted. We're gonna go that. We're gonna go into that. And then this model, which I love of let me know how I can be helpful, quote unquote, basically eroding and seeding ground to what we call solo capitalists, and we'll talk about that, which is probably the most disruptive trend in venture. 2nd, we'll talk about the inflation in the amount of money that's going into these companies, which really means more money at higher prices and why that's good in some ways and actually bad in some other ways This goes back to David's point of not being forced to to generate milestone sooner. And then the third is that it's really now a founder's market. And I think this is really important because, you know, you've seen an enormous amount of dilution and lack of control for founders and employee teams and companies. And I think that there are some really disruptive new ways that complete the usurp traditional venture. non dilutive forms of financing, we'll talk about that. So let me just level set for you guys. I asked the following question, what are the demographics of the United States? And here's what they are. the United States today, Jason Calacanis (00:39:55): 59.7 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:56): percent of people are white non Hispanic. Jason Calacanis (00:40:01): 12 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:02): a half percent are black, 5.8 are Asian, Jason Calacanis (00:40:06): 18.7 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:07): percent are Hispanic, and 2.3 are multirase. If you map back to VC founders, Jason Calacanis (00:40:15): 77 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:16): percent of VC founders are white. Jason Calacanis (00:40:19): 1% Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:20): are black, Jason Calacanis (00:40:22): 17.7% Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:23): are Asian, 1.8% are Hispanic and 2a half are multiray. So amongst multi race Asian and white, you either are at or over indexing your representative population in blacks and Hispanics. This is not anything new, but massively underrepresented. If you take it from a gender, females have lower representation among founders but it's growing. So the US is basically 5050 male female female founded companies were Jason Calacanis (00:40:48): 23% Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:49): of all deal activity in 2019. That's that's pretty good, up from 12% in 2010. Although racial diversity is still pretty lacking, which we know. And then the young tech bro stereotype is cracking. which is this is incredible. 2019 study in the times showed that the average age of a tech founder is David Sachs, what do you think it is? The average age of a tech founder -- Median or average? -- or median. Average. Average. David Sacks (00:41:16): Well, I saw I saw your deck, so isn't it something Yeah. It was surprisingly Jason Calacanis (00:41:20): -- 35, 40, 42. 42. No. I'm seeing a lot. I think the I don't know. Just to pause here for a moment, what do we think? -- David Friedberg (00:41:26): still found a company. Jason Calacanis (00:41:27): You can. What do we think is given we you had the longevity question earlier, and then you have people you know, generating wealth and starting companies in their forties, fifties, and sixties who then underwrite it themselves. Right? until they get to product market fit and then raise money. What do we think is the best zone for an entrepreneur in terms of having a great outcome. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:51): I've always thought that the look. I when I how old was I I was thirty Jason Calacanis (00:41:58): 132 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:59): when I started Social Capital. I mean, this is a multibillion dollar enterprise. I feel like I'm reasonably successful at it. But I was preparing for the 1st 13 or 14 years of my professional career. I learned some good things. I learned some bad things. I learned tactics that worked, I learned strategies that didn't work. Jason Calacanis (00:42:18): Thirties or forties? Or -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:19): Well, in my in my experience for me, and I think it's for personal for everybody, I was best positioned to know what to do and at least iterate in my thirties. And I think in the absence of an idea that has some network effect or something that's sort of like supernatural outside of your own control, I think the older you are, generally, probably the better prepared you would be. David Sacks (00:42:45): Yeah. I agree. I mean, I did PayPal when I was still in my twenties, but I wasn't the the founder of the company. I was recruited to it at a very early stage. I didn't really start Yammer until well, I guess I started the predecessor company Jeanne when I was 34. and then Yammer, pivoted into Yammer, but I was 35. I mean -- Absolutely. That's that's like a that's like a good level of preparation. You know? Unless you have a spectacular idea for a start up, you should probably get some experience first. Jason Calacanis (00:43:13): 100%. Friedberg, any thoughts there? on what's the kill zone, best time to launch companies in your mind or investing companies or where founders I mean, David Friedberg (00:43:22): look, every everyone's got their own path. You know? I mean, Zuck and Sergei and Larry and Bill Gates. They started right out of college without any experience, but I mean, I worked at I I had 2 jobs in tech before I started my first company in Jason Calacanis (00:43:38): 2006. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:43:40): And so I had a lot to draw from, and that really informed me. But I think everyone's different. I mean, some people Jason Calacanis (00:43:45): -- If David Sacks (00:43:45): you have the idea if you have the idea, by all means, do it in your twenties. You know? Absolutely. David Friedberg (00:43:50): I mean, by by far, the the the greatest kind of, like, measure of whether and when you're kinda prepared for this is your ability to continue learning. continuous learning to me is is one of the greatest predictors of entrepreneurial success. And all the guys that have lasted for decades from Bezos to Zuck to, you know, Larry and Sergei that, you know, they were continuously evolving themselves because they were continuous learners. Bill Gates is Bill Gates is the penultimate example of this. Right? I mean, this guy's reinvented himself Jason Calacanis (00:44:16): 1000. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:17): That what you said is so important. I'm gonna change my answer. I think I started social capital. When I was actually the most able to get out of my own way and learn continuously. Yeah. David Sacks (00:44:29): Yeah. You know, what what what thing I'd add to this is it's so much easier to be a founder now today than I mean, look, I I I remember I joined PayPal in 1999. That was my first startup. it was, like, really hard to get into an entrepreneurship in the 19 nineties. You know, the VCs had tremendous power and control. they would routinely replace founder CEOs. You know, everyone had to go to Sandel Road to get capital. It was hard to even know how to network your way to Sand Hill Road. It was just much, much harder to be a founder. It was much harder to raise money. It was hard to know what to do. And then I think, actually, One of the things that really changed things was with blogging emerging in the mid 2000, it led to a proliferation of information where now, you know, other founders started blogging, investors started blogging, and there became a wealth of information out there so you could learn how to do it. And then, of course, you had incubators and so on like YC. So there became more of like a playbook for just, like, how you actually get a company off the ground. When I graduated in law school, which was 1998, I I knew I want to get into business and entrepreneurship. I really had no idea how to do it. And if it wasn't for a phone call from Peter Till, I'm not sure I would have gotten into it. You know? But now now everybody knows what to do. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:43): Can I ask you a question then? let me let me give you a stat and I'll ask a question. What do you think that story would be, David, for somebody that wasn't a white man? So here's the here's the data. The percentage of female VC decision makers has grown by more than 2x. What that means is about firms over a $1,000,000,000 About a quarter of them have at least 2 plus female decision makers, but 61% of them have 0 and 80% of venture firms still have no black investors. How do you correlate or intersect that idea of ease of starting a company with the pattern recognition of those folks and the inability to sort of maybe map to people with black skin or women. David Sacks (00:46:30): I mean, I think that what Silicon Valley and what Venture Capital represents is opportunity. Right? And we have to extend that opportunity to as many people as possible. I mean, that's really the the key here is we do need to make it as widely available as possible. David Friedberg (00:46:43): By the way, Chamath, I mean, one way to slice things is the percent percentage of diverse representation within the ranks of of Venture And Private Equity. But there is a equivalent scaling in the number of venture firms and the amount of venture capital since, you know, Saks and and you and I and all of us kind of entered the technology industry kind of early Jason Calacanis (00:47:04): 2000 David Friedberg (00:47:06): And and the number of firms that exist today that that are kind of microfirms and scaled firms, I think, presents a much larger set of opportunity. You're right. There are still standards and there are Jason Calacanis (00:47:17): still challenges in diversity David Friedberg (00:47:18): and kind of having access but there is so much more access than there has ever been. And that's really changed the landscape. I mean, folks coming out of college can get a $1,000,000 that was kind of unheard of back in 1999. Or Jason Calacanis (00:47:32): -- David Friedberg (00:47:32): Or or or or Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:34): or the reality is, like, there's so many incubators. I mean, It's not as if Jason or YC or any of these folks give 1,000,000 of dollars. Right, Jason? Like, these checks are still really small. So the point is you can build something if you have the skills to build something. Jason Calacanis (00:47:47): Yeah. The the the gap right now is that there's a lot of people who have ideas about what they want to do but they have no skills. And I think what we found in a a vibrant market like today. I mean, this is the most vibrant I've ever seen it. There's at least three or four times as many startups to choose from at the earliest stages. And what we're seeing is the number of VCs has not grown at that level. It has grown. The number of plays has grown, but not at that level. Therefore, the average quality of a deal has gone up. The average quality of a funded deal has gone up, but the average quality of a start up has gone down. Does that make sense? Yeah. So the ones that get funded are better than ever, but the one the average is lower because there's so many doing it. And then just the best piece of advice I have is when we talked about continuous learning, is if you are not building the product in some way or selling the product in some way, then what are you doing at this startup? Like, you either build it or you sell it. Like, There really isn't much more there. And a lot of people just have ideas and no ability to execute. You really have to be a developer designer, UX person, marketer, something in terms of getting this product out to the world. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:52): What what do you guys think about this other trend, which I think is really important, which is the atomization of these firms? So, you know, we're moving from a world where People used to care about name the brand, Sequoia, XL. And then now they they named the person. Right? And they'll probably follow that person wherever they are. So what do we think about that? There's a really interesting tweet from Eric Torrenberg. He said, founders don't want to raise money from institutions as much anymore. They want to raise money from individuals. And then if you marry that with what's happening with AngelList and all this other stuff, isn't that the trail of breadcrumbs for how, like, VC just kind of, in some ways, just kind of gets blown up the way that it's normally been done? David Friedberg (00:49:34): I I remember as a founder, when I started my company 2006, there was a lot of this conversation in as as Saks pointed out in the blogger community blogging community and and with, like, various websites that rated VCs. And there was generally a trend in the support network among CEOs, Adventure Firms, of talking a lot about making sure you pick your partner, don't pick the firm, And so this I don't know if this is necessarily a new trench amoth. It's certainly something that I remember being top of mind 15 years ago when I started my first company And so much of it was about make sure you have the right partner because that's who's gonna be on your board. That's who you're gonna spend time with. That's who's gonna recruit executives with you. That's who's gonna be helpful in finding your next round of funding for you. And I I feel like that's all that's always been the case. But you're right. The brand value of a firm has certainly become less useful and folks have struggled to kind of figure out, I I think, a solution here. I mean, you you see what Andreessen Horowitz did. They they launched in 2009 and really focused on trying to be this kind of full service provider to startups. And I I don't know how much that matters as much anymore as much as making sure you've got a great partner from the firm that's helping you with your business. I I don't know. Jason Calacanis (00:50:41): It's actually you're you're right, Freeburg, that's a continuing trend. What I'll say is the top firms are still as attractive or more attractive to founders. The loser in this, I believe, is the midtier firm or the lower tier firms that actually none of the partners are all that great. The performance is not that great. Their value add is not that great. But when you do get a Sequoia or an Andreessen I'm gonna put Craft in this as well. When you get one of those All Star VC firms to join your board specifically, that is the key. When they join the board, they own over 10%, You are anointed in a way that is transcendent. You will get pounded with inbound from the 2nd tier and 3rd tier firms who wanna triple your valuation and give you 20,000,000 bucks. It happens like clockwork. In fact, there are a couple of firms like was it DAG the 1? Saks that would always follow on Sequoia deals. And so there were firms that were built Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:32): with -- That was their LP pitch. Dags LP pitch is we -- Yeah. -- just we will mark up every Sequoia deal. Exactly. And so I mean, one change. It was one page. So it's like, if you can't get into Sequoia and you're willing to wait David Friedberg (00:51:44): an extra round, pay vest Jason Calacanis (00:51:45): and tag. Well, then now the I think the big trend here is those firms, Andresen, and Sequoia are now full stage where they have the late stage growth, They have a scout program. They have a seed program. They have a series a program. But, Jason, the full life cycle. It's not those guys also. It's just it's all these other big crossover guys Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:03): that have come down, Tiger, Khotu, durable. David Friedberg (00:52:06): I think that's the biggest trend of the last 15 years, Shamak. And I think it is what has enabled the proliferation of early stage startups and enable the valuation increment on the capital that's flowed in the purely stage is the is the scale down from the big guys. I just wanna kind of do a quick walk down memory lane. because when you guys said you wanted to talk about this, I kind of remembered I I got my series b term sheet in Jason Calacanis (00:52:27): 2008, David Friedberg (00:52:29): I guess it was. And or Jason Calacanis (00:52:32): 2009, David Friedberg (00:52:33): and I had 3 venture firms, Andresen was one of them that gave me a term sheet. And the interesting thing about at that time with Andresen was they gave me I was trying to raise $30,000,000, and they said, we wanna give you 40,000,000, and they up the valuation significantly. And and there was a I ultimately went with Coastal Ventures, but there was this trend that Andreessen was kind of imparting, and and I heard about it a lot from other entrepreneurs was that they were going out and offering more money than the founder was asking for or seeking at higher valuations. And it was this trend to work saying, like, go grab the market. Because the interesting thing about webscale Economics and, you know, webscale businesses is you get so much leverage and you can get extraordinarily rapid growth. I mean, the the rate of growth could be infinite, and and the leverage could be infinite. And so -- If Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:19): you do it if you do it at the right round, I think that's David Friedberg (00:53:22): But so much of this was and and then, obviously, the so that was a huge step up. And I remember Andreessen Horowitz beginning 2009 kind of started to build a reputation for doing this of of kind of, you know, putting larger checks out and saying go scale. And then the the big crazy thing was the crossover guy started coming in and and offering bigger checks in in kind of this proven stage, growth stage kind of funding. And then, obviously, the big step up was SoftBank And SoftBank with a $100,000,000,000 Vision Fund. Jason Calacanis (00:53:47): And and and, ultimately, what what exactly did that disrupt Friedberg? David Friedberg (00:53:50): just hang on. So when all these things happened, those large chunks of capital became available and the valuation step ups were so significant for these later stage startups that the money flowed down and more money was raised in earlier stage venture that enabled this proliferation of capital and this proliferation of new startups and enable startups at the earlier stage because of all the crossover money that started to come in and the blitzscaling proposals and lots of money that was being thrown at the later stage. That, to me, felt like the reason all of the earlier stage stuff proliferated was because of the the amount of capital creating a later stage. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:21): You're absolutely right. And now 10 years later, here's where we are. In early David Friedberg (00:54:25): the specs are the next step, Jamath. because, like Jason Calacanis (00:54:28): -- Totally. -- David Friedberg (00:54:28): I think what you did, you know, we pre 2009, there was Jason Calacanis (00:54:31): $10,000,000,000 David Friedberg (00:54:32): a year in specs. Then when you started this in 2009, stepped up to 1019, it stepped up to 13,000,000,000. Last year, 80,000,000,000 was raised in specs. This quarter, a 100,000,000,000 in And Spax are that you cross over investing. It's taking, you know, growth stage private equity style risk in the public markets with this proliferation of capital, and we're seeing the benefit in the early stage founders and entrepreneurs are seeing the benefit because there's so much access to capital on the back end. You can take more risk on the early end, and you can make more bets. And and I think, you know, I think it's the next step up, and we just keep seeing these step ups. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:03): Yeah. I tend to think that the growth stage is the most troubled and challenged because at the early stage, you can get a guy like Sax or Jay Kal on your board, and you can grind. And I think that that's really important to get to product market fit. And at the public stage, you can get somebody like me and, you know, we can help trends and actually help optimize and run the business for scale and value. But in the middle, you have all of these weird dynamics that no longer maybe don't make as much sense. So just to give you a sense of it, average deal size, okay, so the typical round is up 3x over the last 10 years. 3x. That that is absolutely anecdotally my experience. In late stage, investors are doubling and tripling down on these mega deals. so that that average round size is up 5 x in the last decade. The the typical pre money on a growth stage deal in 2010 was a 100 pre. This is for the top quartile. And it's now or sorry, for this is for the average. It's now David Friedberg (00:56:00): This is for a growth stage? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:02): Yeah. Growth stage A 100 pre is now Jason Calacanis (00:56:04): 570 David Friedberg (00:56:06): pre. Jason Calacanis (00:56:08): Wow. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:09): Yeah. It's getting crazy. It's really it's really we're already getting crazy. Tiger, it says here in the notes, Tiger Global has announced a deal according to PitchBook every 48 hours in Jason Calacanis (00:56:18): 2021. Well, here's the interesting thing about that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:22): That's fabulous. That's fucking fantastic. David Sacks (00:56:25): What Tiger, I think, has figured it out is they're they started as public market investors in their way down the stack. Right? So they're very familiar with the public market valuations. They're seeing that these SaaS companies are you know, the we I remember 10 years ago when I was doing Yammer, we thought that the best outcome that you could have as a SaaS company was like a $1,000,000,000 to $2,000,000,000 exit. That's why when Microsoft offered us 1,200,000,000 in 2012, we took it. Right? We're like, we can work 5 more years. Maybe get to a $2,000,000,000 outcome. Well, now you're seeing what Slack just got acquired by Salesforce for close to 30,000,000,000. it's pretty routine to see SaaS companies IPO ing at now Jason Calacanis (00:57:00): 10, 20, 30,000,000,000 David Sacks (00:57:02): and up. And so the exits are just so much bigger than anybody thought 10 years ago. And we were the optimists, by the way. There's a good tweet on this by it was Jay Malek. Basically, he gave some stats. He said that if you're wondering why everyone wants to invest or be a VC today, The stats from PitchBook provide an answer. We had 43,000,000,000 in exist in 2010. We had 290,000,000,000 and that exists in 2020. So we had about 7 x roughly greater exits over the course of a decade. Now The average deal size is growing 3 x, and there's a lot more money going into venture capital. But the reason why you're having all this money go in and all these new players is because The outcomes are so much bigger. And then he said, and I agree with this. Wouldn't be surprised if VC hits 1,000,000,000,000 by 2030. So we're seeing just the I mean, I remember 20 years ago when I first got into the business. You know, like Silicon Valley was a small little concentric circle around Stanford. And now it's spread to San Francisco and the entire Bay Area and to other cities. And it just keeps getting bigger and bigger every Jason Calacanis (00:58:07): time. David Friedberg (00:58:08): It's the digitization of every market. Right? I mean, every traditional business, every traditional industry is being digitized in some way or another. And so it's no longer a tech enabler of other industries. It is the industry itself. Jason Calacanis (00:58:18): We know that this the brand really matters in the early stage because they anoint you and they bring so much value in terms of working with you to solve problems. We know with specs, whoever and IPOs, whoever is anointing that really matters. Right? The sponsor. But in the middle, is all that cash now moved to a a game of who will pay the most for the least right? in other words, series b to, you know, when you get involved Shamak, is that just -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:45): It's such a good point. You're so what you're now teeing up, Jason, is this next big category, which is if it's undifferentiated capital, at some point, you're gonna go to the logical conclusion, which is I don't want any dilution from this. I'm happy to take dilution in the series a when I get, you know, craft or Sequoia or benchmark. I'm happy to take dilution in the IPO because that's sort of the necessary process of, you know, diversifying the stock ownership, getting, you know, my users and my customers to be able to own the stock etcetera, etcetera. But in the middle, now you have these companies like Pipe And ClearBank where now all of a sudden you can grow Jason in your b c d rounds and you have zero dilution. So if you're a founder, you know, the best formula is gonna be take Series Ake and Seed Capital from an expert single, you know, GP brand person who knows that business category so well. Right? If you're starting a SaaS company, you should probably get your seed from SaaS you know, raise your a from some expert or wait. Let me say it differently. Seed from JCal, a from Saks, and then go to Pipe And ClearBank and fund it all based on your recurring revenue growth Jason Calacanis (00:59:53): and Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:53): then go public via specs. So just to give you some data that I got from Pipe -- Which Jason Calacanis (00:59:57): means you would just to give people an idea of what the cap table would look like there. You would dilute 10% in your your seed round 20% in your a. Now you still have 70% of the company, and you just sell your yearly contracts ahead of time to pipe, and you're done. David Sacks (01:00:10): By the way, can I can I tell the story about pipes? So pipe Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:13): Yeah. It's kind of painful. Thanks for including Fleet Burton. David David, can I can I give the stat from pipe and then you tell the story? David Sacks (01:00:18): Go ahead. David Friedberg (01:00:18): Sorry. You guys are all investors in this company? Jason Calacanis (01:00:21): No. Not me and you, David. They let us our beach on the scene might be dry. -- in chafing beaks. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:26): My beak is so wet. Is Can we get a profile Jason Calacanis (01:00:28): of that beak? Let's see. David Friedberg (01:00:29): Oh, why? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:29): Let's say it it isn't -- Oh my lord. It is people don't realize. Jason Calacanis (01:00:32): It really is. Hold on. Do it one more time, and let me compare it to this. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:37): It's a beautiful -- No. David Sacks (01:00:38): I'll tell let me tell let me tell the pipe beak wedding story because Harry Harry, the the founders told the story. Correct. He came in to meet with me in my office at craft. This is pre COVID when people actually met in person. Our our principal, who's based in LA, Michael Tam, knew knew Harry from his previous startup and brought him in. I I heard the pitch, which is basically to advance the the full value of these contracts for SaaS Companies and others. But it was so obvious. Right? Because if you're a SaaS company, you spend roughly about a year of of revenue on cacked, a customer acquisition cost. But the customer only wants to pay you monthly. And so you have this huge negative cash flow cycle So what if you could just take that contract and monetize it right away, get the full value of the contract advance, then you can plow it into the next the next, you know, customer acquisition cost. And you don't need to dilute yourself with venture capital. I said yes to Harry in, like, 15 minutes. I think it's the quickest I've ever given a term sheet. We invested $2,000,000 in the company in a 12 cap, and we did the deal that day. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:44): So within 9 months of launch, Pipe has connected Jason Calacanis (01:01:48): 35100 Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:49): customers and over a 1000000000 plus of ARR to investors willing to purchase that revenue. Clear bank. Jason Calacanis (01:01:56): Clear, it's a marketplace. And so, you know, they're not buying the debt. Anybody can go on the marketplace and say, I will buy Slacks revenue for $91 on the dollar, but something more speculative they might pay 85¢ a dollar. David Sacks (01:02:09): thing is that they're not they're not providing the lending off their own balance sheet. Jason Calacanis (01:02:12): As opposed to ClearBank, which does, in charge of 6% to 60 days. -- David Friedberg (01:02:15): your book unless you guys share Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:16): it, Lani. I'm gonna go to I'm gonna go to Jason Calacanis (01:02:18): I I fucking shit guy. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:20): Listen. Let's go Jason Calacanis (01:02:21): watch fucking shares. Let's go -- I'm gonna David Friedberg (01:02:22): go ahead and do my email now. Jason Calacanis (01:02:24): Yeah. I'm go let's do it, Friedberg. Hey, freeburg. Let's launch bio company together and and will block out these beaks. David Sacks (01:02:29): Go work on your life extension. We're working on our monetary extension right here. David Friedberg (01:02:34): Yeah. You need more money. You need more money. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:37): So so ClearBank works with ecommerce companies. So what you do is you stitch in your connections to Shopify and Stripe, etcetera. They're able to monitor how well you do, and then they'll basically help finance you, again, non dilutively. So Clearbank Companies captured 55 percent more growth in 2020 than the prior year. So even in the midst of COVID, these companies did really well. They have revenue based financing they've invested a $1,600,000,000 to date, and it turns out that, you know, their investor composition, eight times more women funded than traditional VC. by the way, I wanna be clear. I was also a series a investor in Clearbank. I mean, I am such a believer in this middle action event you're disappearing. Like, when you have these growth rounds, they're undifferentiated and they shouldn't be dilutive in any way, shape, or form. The founder should figure out how to grow non dilutively, the minute that they have some semblance of product market fit. So then the diluted the diluted points are the bookends. David Friedberg (01:03:33): This was kind of the idea with, like, indiegogo and some of the GoFundMe types or the not GoFundMe the other things where you could basically presell consumer products too, right, where you could get funded in a similar way, and you could see the same transitioning into kind of hardware businesses and other and other consumer businesses. Right? Jason Calacanis (01:03:50): There's an even bigger there's an even bigger trend that happened that I can talk to, which is Equity crowdfunding CF. But I don't wanna take you Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:56): off your deck. So do you wanna keep going on the deck or you won't stop? The only the only last thing I say the other big thing as as Friedberg says is like so let me just summarize. So it's kind of like, I think where we're all going to is we see the venture Calacanis changes. Jason Calacanis (01:04:11): The financial stack. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:13): It's going from organizations and these amorphous financial orgs down to individuals. As that happens, I think what we're all kind of stating is it's incredibly valuable at the earliest stages align yourself with a person that knows your business or your market. Right? And that's worth some amount of dilution. It's almost like getting a quasi cofounder. Right? So in the seed and the series a. But I think so that's one really important point of what's happening in the market. The second thing that I think we're all saying is Why are we diluting ourselves to grow in these middle rounds? Jason Calacanis (01:04:49): It's -- You don't have to. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:50): It's unnecessary, and there should be really clever ways of non dilutive financing yourself. And as as the market becomes more and more sophisticated, there will be more companies beyond Pipe And Clearbank to be clear. But the point is that every kind of company that has product market fit should be able to finance themselves non dilutively in the b all the way to the d and the e. And then the third thing, which is sort of what Friedberg says, is this last bookend is, then you have sort of the path to going public. And this is where the stack makes a ton of because you have a very certain cost of capital, you can now architect a cap table where the founder remains in control where they and the employees are still more than 50% and you pull in the time of the IPO, why is that important? Typically, today, these companies were taking 12 plus years to go public now with Spats They've come back in, and they're closer to 7 8 years. The reason is back to that argument of, like, if you wanna be a winner take most outcome, The most important thing you need at scale is money. And the way that you get money is by opening the kimono on your finances and showing people who have long of money, why they should give it to you and not something else. And so by going public in year 6, 7, and 8, that's where you pull in the 1,000,000,000 of dollars so you can dominate. Jason Calacanis (01:06:03): what we're seeing is massive competition in the financing of massively competitive startup scenes, in other words, the entrepreneurial ecosystem has never been this vibrant. And I wanna point out one thing that the SCC has done that has is going to change things dramatically, I believe. When syndicates first came out, everybody said they were stupid. Nobody would ever do it. first one we ever did famously was com.com. We put in $328,000 became worth over a 100,000,000. We're on track this year to do 5 deals a month, 60 deals, and we'll put 50,000,000 to work this year at the syndicate dot com. Think about that. My fund is 44,000,000. That's over 3 years. So now the syndicate's gotten so big that -- She just run the syndicate. Well, exactly. So I yeah. I'm gonna tell my LP is the next time around. Let's have a discussion about this. But, anyway, I wanna point out what republic.co happened this week. Republic.co is equity crowdfunding. This means civilians can invest. There used to be a cap on an equity crowdfunding of $1,000,000 every year And there's a lot of auditing and financial review you have to do, and you pay 6% to whoever raised the money. But it's it's There is no sponsor involved in this. So as an investor, you don't get me as a lead or Chamath as your sponsor or Saks on your cap table. But you can go on to Republic now which has a 100,000 investors on it. And Gumroad, which is doing $10,000,000 a year, just raised 5,000,000 in one day, Sahel, who was also running a rolling fund with AngelList. And he has 8600 6 investors, which means people are putting in under a $1000 each. Amazing. And the it's capped at 5,000,000 now. Then, Arlen Hamilton, who runs Backstage Capital, did a very nontraditional, I'll say, raise. She's not raising for her fund She sold 10% ownership whereas in the process of selling 10% ownership in her venture capital fund startup studio at a $50,000,000 valuation. She's selling 10 percent of it. If you buy shares in that, you don't get Carry, but you get 10% of her carry and management fees forever. Jason Calacanis (01:08:11): So it'd be like buying 10 percent of craft or whatever. The point is you the VCs get boxed out of this. And this imagine if Airbnb Friedberg decided, fuck it. We're gonna let our drivers buy shares through this. And they said, we're starting this crowdfunding for 5,000,000, and they did it every year because you can do the 5,000,000 every single year. So every year, you just allow folks who are in your stakeholder pool, you email them and then they buy in. It's just absolutely extraordinary. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:41): Can you explain the Ireland thing? So she sorry. She sold 10 -- It's Jason Calacanis (01:08:45): a little complicated if you page down -- To meet your earnings? Yes. So if you go to the flow of funds and that link I sent, republic.co/backstage, She took all of her different funds and said, you can buy 10% for $5,000,000 you own 10% of essentially Sequoia Capital or Y Combinator, whatever you wanna refer to her, you know, company as, her holding company. Then every time she gets management fees, every time she has distributions from her carry, she's gonna give 10% of that to these folks forever. I don't know if that's a great idea, but it's a a a new idea. And I don't know if the investors in that are gonna get a a massive return or they're doing it because they wanna support the cause. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:29): That's incredible. My gosh. It's so weird. It's so disruptive. It's so disruptive. Yeah. Wow. It's incredible. David Sacks (01:09:34): Well, because it lets anybody really spin a new venture firm, basically, because there are some startup costs to spinning up a new venture cost. Jason Calacanis (01:09:41): So -- -- been in there she's been doing this for 10 years and really has gotten Good for a little help. -- to say not a lot of traction, you know, from the the classic LPs of the world. But now just like we saw at GameStop, just like we see with Bitcoin, just like we see with NFTs, and Robin Hood Day Traders, There are new entrants here, and I think there's gonna be a world where I will be able to fire up a syndicate and say, I would like to raise 10,000,000, but I'm limiting it to $1000 per person. And ten thousand people invest or I'm limiting it to $500. So instead of, you know, going away for the weekend or going to Vegas and blowing a $1000, somebody could say, you know I'll go to Vegas and blow 500, but I'm gonna put 500 in the next startup I see. And this is a democratization that could change everything and make America so much more competitive with what we're seeing in China with Jack Ma disappearing and -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:34): Well, look. Right? I've said I witnessed this before. Like like, what's what's crazy is, like, if you talk about, like, systemic inequality and poverty, it's like, The government loves to give poor people, casinos, sports betting, and lottery tickets. David Friedberg (01:10:47): Yep. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:48): But the idea that they could invest a $100 into a start up is illegal even though startups generate 15% a year CAGR. So even if what you did was you you invested in the market beta of startups, Let's just say that degrades, it would still probably be close to 10%. We Jason Calacanis (01:11:04): beat the markets. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:05): You'd be you'd you'd be at the S and P returns, you know, over many, many years, 8%. So, I mean, 24% better. It's it's it would be incredible. Jason Calacanis (01:11:13): But with by the way, 25% better, Chamath, with the outside chance of hitting -- -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:18): your home run. Jason Calacanis (01:11:18): -- a grand slam. And and that's why I love this. Alright. So do we want to wrap here? Or do we have any closing thoughts? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:25): Well, I I just think it's like if you think of like that thing of like all the money flows changing, the other thing is like all the people are changing. And then what Saks said before, it's much, much easier because the technologies are changing. You put these three things in a soup, and it just seems like our best days are ahead of us. Jason Calacanis (01:11:43): I think it's gonna be amazing for entrepreneurship. All the answers are out there if you wanna start a company. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:48): All the answers. Jason Calacanis (01:11:49): -- skills are freely available to you you can learn anything online. I think the message I really want people to understand is, you know, you may you may believe that the world is filled with inequality and racism and bad actors. And you would be right. But what's also right is that Every school could be learned, capital is available now more than ever, and there is a clear path for you if you just stop watching television and learn to be a UX designer, a sales executive, a marketing or growth executive, or a developer, you can change the world and change your lot in life and be really fucking rich. don't buy into this victim mentality. It's complete utter nonsense that crazy lefties are saying everybody's stupid and nobody can learn And I got a bag of red pills here, and I have been pounding them. The world is a giant opportunity for all of you Go Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:43): get it. I think it's time to announce Friedberg and I would like to announce that we've started a combination incubator and early stage venture firm. We call it punch draft. And it's play on the words launch and craft. I think the punch is the punch is more just a -- Everybody wants to know Jason Calacanis (01:13:02): when we're gonna launch our first syndicate. We gotta get a deal here. Somebody's gotta find a deal with that. David Friedberg (01:13:07): I I I never get in Jason Calacanis (01:13:08): the middle. David Friedberg (01:13:09): you guys are doing deals left in writing. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:11): Jason, you need to assign somebody to figure this the fuck out because I think there's -- I have. Jason Calacanis (01:13:14): -- there are people there there there are there Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:17): are there are folks listening to this podcast who have great businesses. What we should commit to them is we will help you be the least diluted, and we will try to share the beak wedding amongst all the other listening to this. So if you have a great company and you're thinking of raising capital, come to the 1 of the 4 of us, and we will hand roll a solution for you. Yes. Okay. Let's just do it. It's like it doesn't Jason Calacanis (01:13:41): have to do a systematic -- -- domain -- Handroll to wet your beak. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:44): Okay. Handroll handroll. We will handroll a solution that will allow the 4 of us plus everybody else in the syndicate to invest, and then we will help you non dilutive grow your business for as long as possible and then take it public. Jason Calacanis (01:13:58): Okay. I am setting up wetyearbeek.com, which is currently redirecting to the all in podcast. It's gonna be a type form. And the type form is gonna let you -- David Friedberg (01:14:07): I I will dilute your business, but the rest of you guys can do it on the website. Jason Calacanis (01:14:11): Anyway, go to wet your beak.com and fill out the form. Tell us a little bit about your business and what and it will go to all four besties in the database. We'll share it. What your beak is the new database I bought the domain, but you're beak.com from one of the -- Yes. You just David Friedberg (01:14:24): said it now. This is Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:25): the 10th time you've said it. I get it. David Friedberg (01:14:26): We get Jason Calacanis (01:14:26): this is -- Collectively, we own it. I I David Friedberg (01:14:29): this podcast is rapidly turning into a commercial for Jason Calacanis (01:14:32): -- Well, I think we have good information. David Sacks (01:14:34): No. This is this is Jake Howell's attempt to divert and steal my deal flow. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:14:38): So what it's talking about. We're partners you're a fucking -- Oh, we're we're partners, though? We are. David Sacks (01:14:45): I Who Jason Calacanis (01:14:45): did I just bring 6 7 companies to the other day. David Sacks (01:14:48): craftventures.com. Do not that's the that's the website. That's the website. David Friedberg (01:14:54): Alright. Yeah. Okay. Don't email me. Jason Calacanis (01:14:57): Give me a break, man. Come on, man. We're how many deals are we in? Back at you. Alright. Listen. Back at you. We love all of the audience. And we love our besties. Love you, bestie Chomov. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:07): Love you, guys. Jason Calacanis (01:15:09): Love you, Shreveberg. David Friedberg (01:15:10): I gotcha. Jason Calacanis (01:15:11): Love you, sexy poo. When are we playing cards? Come on. Let's play cards too. David Sacks (01:15:14): Well, okay. Let's play Monday. Jason Calacanis (01:15:15): Let's Monday. Done. Done. David Friedberg (01:15:16): Done. You're sending the invitation. Jason Calacanis (01:15:18): Alright, everybody. It's another all in podcast. If you wanna rate and subscribe or do anything like that. Sure. Why not? End, shout out, Young Spielberg. Thank you for making all of our great tracks. do a search for young, yungspielberg in your in Spotify, buy his songs, like his songs, and he's the greatest. If you want series a funding or seed funding, David Sachs. If you wanna spack, chum off. And if you want to fold some proteins and David Sacks (01:15:48): Cubits. Jason Calacanis (01:15:48): Yeah. Can you wanna do some cubits? Yeah. Email Friedberg. Somebody told me that the Quality of the show. He calls it the Friedberg Index. If Friedberg talks a lot, it's a great episode. When Friedberg demers and doesn't talk a lot, It's a shit episode. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:04): Say say the word again. Jason Calacanis (01:16:06): Say the word? demur. demur. It's French for sleep. It means you wet took a nap. It just was French but sleep. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:15): You're just such he that Jason Calacanis (01:16:16): -- Day more. More. As in more day, day as in sleep, day more. You could say demure. Yay. Demured. Okay, everybody. We'll see you next time. We're the only in podcast. David Friedberg (01:16:28): Love you, guys. The Leggett winner's Jason Calacanis (01:16:31): ride. Rainman, David Saxon. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. besties are back. I don't know the 13th step. That is my dog. So, you know, driveway tax. We should all just get a room and just have a think you, George, because they're all these useless. It's like this, like, sexual tension, but they just need to release them out. When you're the thief, What? You're a thief. What? Where did you get Murphy's artifact?