OpenAI 的身份危机、数据中心之战、伊朗消息推高市场、马姆达尼首推新税、斯瓦尔韦尔退选

Jason Calacanis (00:00:00): Alright, everybody. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. We've got the core four here and, dare I say Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:09): The king of atoms. Jason Calacanis (00:00:10): The king of atoms. Yes. Captain Travis Kalanick is here. How are you doing, brother? Travis Kalanick (00:00:16): I'm pretty good. Pretty good. I'm sitting here doing the podcast just next door to David. Jason Calacanis (00:00:22): Ah, yes. There you go. David Sacks (00:00:24): Don't reveal our locations. Jason Calacanis (00:00:25): Please don't docs. Travis Kalanick (00:00:26): I didn't put my address out there, dude. David Sacks (00:00:28): No. That's Jason Calacanis (00:00:29): true. Don't worry. Mondami did. He's outside your houses right now asking them to foreclose on David Sacks (00:00:34): 3.9% or something? Jason Calacanis (00:00:36): Yeah. He's he they decided there's no rich people left in New York, so he's looking for other Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:41): things to tax. Is it 3.9% a year? Is it per year, David Sacks (00:00:45): or is it I don't Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:46): know the David Sacks (00:00:46): percentage have been released yet, but the speculation I've seen is 3.9%. But I don't think that's final. But, yeah, it's a PIDA tax. So if you have a second home yeah. Every year. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:56): Wow. Jason Calacanis (00:00:57): And by the way, it's for any home over 5,000,000. There's no homes under 5,000,000 in Manhattan. This is not a rich person tax. This is within 15 miles of Midtown Manhattan, you're paying an extra tax. David Sacks (00:01:12): But only but J Cal, only if it's a pian de terre. So what it means is that Jason Calacanis (00:01:15): the most homes. David Sacks (00:01:16): Well, yeah, but the most elastic part of the market is what they're targeting for this tax. So in other words, people who don't live in New York who just have it as a second or third home who could buy that property anywhere Jason Calacanis (00:01:29): Yeah. David Sacks (00:01:29): Are now being taxed the most. So what do you think that's gonna do? It's gonna have a massive impact on demand for second homes in New York, which will crash the whole market. Jason Calacanis (00:01:39): Yes. Congratulations, mom dummy. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:41): But in a weird way, that'll be good for housing affordability in New York. David Sacks (00:01:44): Well, that that's sort of the the claim, but I don't think it'll be good for it because there'll be no incentive to build more. Jason Calacanis (00:01:50): Yeah. All units matter. Every time you add units, people upgrade, and it's not like these are gonna be low income housing. Like, penthouse on 57th Street or, you know, in Gramercy. That's not low income housing. You'd have to break it into seven units. Makes no sense. But by the way, I don't know if you guys saw the video, not to get too serious, but he's doxing a certain billionaire who owns a certain place, and he's literally pointing at his home. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:16): No. I said that to you, Jason. He's not doxing because everybody's known for years that Ken Griffin bought that place. Everybody knows that address. Everybody knows that unit. We all knew it. It was marketed widely. I don't think that's really doxing. He doesn't live there, and everybody knew he owned it. It would be very different if it was a place where somebody was keeping their primary residence and you didn't know and they stood in front of the house. That I would agree with you. I think this one is a little bit more tenuous. Jason Calacanis (00:02:40): Okay. Fair enough. But what I will tell you is it's a dog whistle. Crazy people and this thing's been seen by thirty, forty, 50,000,000 people now. It's a dog whistle to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:49): say That's Jason Calacanis (00:02:50): That's true. That's the next UnitedHealthcare CEO. And in the week that a fire a Molotov cocktail and a bullet gets shot into Sam Altman's house, it's deadly serious. And if you reversed it I always reverse it. What if a republican sat outside of Bernie Sanders' second or third home and said, we should this is his pied a terre. This is his summer home. We should add, you know, taxes to it. And I'm sure you could look up Bernie Sanders' home pretty easily. So just before you point at people's homes and say this is the villain, be careful folks, because then if something does happen to that person, like, you know, what happened to Sam Altman this week, you can feel however you want about him, but nobody deserves to have their house fire bombed or shot at, period. Full stop. David Sacks (00:03:34): I just think that it's gonna kill the demand for you know, maybe people who already have a home in New York like Ken Griffin, they probably are just gonna suck it up and pay the tax and keep whatever they have. But if you were a person who was thinking about buying a pied a terra in New York, there's no way you would do it now. Yeah. Because you don't know what the tax rate's gonna be, and it's gonna keep going up. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:58): After a decade with interest and inflation, you've effectively almost doubled the price of your unit. So if you're gonna buy a $10,000,000 unit, you're probably then looking at a $20,000,000 purchase price just to break even after about ten or eleven years. That's crazy. The math doesn't work. Jason Calacanis (00:04:14): What is the downstream effect of these individuals not coming to New York, going to a Knicks game Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:19): Nothing. Jason Calacanis (00:04:20): Going to a restaurant? No. They spend money. They spend money in New York. They have their birthday party. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:25): You They do all kinds of things in I'm not a big fan of the pied a terra culture. I I own one house. I don't like this whole multiple houses you flitter flattering everywhere. It ruined London. Because when when you look at London Travis Kalanick (00:04:36): do you vacation? Shimath, where do you vacation? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:39): I go to a hotel. Travis Kalanick (00:04:40): K. So my point is this, that I think the way that it works is it's not just pied a terre. If you if you own a home that you fully rent out, but that is not the primary residence of the person who is renting It's also a problem. So this is any even like a like a you know, you had a two week rental or a one week rental or a thirty day rental or even a five year rental and it was somebody else's second home, the owner still gets gets hit. So the rental the sort of rentals of, like, folks who want to come to that city or who don't wanna own in that city, but it's a second place. The second place thing goes away. So maybe this is just good for hotels. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:26): I think it's good for hotels. But if you look at London, it's probably the best example where there was a lot of people who used London as a place to store assets. Real estate became the primary way in which they would do that. It hollowed out parts of London where it's not as if it was unlivable. It's just that it was unlived. Nobody was there. You drive around Chelsea. You drive around certain parts of London, and it was like a ghost town on, like, a Thursday night or a Friday night. Jason Calacanis (00:05:55): That is an issue. It's the land banking. It's like your Bitcoin is hollowing out a neighborhood, and and there is something there. But you know what? The whole, housing thing is complete cap and utter bull because if you move to a place like Austin where you are in Nevada or Florida, you see what happens when you allow people to build units. In Austin, three years in a row, rents and housing prices have gone down while net migration has gone up. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:23): But that's been good. Right? For Austin, you guys would say? And that Incredible. David Sacks (00:06:26): Yeah. Amazing. Austin has, like, roughly doubles the city over the past decade, and yet the rent for, you know, whatever, a one or two bedroom apartment's gone down. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:36): Down. Incredible. David Sacks (00:06:37): So in other words, if you let people build to satisfy the demand, you won't have this problem. Jason Calacanis (00:06:42): And then who's stopping the building? It's democratic cities. Yeah. It's NIMBY people. And then in a republican town, they're actually building units for and affordability. So you have one group saying they care about affordability, and they're doing nothing about it, and they're stopping it. And in another place, they're like, we're just gonna let you build because it's your right to build because it's your land. That's the approach in Texas. It's your land. You have the right to develop it. Go. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:09): By the way, the high end of the market in London has basically turned over and collapsed. Sacks, to your point, like they introduced the stamp tax, which I think is equivalent to this tax that the New York City mayor is proposing. And if you look at London as a guide, the real estate market just bid it at the high end. David Sacks (00:07:25): And that's probably gonna be good for that city or even The UK as a whole. There's a handful of cities where people do what you say, which is kind of park money there. The reason why they do that is because they believe that that city, a, has the rule of law and b, is a unique world class city that's gonna keep appreciating. And if you have new management that doesn't really believe in the rule of law, that basically keeps imposing all these arbitrary taxes, that money is gonna flee and find other kinds of investments. People aren't gonna park their money there. That has to be a bad thing for the city. It's like, you know, who cares if the top floor of that building where Ken Griffin lives is owned by one It's guy who isn't there that not gonna affect the city that much. But having all these billionaires from all over the world decide to park money in that American city has to be good for The US, just like it's good for The UK. And if you give that up, then again, the money will just go somewhere else. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:19): Well, to to your The Travis Kalanick (00:08:20): only thing is they're already paying taxes on the property. And because they're not there very often, they're not using city services. So they're paying taxes on the property. They're not using city services. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:33): They're profitable to the city. Yeah. David Sacks (00:08:35): Think about a developer who's underwriting some new project. You know, the fact that a whale like Ken Griffin is willing to overpay in the sense of price per foot for that top floor might make that whole project pencil. And this is what contributes to the vitality of New York is there's constantly development going on. There's constantly cranes. And so you take out that part of the market that in effect was price insensitive and was subsidizing all these projects. And I think development's gonna dry up to a large degree. Jason Calacanis (00:09:08): Mhmm. He's paying he must be paying 3 or 4,000,000 in taxes every year and getting no services to your point, Travis. Good point. Like, all profit for Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:15): the same also did something else, which is that they essentially crippled what's called non dom status, which is the big tax arb if you're moving or parking assets in London. And to your point, Sachs, what did all the rich people do? They just redirected themselves to Zurich, to Lugano, to Milan, and they they took advantage of more hospitable tax policy in other places. Now what the people in Britain would tell you, I actually met with the UK government yesterday, they don't see a meaningfully enough measurable impact yet where they think it's a five alarm fire. So the real question is, is it more of a slow bleed and a slow melt? And at some point, it's just hollowed out, and it's very hard to reverse because there's not gonna be a cataclysmic acute moment where people say, oh my god. We need to reverse these policies. It doesn't seem like that's in the offing. David Sacks (00:10:02): You know, LA did something a little different but similar as they introduced that 5% mansion tax. It's on, like, all the areas except for, like, Beverly Hills and David Friedberg (00:10:11): San Francisco. Has that too. David Sacks (00:10:13): Yeah. San Francisco. I got that too. I think it's actually, like, 6% in San Francisco. David Friedberg (00:10:16): San Francisco, it's 6% over 25,000,000, and it starts at 5,000,000. So there's a transfer tax, an excess transfer tax above $5,000,000 properties that scales up above 25,000,000 to an extra 6% on top of your brokerage commission. So when you sell a house in San Francisco, you're paying 13% now. David Sacks (00:10:36): Which is why you look at the transaction volume in the LA real estate market, and it's just completely dried up. You know, people aren't doing the house flipping anymore, like that kind of stuff because the transaction costs are too high. But it just shows I mean, again, this tax was imposed retroactively. For example, I had my house at SF and then they just take, you know, a couple of rooms of it. And we talked about this on the show when it happened. But my my point is just your property is not safe in blue states. And wealthy people who have a choice of where to park their money are gonna increasingly realize that and they're not gonna buy. I think real estate in blue states is dangerous because the political class thinks that they can take a chunk of it. And, you know, wealthy people are gonna react to that, and they're gonna move their money elsewhere. Jason Calacanis (00:11:23): Alright. Let's go to topic number one. OpenAI is apparently suffering from a bit of an identity crisis. On Sunday, OpenAI's chief revenue officer Denise Dresser sent a four page memo to employees. Obviously, it leaked immediately, probably the point of it, and she called out in profit. She said their $30,000,000,000 run rate is cap inflated by 8,000,000,000 due to a revenue share and some accounting with AI model providers. Chamathi pointed that out in the last couple of weeks. Also, she said anthropic stories built on, quote, fear restriction and the idea that a small group of elites should control AI. Obviously, she's a fan of the pod. She also laid out OpenAI's pivoting, and she said they are going hard after business customers, and they want to win the agent platform layer. If you remember, they hired the architect of the open source project OpenClaw. They didn't acquire OpenClaw. So Peter, Steinberger is working at OpenAI. Cynical people said, hey. Maybe they want his next set of innovations to go inside of OpenAI's products as opposed to the open source one. I kind of agree with that directionally. Because obviously Perplexity Computer is doing really well. They quadrupled their revenue. And, I was over at XAI earlier this week with Elon, and I can tell you he's got some very cool stuff coming. And this new model, SPUD, is coming, from OpenAI. Here's your polymarket, 75% chance SPUD is released next week. Additionally, and we'll go to the panel in just a second, on Tuesday, two days after this memo came out, obviously, people write these memos to go directly to the press, so they're obviously trying to undercut Anthropix valuation, and they feel that's a threat. That's my take. The Feet cited anonymous OpenAI investors who are frustrated with the company's lack of focus. Here's the anonymous quote. Jason Calacanis (00:13:16): Quote, you have ChatGPT, a 1,000,000,000 user business growing 50 to a 100% a year. What are you doing talking about enterprise and code? It's a deeply unfocused company. And, we talked about this. ChatGPT's market share is going down as the number of users is going up because Gemini and Claude gaining significantly. And Meta just last week released their first proprietary model, And Apple doesn't have a product in market yet, but they do have a lot of users. So here's your Gen AI website traffic. Let's start, Chamath, with you, your thoughts on OpenAI. Should they be pivoting straight into business developers and getting focused on that, or should they stay focused on the consumer where they are the verb? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:03): As it relates to complex long horizon coding tasks, what I can tell you from my team at eighty ninety is codex is better generally than anthropic. And so what happens is from the more day to day work, I think it's more reliable to use the Claude ensemble of models. But when you're dealing with something that's very tricky and very complicated and a little bit more long horizon, Codex is really functional and really good. So I think if you're looking at it through the lens of OpenAI, what they're probably saying is, hey. Hold on a second. If we allocate our resources and just double down and crush consumer, that's probably 3 or 4,000,000,000,000 of enterprise value. And then if we slowly refocus the company with the rest of the resources and double down on codex and do something meaningful in enterprise, we can probably capture two or three trillion there. And now all of a sudden, you can paint a picture for a $7.08, $9,000,000,000,000 market cap in the fullness of time, not tomorrow, obviously. But Codex is really good, and there is a business to be had in both. You have to separate the two businesses. You can't have a lot of overlap because there's too much context switching. You gotta let the consumer team run, and then you gotta isolate the enterprise team and let them do what they think is right. Jason Calacanis (00:15:23): Travis, there's a big debate going on amongst the investors. The FTP's also questioned the $850,000,000,000 valuation of OpenAI secondary markets have now priced Anthropic higher than OpenAI for the first time. This is the flipping that people predicted. One investor said OpenAI would need to IPO at a valuation of 1,200,000,000,000 for the last round to make any sense, but there's no buyers currently at the $850,000,000,000 valuation that OpenAI just closed according to Bloomberg. Travis, how do you, handicap this race between these two leading frontier models? Travis Kalanick (00:16:01): Growth is king right now in this in this world, in this segment. Growth is the whole damn thing. And if Anthropic is growing faster than OpenAI by a significant clip, the investors right now are gonna play it forward. And they're it you know, you start to get network effects around compute, network effects around the number of tokens you're pushing out for various customers, enterprise or consumer. And ultimately, you know, it's not great today, but how that plays into reinforcement learning and the things getting smarter over time. There's so many there's so much upside to volume and scale that if they are growing faster at the same size, even if OpenAI is still growing, but if they are half the growth rate, a third the growth rate, a fifth the growth rate, I would be I'd be worried. Jason Calacanis (00:16:57): And you saw this at Uber specifically when you accelerated away from the competitors like Lyft and DoorDash. Yeah? Travis Kalanick (00:17:04): Yeah. You had to. Yeah. Network effects was the whole thing at the end of the day, and network effects was based on scale. So, yes, I'm I'm sort of, like, coming from my very specific experience. But if you believe there's network effects with the scale of data that you have and the scale of customers and the revenue, that's just cash that's coming in that you redeploy into compute and so say there's network effects of large compute, I'd be very worried, if I'm OpenAI and seeing somebody growing faster at the same size. Jason Calacanis (00:17:37): So, Friedberg, when you look at this race between these two giants, maybe your thoughts on the flywheel as it relates, as Travis is pointing out, to advantages in compute reinforcement learning, and then also the ability to fundraise. One of the great things that Travis and the team did was as they were pulling away, they just sucked all the oxygen out of the room by using capital as a weapon. So your thoughts, Dave, on this high stakes game? Because there's also a point at which and I'll just end on this. There's a point at which you could run off the cliff. You raise so much money, and you deploy it so fast and the revenue doesn't catch up to it, and then you go public and the markets don't believe the story. So your thoughts, Reber? David Friedberg (00:18:18): I don't know the financials of the two companies well enough. Obviously, Sam has no problem raising money. The guy didn't he just close, like, a $150,000,000,000 round or something? 20? Jason Calacanis (00:18:26): How much Chamath Palihapitiya (00:18:26): is 122,000,000,000. David Friedberg (00:18:27): 122,000,000,000. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:18:28): Largest round ever raised in any market, I think, private or public. Travis Kalanick (00:18:32): Probably. Yeah. I mean, that's crazy. David Friedberg (00:18:34): Yeah. That doesn't seem to be an issue. What I've noticed is just the pace of, innovation at Anthropic is, from my experience, unprecedented. I mean, their release cadence is extraordinary. They've basically supplanted Open Claw already with this release they did a few days ago, and then today the new Opus model got dropped. So there's something about the momentum, not in necessarily just in user growth, but in how they're operating this business that just seems to be head and shoulders above everyone else in the cadence of upgrades. If I look back six months ago, I think we were pretty heavy on Cursor and Gemini, and now I think we're probably 90% anthropic in just the last six months in my my organization. There's something very powerful about the flywheel they have going on. Travis Kalanick (00:19:22): Yeah. But here's where I go just real quick, Dave, is mad respect on a 120 or a $130,000,000,000 raise. I mean, this is obviously next level. But you can use capital and investment to acquire scale and network effects associated with it. But if somebody is getting that scale with revenue and let's call it contribution margin, contribution profit, efficiency will outstrip subsidy. And it will you can't just keep raising $100,000,000,000 things forever. That's where the train will stop. And if Anthropic is funding theirs through revenue and other folks are funding it through investment, there's like a short term that's a short term solve, but it the long run is whoever is scaling their actual usage and system and ultimately with contribution profit that then soaks up the need for investment. That's a that's a that's a very scary machine if you're competing against it. Jason Calacanis (00:20:30): Which is exactly, Saks, what the legacy Mag seven are doing. You have massive profits from, Meta's core business, Google's core business that are being redeployed into infrastructure and even, Tesla, which has, a lot of profits in SpaceX, which has a lot of cash on hand. And they're building out Colossus and other assets, including, Elon is working on building a fab as folks have been talking about. So, Saks, is there a chance for the legacy companies, the max sevens, to compete in this, or are we looking at OpenAI and Anthropic are one and two, and then everybody else can fight for third place and the and the and the and the bronze as it were? David Sacks (00:21:14): Well, I think Google's clearly in the mix. I mean, DeepMind has an outstanding team, and I think Elon's still in the mix with x AI, and then you've got Meta, also has the resources, and they seem to be further behind, but they're gonna compete. Look, let me just go back to the central premise here. I agree that there are some valid criticism that OpenAI has been unfocused and should be, you know, moving forward, more focused in what they do. I have no idea, for example, what they're doing buying a podcast that's not us. So I don't know what what that was about. If you were gonna buy a tech podcast for a few $100,000,000, I mean, we were here. Jason Calacanis (00:21:57): We're here. David Sacks (00:21:58): We're here. Travis Kalanick (00:21:58): Dario, reach out. Small potatoes for you guys, though. Small potatoes. They they didn't afford you. They can't afford you guys. David Sacks (00:22:06): Yeah. They thought we were too expensive. Little did they know. We would have sold out. Jason Calacanis (00:22:11): Punch the ticket, Daria. David Sacks (00:22:12): But look, this other part of the criticism of OpenAI that they shouldn't do enterprise is totally misguided. One of the reasons why they should have been more focused is to do more enterprise and get enterprise more correct. Now, why do I say that? To Travis's point about growth rates, it's true that OpenAI and Anthropic as of the beginning of Q2, so let's say two weeks ago, they were both around 30,000,000,000 of revenue. And that memo from that OpenAI employee was right, that if you compare them on an apples to apples basis, that Anthropic is about 20% less because they are including revenue made by their channel partners. But that doesn't matter. What matters is the growth rate. You know, again, to Travis's point. And let me just put some numbers around this. The OpenAI growth rate's been around three to four x a year. The Anthropic growth rate has been around 10 x a year. So they went from, let's call it 1 to 10,000,000,000 of ARR last year. And by the end of Q1 this year, they were already at 30,000,000,000 of, again, let's call it their revenue. And they're on their way, you know, like Brad Gershommer was saying on our podcast, I think in the last couple weeks, they're going to end this year at 80 to 100,000,000,000, at least on the current trajectory. And so you can plot their revenue on a logarithmic graph. I mean, again, no one's ever seen anything like before where every unit on the y axis is It's 10x. And it's a straight line. Now It's crazy. It's crazy, right? So if it's taking Anthropic, let's say one year to 10x, and it's taking OpenAI two years to achieve a 10x, then it's obvious which one's gonna win. Now, is the reason for this? It's because Anthropic was very focused on enterprise, specifically coding. And what you're seeing is that businesses are willing to pay for coding, code tokens, on a metered basis, let's call it like electricity. The more they use, the more they're willing to pay, and their usage just continues to scale and scale. Consumer is completely different. David Sacks (00:24:18): I mean, consumer is a thing that OpenAI prioritized. Consumers have a lower willingness to pay. Maybe only three or 4% of them are willing to convert to premium in the first place. And what they want is a $20 a month, all you can eat subscription. So the revenue simply doesn't scale the same way that enterprise does. And so if you want to tap into the scalable revenue source in the market right now, you have to go after enterprise. So, you know, again, where I would agree with the criticism of OpenAI is maybe they should have been more focused, but they need to be more focused specifically to pursue coding and enterprise. And if they don't catch up soon, to Travis's point, then you could see Anthropic taking a lead here that, let's say over the next one or two years, could be insurmountable. Just by the way, let me just say one thing is even though anthropics revenue has followed this graph, this exponential graph, very predictably, it can't do that forever, right? Like let's say it does get to maybe $100,000,000,000 this year. Can it really get to a trillion dollars in revenue the year after that? Seems hard to believe, right? And the reason is because as you hit new levels of scale, you encounter new problems. I mean, you're simply going to run out of compute or electricity, data centers, infrastructure. There are physical limits or there's limits in the physical world that you're gonna hit. And there's already some evidence that Anthropic is hitting some of those limits. Users were complaining, for example, that Claude was thinking less. Did you guys see this? You know, a typical Claude prompt, they they seem to have cut down on the thinking time by about two thirds. Now I saw someone tweeting today that they just released Opus 4.7, replacing Opus 4.6, and the thinking is back. David Sacks (00:26:00): But, you know, maybe they're charging more for that, hard to say. But they're going to hit some sort of physical limits. And I do wonder if over the next year, Anthropic will reconsider whether it's support for all this like doomer and nimbyism was the right call because it kind of made sense for them from a business standpoint when their competitors were building data centers and they were just getting compute from the hyperscalers. But now that they're, I think, gonna have to move into the game of building their own data centers, they might regret salting the earth for data centers all over the country. And I wonder if that'll be the natural limit of their growth is they'll be hoisted on their own petard of doom or nimbyism. Jason Calacanis (00:26:42): And they're also using the coding platform to build Anthropic itself better. So that in and of itself is a reason to nail coding. You you get the double whammy. You can make a better product, and you can get paid for it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:55): Yes and no. Hold on. Because if you look in Twitter, people are panning Cloud Desktop, and what they said is this is all a bunch of vibe coded slop. I think we have to remember, if you keep these agents on task and they're guardrailed properly, this stuff is a force multiplier. The problem is nobody knows how to do this really well yet. Nobody has built real products of scale largely using agents yet. Nobody knows how to give an example of how an org structure should be redefined. Nobody knows how to budget properly. We had the CTO of Uber say, I give up. I've hit my token budget. The problems I see it are twofold. The first is just to build on Sax's point. All of these frontier labs have a very serious issue, which is both OpenAI and Anthropic are growing so fast that they're at a point now where they need their own infrastructure. It's kind of like when you first start building any kind of company, you're just much easier renting capacity from the hyperscalers. Travis Kalanick (00:27:53): And that's a dependency. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:55): But then it becomes a dependency. Exactly. And now when you're so big, it's actually strategically a huge mistake to not have your own compute supply. Why? Because if you look at who's leading, the frontier labs are leading. And Sacks, to your point, you mentioned this on X, you're like, there was all this doomerism, but maybe it was tied to compute capacity because when Bedrock opened up more capacity for Anthropic, all the doomerism went away. You're left wondering, like, is it really tied to just the fact that they were just trying to throttle usage? So if you're a Frontier lab, you don't wanna have to go through Amazon and GCP and Azure and TinCup for access and capacity. What you'd much rather have is go straight to your customer. On the other side, if you're Gemini or Microsoft or Meta and you have all this compute because I saw a stat this week. The hyperscalers control 60% of all the compute. So the game theory there is if you kneecap the Frontier Labs, it'll give you some chance to catch up, and it gives you time to catch up. Because no matter what the demand is on the upside you remember you guys remember, like, in social networking when Friendster was the cat's meow? Travis Kalanick (00:29:01): Yeah. Cat's meow. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:02): Remember what the biggest problem that Friendster was? Friendster was slow as a dog. Yes. Travis Kalanick (00:29:08): Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:09): And what happened? Then Myspace came in and took all the share. Then we came in Facebook and we took all their share. So there is a way where you can handicap and kneecap these companies by throttling compute access to them. So a, they are forced to now go and get in the game, which is weird because look, OpenAI has tried to displace some of the Stargate spend. I don't see any path except they're gonna have to do it themselves and Anthropic will have to do it themselves. But then separately, the other problem is when you change the subscription model in enterprise and you say, hey. We're not gonna subsidize any more tokens. What's gonna happen is all these token budgets are gonna go crazy. And what Friedberg said is gonna happen where he's like, hey, guys. Why are you spending all this money? What are you making? And you inspect the code, you're like, what is this slop? And you're not gonna add thirty, forty, 50% OPEX to produce nothing. So I think that that's an open question, and that question will become more amplified over the next year as they push the cost off of them. So as Travis said, no more subsidy from the capital. You have to grow into it, but you're not gonna support negative gross margins. So you're gonna pass through the token costs. I so I think it's a very dynamic moment right now for these folks. Jason Calacanis (00:30:21): You look at the ranking of these clusters and who has the most, right now, people have forgotten about Colossus, which, Elon's been building. He's expanding to 555,000 GPUs across three buildings, 18,000,000,000 in investment. He if and then if you look at Prometheus met as planned 2026, that's a 150,000 GPUs. So this is Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:45): Well, Elon just announced a deal. He announced a deal this morning with Cursor. So Elon's Elon's renting a bunch of capacity, so he's now getting effectively into the data center business. He's gonna be a hyperscale. So he's he's gonna use as much as he can for XAI, and whatever's left over, he'll give to, well, this case, he's giving to Kursor to train their model. He could David Sacks (00:31:03): give So you're saying is stuff you might as well overbuild capacity because that way your own models will be in a privileged position and you can sell the rest to your competitors. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:12): 100%. David Sacks (00:31:12): But Jamath, to your point about the thing I was saying on X, I actually, I think I was retweeting Marc Andreessen, who pointed out that one of the reasons why Anthropic might have wanted to hold back Mythos is they simply didn't have the compute to serve it. The model was huge and very expensive to serve. Something like maybe even 10 or 20 times the token cost of, say, Opus. They knew Opus 4.7 was coming out, right? So they hold it back knowing that they don't have the compute to serve it anyway, and they save their compute for the next iteration of Opus. And then by holding it back, they create this impression of scarcity and altruism, and it turns into this gigantic marketing event for their product because everyone in the government's like, oh, wow, they're holding it back because it's so amazing. Now look, I think it may have been genuinely altruistic as well in the sense that Mythos does reveal coding vulnerabilities that people didn't know about before. And, you know, it does make sense to give time to companies with large code bases to patch these dormant bugs and vulnerabilities. But it's looking more and more like Anthropic could not have offered that model commercially anyway because it's just too big and expensive, and they need to create space for Opus four point seven. So it's an interesting theory on what actually happened there. Jason Calacanis (00:32:32): Alright, guys. Before we go to our next story, some breaking news here. Here's your polymarket, gentlemen. I don't this is I don't know if you're placing some insider bets here, Friedberg, but looks like the All In podcast, Anthropic. Now 37% chance of buying the All In podcast. This is live Travis Kalanick (00:32:49): By what time? By the polymarket. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:32:51): This is by the end of the year. Travis Kalanick (00:32:52): By end of the year. Okay. Got it. Jason Calacanis (00:32:53): By end of the year. So it's David Friedberg (00:32:55): This isn't real, is it? Jason Calacanis (00:32:56): Yeah. Absolutely. They've been people have been trading on this. This is heavily traded. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:59): The camp is $92,000,000 of volume. The can. Jason Calacanis (00:33:03): This is the number three largest There's no way Travis Kalanick (00:33:07): this real, dude. There's no way Jason Calacanis (00:33:08): I'm this breaking news, guys. I don't I don't control the news well. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:11): This is David Friedberg (00:33:12): J Cal slob. Travis Kalanick (00:33:13): This is no way this is real. David Sacks (00:33:15): That's Anybody else prediction market, I guess. Hey. What's the what's the volume of that thing? David Friedberg (00:33:20): 92,000,000. Travis Kalanick (00:33:21): It's not real. David Sacks (00:33:22): Is there any $2 behind it? Travis Kalanick (00:33:24): There's no way that's real, guys. Come on. Jason Calacanis (00:33:26): Guys, it's all good. Nice job, man. Wow. Guys, time to upgrade the planes. I just The access is not need the PC 24. I'll take somebody's g six fifty. Whoever's got a g six fifty, go up to the 800. It's gonna be trickled down to JCAL. Let's do it. I'm I'm giving up my platinum status. Travis Kalanick (00:33:42): Trickle down economics. Jason Calacanis (00:33:44): Trickle down avionics. Alright. Listen. Story number two. Triple down avionics. Good. It's good. It's pretty good. Okay. Number two. Allbirds. Speaking of data centers, Allbirds just pivoted from ugly sneakers to AI. The stock has ripped. Talking about peak bubble behavior podcast getting bought by frontier models and sneaker companies pivoting to data centers. Allbirds, as you know, is the ugliest sneakers on the planet. And, this became a massive delusion in our industry that this company was worth billions of dollars. They went public in 2021. This might be one of the peak Zerk moments, raised $350,000,000 in their IPO. David Friedberg (00:34:32): Sax, were you an investor in this thing? Allbirds? Allbirds? Back in? No. David Sacks (00:34:37): No. No. You're thinking about the scooter company. Jason Calacanis (00:34:39): Oh, that was a company. That's right. David Sacks (00:34:40): Okay. Don't don't remind me of the Please. Yeah. Yeah. Investors that didn't work. But no. Bird Jason Calacanis (00:34:46): was crazy. David Sacks (00:34:47): This reminds me of the late nineties where all you had to do was change your name to whatever.com. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:34:54): Yes. David Sacks (00:34:55): And you get a huge pop in your valuation. Jason Calacanis (00:34:57): And you could spin it out. Barnesandnobles.com became then Barnes and nobles. And so the stock crashed and never looked back. There's your stock chart. They sold off all their brand assets for 39,000,000, about 10% of what they raised in the IPO. Congratulations to whoever owns those ugly ass sneakers. David Friedberg (00:35:15): Why were they worth 4,000,000,000? They sold Jason Calacanis (00:35:17): Collective delusion. Collective delusion. People in Silicon Valley liked them, and they just thought it was the next Nike. Tulips. It was Tulips. David Sacks (00:35:25): Well, I think I think that was an era in Silicon Valley where people rewarded rapid growth without really looking at gross margins or cost of goods sold. People didn't really make the distinction between software and everything else. Right? Where software, you never really had to worry about COGS or gross margin because the incremental cost of serving a customer with software is like almost zero. Yeah. So people in Silicon Valley weren't really trained to look at gross margin, and there was this rash of physical world companies that all of a sudden started getting crazy valuations. Travis, quite frankly, you might have the success of Uber Yeah. This is your thing. Might have ushered in this era of, you know, these physical world companies that started getting valued like software companies, even though obviously they didn't deserve Travis Kalanick (00:36:09): David, thank you so much for that shout. David Sacks (00:36:12): I really David Friedberg (00:36:12): appreciate it. Jason Calacanis (00:36:13): You and Airbnb trailed. Anyway, let's No. Get back to Travis Kalanick (00:36:17): Hold on. Hold on. Let me take care of '21 is super interesting though, guys. I don't believe it was a physical versus digital thing. I believe it was a moment in time in the COVID zurp massive money going in. We hadn't seen inflation yet. It was all of that happening, and the investor class was basically deciding we're gonna look two and three years forward on your current growth. And it wasn't one year forward, it was like two or three years forward, and that's where these crazy valuations got weird. So if you went from zero to a you know, if you went from a 100 to $300,000,000 in the last year, they'll play that two, three years forward and go, oh, yeah. You're totally 20 times bigger. We'll pay you for that now. David Friedberg (00:37:02): Yeah. Travis Kalanick (00:37:02): That's where it got weird. Jason Calacanis (00:37:04): It got weird. Hey. Bird scooters was valued at 2 or 3,000,000,000. They were doing micromobility. You're just trolling them, Jay. I'm no. We're giving everybody their flowers for incredible investments, and even even the Mighty Sacks could trip up. Did you sell David Sacks (00:37:18): those shares pre Jason Calacanis (00:37:19): IPO? Yeah. David Sacks (00:37:20): No. No. We don't do that. It was a series a we did. I mean, look, we we got it right in the sense that it was a total phenomenon. Yeah. But then the cities just cracked down on it and killed it. Yeah. If the cities had leaned into it yeah. Look, if the cities had reacted differently, if they had leaned into it, if they had created, let's say, a scooter or like a small EV lane, it could have transformed cities. I mean, it would have been a lot easier to get around, but instead they banned it, they limited it, they didn't create designated areas for it. And then the coup de grace was basically when they would take a city where Bird already had like 80% dominant market share, and then they would say that, well, we're gonna choose four operators and give them each 25% of say, a thousand scooter allocation, that just killed the economics for everybody. David Friedberg (00:38:06): Yeah. There's no market anymore. David Sacks (00:38:07): There's no market. Yeah. Yeah. There is no marketplace network effect, right, when they're basically just picking the winners and deciding the market. David Friedberg (00:38:14): Yeah. You can't you can't compete. Travis Kalanick (00:38:16): And splitting it even so then Yeah. David Friedberg (00:38:18): There's no there's no competition. You can't drive value. Regulatory capture Jason Calacanis (00:38:21): at its worst. Travis Kalanick (00:38:22): Guys, like, we should watch for this in the in the autonomous car space too. Cities may get cute and start doing things like that. And and what they did on scooters, they could do on cars. David Sacks (00:38:33): Oh. That's a really good point. Yeah. You're right. Instead of just letting the market play out, they say, well, we're only gonna have x number, a thousand autonomous cars. Travis Kalanick (00:38:42): New York is literally doing this right now. Jason Calacanis (00:38:45): They're doing medallions. York and Boston. David Friedberg (00:38:46): And then the prices prices go up. The innovation doesn't get realized. Consumers don't benefit. No one benefits. Basically, you've deleted the market. Jason Calacanis (00:38:55): Yes. And, anyway, just to wrap up this story on the the shoe company, they're now Newbird AI. They bought eight h one hundreds, I think, with $50,000,000 in a convertible note, and the stock has gone up. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:10): H. Stop. Eight real you know, it's not eight. Jason Calacanis (00:39:12): Know it's a joke. Obviously, the stock's now at $14 a share. It's up 450% in the last week. Shout out to Wall Street Bets for staying Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:20): Can I say something serious? Jason Calacanis (00:39:21): More than the shorts can stay solvent. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:25): Can I say something serious? Jason Calacanis (00:39:27): Yes, please. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:27): There are a handful of transactions that have happened in the last few days that if you look far away are head scratchers. So this is one. I don't know if you guys saw recently, but Jane Street did a billion dollar investment in, essentially a news neoscaler and then also did a $6,000,000,000 compute deal with them. That was, like, a little interesting. So what would I like to say about this? I think the thing that the capital markets are getting right is that we are massively compute constrained, massively. And those are two problems. One is the power. So if you look at companies like Bloom Energy, it has gone absolutely straight up vertical nuclear. And the reason is because Bloom has a solution that allows you to use nat gas, that allows you to do something on-site, and critically allows you to get your clean air permits very quickly because it has very, very little emissions, and it's been proven as such. And so instead of waiting for years to get on the grid, if you wanted to build a data center, you can now use their services. The other part that's going absolutely nuclear is the actual land and the shell because it's turning out it's impossible to get these approvals. Now why is that? And I sent Nick an image. The reason is because underneath at the core of it all is there's a tide that is shifting on AI. The American population is incrementally getting more and more negative on the whole subject matter writ large. And it's not clear exactly why they're doing that. Maybe it's the doomerism, which we talked about last week. Maybe it's the fear of the job loss that Jason has been talking about. Maybe it's just this idea of yet another wave of innovation that's only gonna benefit a few in an extreme way, minting trillionaires all over the place while everybody else stands still. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:24): I don't exactly know what's causing it, but the sentiment is shifting. And as the sentiment shifts, the most scaled action that they can take, they're taking, which is then they are going and voting down data centers. Here's an example, which was insane. A town approves a $6,000,000,000 data center build, and then half the the board gets ousted. Just voted out overnight so that they could put in new people to undo the decision. So if you look at this all around the country, the answer is not, oh, we're only gonna build in Texas. That doesn't work. There's not enough power. There's not enough grid capacity. There's not enough nat gas that allows that to happen. Maine just passed a bill that bans all data center buildings. So I think the reason why Allbirds went crazy is a very, very small canary in a very important coal mine, which is we are absolutely compute constrained. I think if you play this out, the real problem, again, goes back to Anthropic and OpenAI. If I were them, it is a five alarm fire for them. They, more than anybody else, needs to get their hands on compute. They need to have land PowerShell, but otherwise, that revenue could either slow down or hit a wall, and it will not be because of product quality and adoption. It will entirely be because of the Friendster effect. You just couldn't keep the site up. And I think that that that would be a huge, huge problem for everybody. Jason Calacanis (00:42:51): Sax, final thoughts on data centers and the build out. David Sacks (00:42:54): Well, I think I think Jamath is right that the the data centers become very unpopular. Probably in 30 states, they're just gonna ban them outright. And then it's very hard to get projects approved. Look, I think there's a few reasons for this. One is that there are a lot of, let's call them real estate developers who are kinda wildcatters, who are out there trying to get entitlements. And they did bring a lot of projects up for local permits where they didn't have a power solution. And there's no question that local communities do not want the data centers drawing off the grid, thereby increasing residential prices if that data center's not bringing its own power generation. And the administration agrees with this. This is why the president did the ratepayer protection pledge where we got all the major users of the data centers, you know, all the hyperscalers to agree that they would not build new data centers without bringing their own power. So again, it was designed to be power neutral to the grid, or in fact, it would increase the amount of energy available to the grid because these data centers would give back when they're not at peak usage. So that's sort of like category number one is there's this fear of electrical rates going up. But there's a couple other categories, I think, of groups. So the second one was future of life. And a lot of these like doomer groups saw that data centers were a way to stop AI progress. And there are interviews with some of these doomer folks who say things like we have to meet people where they are, meaning that they've been unable to convince people that AI is going to lead to the terminator, but they can convince them that AI data centers are going to use up their water, for example, which isn't true. And so a lot of the nimbyism has been kind of astroturfed by a lot of the doomer groups, which have a lot of money, thanks to contributions from a few tech billionaires like we've talked about in the past. So that's category number two. Category number three, ironically, again, is anthropic itself. It has allied itself politically with a lot of the doomer groups, lot of the NIMBY groups. It didn't seem to matter in the first couple of years because Anthropic had made the strategic decision not to build its own data centers. David Sacks (00:45:03): So they probably thought that they were just throwing sand in the gears of OpenAI or XAI, their competitors, and they would just rely on hyperscalers to get their compute. And I think that that strategy has now backfired in the sense that they apparently have reached the limits of the compute that's available to them by buying it from a third party, they need to build their own data centers. It's gonna be very interesting to see how they adapt to that and how the message around data centers changes over the next year, as let's call it the effective altruists decide that all of a sudden data centers or certain kinds of data centers might be a good thing because they serve their mission. So I think that's gonna be a very interesting thing to watch. David Friedberg (00:45:44): I'll tell you the one thing I think you're missing, which is that most people in America really are starting to really hate rich people. And there's no physical space that better represents the wealth in America, the wealth creation that's happened that a lot of people feel left behind from than the data center. What other physical space is there to go to? It is the temple of the wealthy. It is the mechanism, the tool, the machinery of the wealthy. It is the way that the rich elite tech kind of political connected billionaires that we're obviously all attached to are taking from the poor, getting themselves ahead, shooting themselves to space, leaving everyone else behind. And the data center, I think is the representation of their progress. And it is a representation of the progress that others don't feel. So that's why I think it is physically like the manifestation that people want to attack and destroy. There's very little rationale about, oh, let's stop AI robots from killing us. I think people just don't see the value in AI. The average person doesn't see the value in AI today yet. Like we just talked about, so much of the value of AI is showing up in the enterprise and in the rebuilding of enterprises. But for a consumer's life to actually be altered in a meaningfully positive way, most people don't feel that yet. The best thing they see is some medical advice they're getting on chat GPT or something, and that's kind of the end of it for them. So I think there's a lot of this populism that's swollen and that's taken over not just The US, but probably a good chunk of the West, and and the the data center is the target. Jason Calacanis (00:47:20): It is the pied de terre of this space in a way. This is their attack vector. David Friedberg (00:47:24): To David's point, they'll probably ban data centers in 30 states. Data centers can output and input at the speed of light, so they can be anywhere. I mean, the reason you put data centers in different states is cheap power, low latency. So, maybe you get a couple of milliseconds of latency. So, the data centers can go anywhere. So, as soon as all the states start banning the data centers, the data centers will just go to space, to Iceland, to Texas, wherever. Jason Calacanis (00:47:48): Texas and Florida. David Friedberg (00:47:50): Then the dataset And then everyone will be forced to move on, Travis. They'll basically find the next target for populism, which will be something else. The pied a terre, the data center, what's next? You know, this is part of what's going on right now. Jason Calacanis (00:48:02): Private gensoring. David Friedberg (00:48:03): Where we've got this kind of level of debt from the I always bring it back to this because I do think this is at the root cause of populism is the fact that the government promised so much, it's so inefficient, and as a result, it's destroyed the value of the dollar, not giving anyone anything that they thought they were getting. Jason Calacanis (00:48:17): And we do have the ratepayer pledge, Sacks, to address the energy issue. That was a big win, I think, and you worked on that, I believe. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:25): Yeah. But hold on. Can I just say something? I think that ratepayer pledge is important. It doesn't change the business model of the utility. Meaning Mhmm. What the utility is allowed to do is every year build a budget. And the way that they decide how to charge you is that they are allowed to make investments. Right? And then they're allowed to earn 10% roughly on the amount of investment that they make. What do you think their incentive is? Their incentive is to find ways to keep investing and upgrading the infrastructure. So I suspect what you'll see is independent of what the data centers do on-site, which I think is smart and good, and I'm glad you guys did that, it doesn't slow down the actual fundamental business model of the utility because those are local monopoly licenses that are granted at the state and county level. And so when you go inside and you look at those utilities, what they're allowed to do is say, well, I'm gonna bury the lines underground because there's a wildfire threat. That's gonna cost 10,000,000,000. And they present that, the PUC has to say yes, and they're allowed to make 10% on 10,000,000,000. So the business model of the utility has to be looked at because it is independent of all of these other things. And they have an incentive like insurance companies to just walk prices up over time. David Sacks (00:49:44): It's true. That's why I think behind the meter is so important there for sure. But look, I mean, this idea that data centers don't create jobs is just wrong. I mean, it's been a huge boon for blue collar jobs the construction industry. Jason Calacanis (00:49:56): While they're building the data center. David Sacks (00:49:58): Yeah, but that construction could be a wave that goes on for a decade or two decades. I mean, the CapEx is not going down. It's increasing. Listen to, for example, what Jensen says about his projections. I mean, it's not like the CapEx is a one year thing. We're seeing tens of thousands of new construction jobs being created and 25 to 30% higher wages for electricians, carpenters, the guys who hang drywall or pour concrete, create roads, install equipment. I mean, these are blue collar jobs, and it's creating, again, not just new jobs, but also wage increases. It's a good thing. It's not a bad thing. I think the issue the Jason Calacanis (00:50:34): but with it's not the same as a fab where the jobs are permanent and they're there. We can debate it all we want. Travis Kalanick (00:50:40): I don't Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:40): I don't You can There's about a 100 data centers right now that are being contested. The data is for every 100 that are contested, about 40 get canceled. That number is increasing for this year. It's more than doubled already from what the number was last year. And the total economic value of those 100 data centers right now is about a 162,000,000,000. Travis Kalanick (00:50:59): Jason, the the thing is is that there are permanent jobs because what where's the energy that's powering that? Where's the semiconductors that's powering that? You know, there's a lot of Jason Calacanis (00:51:11): We we actually had Chase from Crusoe and Michael from CoreWeave on the All In interview show, and they said they're bringing energy with them. That's their big thing. Bring b y bring your own energy to the space. They're bringing in nat gas. They're bringing in diesel fuel. They're bringing in solar. BYOE is the model. David Sacks (00:51:30): Well, can can I also say, listen, if if you were of the opinion that you didn't want more data centers in America because it was using up, say, scarce energy resources or something like that, but you weren't just anti progress altogether, then what you would want to do is at least see more data center construction among US allies, right? Energy rich US allies. Well, a year ago, that's one of the things I worked on, was allowing The Gulf States to build data centers with American technology for American companies. And remember the controversy that Everyone accused us that somehow this was like serving China. Well, data centers are getting bombed, and I don't think they'd be getting bombed right now by Iran if they were serving China. These were Jason Calacanis (00:52:13): They're very strategic, yeah. David Sacks (00:52:15): The IRGC has put these data centers on a list of assets that they've threatened to destroy because they're American assets or Yeah. They're assets of our Gulf State partners in partnership with America and American companies. This whole idea that somehow this was a threat to American national security was a total hoax, just like the data center uses too much water. And what I'm saying is that a lot of the same forces were behind this hoax as are behind these data center hoax. Now Friedberg is right about the resentments, but those resentments get whipped up and marshaled by people who have an agenda, and that agenda is well funded and strategic. And I can tell you that in the case of the GCC data centers, Anthropic was adamantly opposed to that, and they were lobbying against it, and they were again, salting the earth against those projects. I think the whole issue is kind of moot now anyway because I think the data centers have been blown up, but or they've been threatened to. But it just shows how ridiculous and what a psyop some of the opposition to these ideas are. Jason Calacanis (00:53:19): Mhmm. And it's a cell phone in many ways. If you think about who are the top two spokespersons for our industry and what they're communicating to Americans versus say how the Chinese view AI, which is incredibly positive, We've got Dario who says it's the end of days. Everything's gonna be hacked. All your files are gonna be hacked. All your accounts are gonna be hacked. And then on the others and everybody's losing their job. That's our top spokesperson in Dario, Idanthropic. The other top spokesperson just had a 70,000 word piece written about him where Ronan Farrow said, I had a dozen people tell me unprompted Sam Altman's a sociopath. Those are the top two spokespeople. Those people cannot be the spokespeople for this industry. And this industry has got to get focused on fixing the big three. Health care is going to be dramatically improved by AI. Housing could be dramatically improved. I'm not sure who's working on that. And obviously, education, the cost of education. We need somebody out there, a Michael Dell, you know, Jensen, Elon, just explaining how world positive this could be. Because right now, AI is as popular as as less popular than ICE, the Democrats, and the government of Iran. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:32): Joe Limond at Alpha School. On the education side, I think you just have to look at Alpha School. It's it's working. Alright. Jason Calacanis (00:54:38): So that's your story, Chamath. That's the story of all birds, the most overvalued startup. But we're gonna play a little Cuba music here. We're gonna play a little game show for everybody. This is the price, David Sacks, is wrong. Yes. This is the price is wrong. The price of the startup, Travis, is wrong. And this is the game show where we guess which overvalued disaster are we talking about? First off, hailing from Austin, Texas, an enforcer in the PayPal mafia. It's Mr. David Sacks. Welcome to the program, David Sacks. Are you ready to play David Sacks (00:55:14): The Let's Price do it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:15): You're ready Jason Calacanis (00:55:16): to Price play is Okay, David Sacks (00:55:16): all right. Jason Calacanis (00:55:17): Here we go, The Price is Wrong. This startup was once valued at over $13,000,000,000 Their main business model, selling JPEGs for fake internet money. People lost their minds and started spending millions of dollars on monkey images. Play the thinking music, please. David Sachs, can you name that startup? Billion. David Sacks (00:55:39): 13,000,000,000 for is it is that like the Bored Apes thing? Jason Calacanis (00:55:43): Okay. You're closing in. Remember, form it in and Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:46): name I the know. I know. Jason Calacanis (00:55:48): It's selling JPEGs for fake Internet money. Me me me. Pick me. Pick me. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:52): Pick me. Me. Jason Calacanis (00:55:52): You'll get your chance, Shmiff. David Sacks (00:55:55): Oh, I think I know what you're talking about. Okay. Alright. Chimath Polihapatea. I can't remember. Jason Calacanis (00:55:59): They're spending millions of dollars. Okay. Can I say can I say anything? Chimath, it's your return to steal. Open sea. Open David Sacks (00:56:06): 100 points Jason Calacanis (00:56:08): for Chimath Palihapatea. Okay. An amazing steal. An amazing steal. Next Okay. Up, Stapitiya puts Here we go. He puts the dick in dictator hailing from Palo Alto, California. It's your favorite DoorDasher. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:21): K. Jason Calacanis (00:56:21): Chamath Palihapitiya. How long you've been DoorDashing there, Chamath? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:24): Nine years. Jason Calacanis (00:56:25): Nine years. You like that? What do you like about that? Is it the interaction with the people? Is it the tips? Is it stealing a couple of french fries? What do you like about being a DoorDasher there? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:33): I typically take four fries. I lick the burrito. Jason Calacanis (00:56:36): Okay. Licking burritos. Did he just say licking burritos? David Sacks (00:56:39): This is why we need robot delivery robot delivery drivers. I mean, coming. Just Jason Calacanis (00:56:44): It's coming. Okay. David Sacks (00:56:46): Don't want our first fries being licked. Jason Calacanis (00:56:47): Let's get the music going here. This startup, once valued at 4,000,000,000, allowed you to talk to other people on your mobile device during COVID, and you could listen to mid VC Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:59): Yes. I got it. I got it. It's called generic Jason Calacanis (00:57:01): startup device. Can you name that overvalued startup? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:03): Oh my god. It's called Clubhouse. Jason Calacanis (00:57:05): Oh my god. He's on the heater. That's 200 points for Shamal, Ali, Hapatia. Hey. That's a lot of DoorDashes. Alright. He is gonna do very well here in the final round. David Sacks (00:57:14): Amazing memory. How how soon we forget? I I couldn't replace any of these names. Jason Calacanis (00:57:18): Okay. Finally, streaming in from a potato field at an undisclosed location in Idaho. It's it's doctor David Friedberg. You're you're in the potato sciences. Correct? Mister Friedberg. That's right. Potatoes. Okay. You like the potatoes? You have a favorite potato dish? Is it the scallops? You what do you like to do with your potato? David Friedberg (00:57:36): What is your name, mister what is the host's name? What is your name, host? Jason Calacanis (00:57:39): It is me, Jocular Jaycal. Let's go. Here we go. Jocular Jaycal here at the helm. You you you like a certain type of potatoes there? David Friedberg (00:57:47): Javicular? Javicular. Javicular. Jason Calacanis (00:57:49): It's Javicular calicanus. And what do you like there on the potatoes? What's your favorite there? You like a a creamy mash? David Friedberg (00:57:54): Little little little cheesy. Jason Calacanis (00:57:56): You like it? You like the cheese. Okay. Very good. Okay, David. This startup was once valued at $270,000,000. This is your favorite. I understand you're a vegan. They sold juice. These juice packages went to a juice I know. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:09): I know. I know. Know. Know. Know. Jason Calacanis (00:58:11): Branded as the next iPhone. The know. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:15): Know. I know. Jason Calacanis (00:58:16): You'd start Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:17): on me. Pick me. I know it. I know it. Pick me. You'll have a chance David Friedberg (00:58:19): to pick up. Juice Hero. Jason Calacanis (00:58:21): Yes. Juice Hero. It's a 100 points. David Sacks (00:58:22): He's on the Are you searching? It looks like he's searching. Jason Calacanis (00:58:25): Did he search? Oh my god. Are you on your device? David Sacks (00:58:28): He looks like he's on his device. David Friedberg (00:58:29): Internet free. Internet free here. Travis Kalanick (00:58:31): He's Yeah. Shops, there you have Jason Calacanis (00:58:34): a clear winner, Chamopalaihapatthiya. Tell him what he's won. He's won a trip. Two, temptations two in Cabo. You're going directly to temptations two, an adult resort. That's for you and two of your friends. Okay? Enjoy temptations two, Shamal Palihapitiya. Two of your friends. You can bring David Sacks (00:58:52): you this is. Jason Calacanis (00:58:53): You can bring your throuple. David Sacks (00:58:54): Think this is gonna need to become a regular feature of the pod. Travis Kalanick (00:58:58): Great game. David Sacks (00:58:59): Landon. Everyone forgets the unicorns that don't work. They just Why every disappear into the ether. Jason Calacanis (00:59:05): Alright. Alright. There you go. You won a pied a terre on a on a fishing shop. In New York. You got a pied a terre available to you as your first place winner, Shamal, Pali, hopiti, DoorDash, or Pierre D'Aterre. Hello, help to Pierre D'Aterre. Alright. Listen. There's been a lot of shenanigans going down in DC, the most boring city in the world where apparently everybody's getting a little frisky after hours. TMZ launched a news bureau. Eric Slawell is out of the governor's race. There's a lot of dark stuff that's been released. He is innocent until proven guilty, but it's not looking good. David Friedberg (00:59:46): He also resigned from congress, Jay Kal. Jason Calacanis (00:59:49): And he resigned from congress as well. And Friedberg, our investigative journalist, now working as a stringer for TMZ. Freiberg, what have you learned? What's in Freiberg's DNA? David Friedberg (01:00:02): Anything. I my Okay. Jason Calacanis (01:00:04): You have an analysis then maybe. David Friedberg (01:00:06): My anecdote on this is back in December when it was first rumored that Swalwell was gonna run for governor, I started making some calls to various folks to be like, hey, you know, what do we think of this guy? Is he gonna be a good candidate? You know, obviously I and a lot of other people before they evacuate the state care a lot about the future of California. So I started checking around. I spoke to several people who independently told me that there's knowledge about this guy sending, you know, pics to employees and that this guy has a bunch of stuff that's gonna come out about him. So I heard all of this, not from one person, but from several different sources. This was back in December going into January. And I largely kind of dismissed it because I was like, if this is true, this would have all come out already. I'm like, there's no way this is true. If it was true, like people would have talked about it, they would have made a thing about it. If multiple people are telling me about this, then I've got to assume that it's a rumor that's being used to block him from running for governor versus it being a real thing because multiple people had this knowledge and this information. So this was December, January where I had these conversations and at that point nothing had come out. So I was like, okay, it doesn't seem like this is real. And then everything that I had been told started to come out in the last week. So the striking aspect of all of this for me was how much knowledge there was about these various incidents with the guy, how so many people had this knowledge and how no one had actually brought the knowledge to bear, which begs the question, why did they not do what was right by the victims? Or why did the victims sit on the sidelines waiting for the right moment to all come out together? Because this was broad knowledge within a community of people and they made the choice not to bring it forward with that knowledge. And that's what was so striking to me about this whole thing. I had honestly dismissed the whole thing as just being rumor mongering to try and besmirch the guy. And it turned out that these were all being held back purposefully and deliberately for a very particular moment in time when they were all brought forward to be used. Jason Calacanis (01:02:25): And let me just be clear. These are all allegations. Nothing's been proven in court. He doesn't get his day in court. Absolutely. And etcetera, we just wanna make sure there's a bunch of allegiance here. Yeah. No matter how bad it was. David Friedberg (01:02:38): And all that I'm saying is that people had told me about these supposed claims five months ago, four months ago, multiple people, and had chosen not to bring it forward and that the victims had not come forward publicly with these claims. And then there was this coordinated effort to bring everything forward at the same moment. And that's what was so striking to me is just how coordinated all of this was. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:58): Who's controlling it? Who do you think like is there like a meeting? Is there like a a counseling? Nancy David Sacks (01:03:04): Pelosi. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:06): Jesus Christ, it's David Friedberg (01:03:07): so I don't know if that's true. David Sacks (01:03:08): Well, just her. David Friedberg (01:03:10): I'll tell you my sense of it. My sense of it is that there are certain insiders and he's not an insider. And those insiders are like the Katie Porter's of the world. Katie Porter, I think, is who the democratic establishment wants to be governor. She's an insider to national Democrats. She's an insider to California Democrats. And I think that she's the preferred candidate. Tom Steyer Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:33): She's a spousal abuser. David Sacks (01:03:35): I don't know that Katie Porter is like this ultimate insider, but I think there are look, there are clearly insiders. The Democratic Party is a machine that exists to siphon off as much money as possible from the public till to the interests that support the party. And it's their gravy train. And they're not gonna let David Friedberg (01:03:52): anyone don't know stop that it's the Democrat One second. David Sacks (01:03:55): They're not gonna let that gravy train stop for one second. Now, the Democratic party had a huge problem in this California governor's race, which is that the Democratic field was very fragmented. And so the two Republican candidates actually were polling the highest. And so just so the viewers have context, California has this weird jungle primary system where the top two go to a runoff. They don't have a Democrat lane and a Republican lane. They just take the top two jungle primary, and then they go to the runoff. Even today still, Hilton and was it Bianca or whatever, they are polling at both around like 14 or 15%. And if the election were held today, you'd have two Republicans in the runoff. So the Democrats needed to winnow the field down and have fewer candidates. In addition to that, they must have been concerned that all this oppo on Swallow would come out once it was him versus, say, Steve Hilton, and they didn't want it to come out later when they could lose the election. So the powers that be made the decision to lance the boil. Probably there was a conversation with him to tell him to get out of the race. He didn't listen. And by the way, remember, this feels a lot like what happened with Joe Biden when he had to drop out of the presidential Jason Calacanis (01:05:06): race. It does Remember sound surprisingly like that. David Sacks (01:05:09): Whole Democratic establishment and all the mainstream media were saying that Biden was sharp as attack, okay, and then he had that disastrous debate performance with Trump, and it became clear Jason Calacanis (01:05:20): Hot that swap. David Sacks (01:05:21): Yeah. And you could just see the text messages were flying during the debate between the Democratic Party insiders. And by the time that debate was over, they had congealed on a new position, which is that Biden had to step aside. And then Nancy Pelosi was reported as having gone to the president and said, we can do things the hard way or the easy way. Imagine that. Like, telling the president of The United States, we can do things the hard way or the easy way. And then Biden disappeared for a week, and magically, he stepped aside by tweet. Remember that? He published a statement that appeared to be done by an auto pen. People were speculating whether he was even behind this or whether the staff pushed him to do it. The whole thing was extremely weird. But he, you know, was clearly muscled out of it. Just a few days before, he had said, I'm not leaving the race no matter what. I mean, it was like straight out of that Wolf of Wall Street meme. They're not getting me out of here. And then a few days later, he's resigning by tweet. And again, Nancy Pelosi appears to be the figure at the center of both these things. David Friedberg (01:06:23): Was Republicans. David Sacks (01:06:25): Hold on a second. Pelosi is reported as having been Swalwell's mentor. I guess she found him roughly twenty years ago to run for congress in the first place. When the Republicans wanted to kick Swarwell off of the intelligence committee, the House Intelligence Committee, for allegedly being involved with that Chinese spy fang fang, It was Pelosi who protected him. So she's sort of been a central figure in his career. I'm not saying she approved anything. He did, but Jason Calacanis (01:06:55): Listen, politics is fair. David Sacks (01:06:56): But there's no there's no way that that button gets pushed without going to Pelosi for the sign off, right? I mean, she's like the boss of this operation. And I think that the same thing happened to Swallow that happened to Biden, is they went to him and said, we can do things the hard way, the easy way. He was too dumb to listen, and they did things the hard way. Jason Calacanis (01:07:16): Yeah. Shout out Nancy Pelosi. Incredible day trader. And shout out to a friend of the pod, Roe, who's now beaten Nancy Pelosi. I think his trades this year, he's he's actually even beaten Nancy Pelosi. That was the Rokana David Friedberg (01:07:32): has traded $600,000,000 of stock. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:35): He trades more frequently than Citadel securities. What? Jason Calacanis (01:07:38): I mean, it's incredible. Yeah. Where's his pied a terre? I wanna get in on it. David Friedberg (01:07:42): The congressman you've been supporting for Eurosex is a great stock trader. Jason Calacanis (01:07:46): He's Yeah. Apparently, we should have been talking to him not about taxes. We should have been talking to him about trades. David Sacks (01:07:51): There were things I liked about Ro Khanna. I mean, he he did support freedom of speech with the whole Twitter thing. Jason Calacanis (01:07:57): No. He David Sacks (01:07:57): just You know what it was? Is that the Overton window shifted so much. Jason Calacanis (01:08:01): You supported him. David Sacks (01:08:02): Yeah. When I supported Ro Khanna, freedom of speech was a big issue, and he was one of the only Democrats to support that. He was also, I think, the only member of the progressive caucus to support a diplomatic track for Ukraine, which I supported, and I gave him credit for that. And, yeah, I knew that he was in favor of wealth tax, but I thought that was just a very unserious proposal that, you know, it wasn't in play in any way. Well, the Overton window shifted so much that now the wealth tax really is a possibility. So, you know, things have changed. Jason Calacanis (01:08:30): Here it is. Shout out to our boy Ro Khanna. Look at this. Right about now, Chamat's thinking about making a managing director offer here. So, I mean, Roe, it doesn't if you get booted out of office, you could become a managing director at Alt Capital or something. David Friedberg (01:08:45): Statistically, like, even if you had insider information, making that much money is, like, very hard. Jason Calacanis (01:08:50): Holy cow. Nancy Pelosi is gonna shiver O'Connor next for not giving her the giving her the inside track on whatever he's betting on. What did he bet? David Sacks (01:09:00): Well, look. Any any as we all know, any investor can have a good quarter or a year. But to put up the kind of returns that Nancy Pelosi has done over decades is nothing short of miraculous. Jason Calacanis (01:09:10): It's generational. It's a generational run. Give her her flowers. Travis Kalanick (01:09:14): She's substantially better than Warren Buffett. David Sacks (01:09:19): I mean Jason Calacanis (01:09:19): The Buffett by the David Sacks (01:09:20): way, Stan, Druckenmiller, and Nancy Pelosi are three of the most accomplished investors of all time. Jason Calacanis (01:09:27): Whatever you did to the poor Buffett fans, Chamath, they are incredibly angry at you for desecrating his legacy. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:36): I didn't desecrate his legacy. I pointed out one unavoidable fact, which is his returns are bimodally distributed pre and post reg FD. When you have to follow the rules of disclosure, everybody's returns got kneecapped. When there was no disclosure rules, his returns were off the charts. That's just the mathematical truism. Now what's interesting to note is the reason why Nancy Pelosi's returns are so consistently good is reg FD does not apply to people in congress. That should be the takeaway. They Jason Calacanis (01:10:08): can learn things. We gotta stop them. They can just Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:11): learn things in their committee meetings. In fact, there are situations where things are disclosed, and then they are trading in real time. Jason Calacanis (01:10:18): Shout out to the skiff. Yeah. Get out of the skiff quick and get that trade in. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:22): So I have enormous respect for Warren Buffett and what he's done. It's it's Yes. He's he's the goat of goats. But the returns post reg FD are they are just materially worse than they were pre reg FD, and that's Jason Calacanis (01:10:32): just gonna do with that cash position, Shammat? Speaking of Buffett, they market the market is billion sitting there? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:38): The market is in a very complicated moment right now. If you look at historical indicators of value so if you look at chiller as an indication of value, it's peaking. If you look at the buffet index, it's peaking. So there are things that when you look at it, like all time highs. And the problem with that is you would say, oh, man. But there's this weird dispersion happening in the market. Dispersion means literally a few companies are hitting all time highs. I think it's like eight or nine, and everybody else is not. So it's a really complicated moment. It's hard to understand what's going on, but he's got a lot of cash. If he's sticking to his knitting, he's looking at the chiller index, and he's looking at his own indicator, which shows all time highs, and he's waiting for a correction. Travis Kalanick (01:11:27): He's not really in charge anymore. Like, Berkshire Hathaway is not Warren Buffett anymore. Even though he's a big owner, he's not really doing it. Jason Calacanis (01:11:34): But, I mean, the fact that they're sitting on that massive pile of cash says something that they're not putting it to work in the market, says they don't see an opportunity yet. Sachs, Travis, I'm curious your takes, either one of you can go in whichever order you want, on how is the market crushing it while we're in week seven of a war and we put a $100,000,000,000 or something into this military activity in Iran, and the market is pricing it in, shrugging it off, and we're hitting all time high sex. I don't know if you're comfortable. First. Yeah. David Sacks (01:12:07): Yeah. Mean, look. I think it's pretty straightforward, which is that in the wake of the meeting in Islamabad that the market is feeling confident and pricing in that the war is going to get resolved. The president also recently said that it's very close to being wrapped up. The military objectives are close to being achieved, and he's made it sound like it's gonna be resolved. Yes, a deal was not signed in Islamabad. I always thought that was an unrealistic expectation that these two countries, are at war with each other and in fact have had hostile relations for almost fifty years are gonna resolve all their differences in twenty four hours, it's not realistic. But the impression that the market I think has and clearly is trading on this is that that war is gonna be what Donald Trump said, which is an excursion and something that is on its way to being resolved, that they've made progress. And J. Cal, you're right, whole week has just been incredibly strong. I think by Tuesday, the market had recovered all of its losses since the start of the war. I think it made a new high yesterday on Wednesday, and is making new highs, fresh highs today on Thursday. So you just have to say that at the present time, the market thinks, and I would consider the stock market to be the ultimate prediction market, that this war is on its way to being resolved. Just to qualify, I'm not speaking as a member of the administration. Jason Calacanis (01:13:34): Of course not. David Sacks (01:13:35): I'm not saying that I know something. Okay? Jason Calacanis (01:13:38): You don't know anything. Just interpreting what the market is. Clipping. David Sacks (01:13:42): I'm not representing anyone, and I don't know anything different than what any of you know. I'm just saying that I think this is what the market is clearly pricing in, and I'm paying attention to what the statements are of the president and vice president. Jason Calacanis (01:13:58): And this, Travis, you and I were talking the other day while you were Yeah. Slaughtering me in back end and we won our eight point match. You're almost caught up about the taco trade. Not Trump always chickens out. You have a theory about Trump always cares about optics. Unpack it for us, Travis. Travis Kalanick (01:14:17): Yeah. So while I was beating you in backgammon, I sorta had a you know, there's like the because J Cal asked me, and the insight is is like and I I think this maybe is just the more simple view of things, which is Trump's weather vain is the stock market. Like, we see vol is up. We see the VIX is really high, but you know what? The S and P is trading in this band that's actually fairly tight given the crazy shit that's going down. And everybody's nervous, but actually, he he moves in the policy space. He's he he does not let the S and P go down too low. People also get the sort of the panicking thing now, which is like he gets people nervous. He makes moves, and then he comes back to sort of reality and gets things done as practical and and probably the the better parts of what he he might be you know, what he does well. And people are pricing that in. So there's there's all the things Saxe is saying about the nuances and the details, but the sort of super high level, like, I'm in low Earth orbit view is like the stock market is Trump's weathervane. He will go to the place that makes the stock market come up. And if he's go and and if it's up and it's too high, he almost feels like it's too easy. So he makes it hard on himself again, and then he brings it back up. And the traders are getting used to it, I think. Jason Calacanis (01:15:43): Yeah. It's like playing poker with Alan Keating. It's just like, how is this guy solvent? He's literally playing every hand of poker. He's losing tons of money. And then all of a sudden, by the end of the night, he hits two big pots, and he's got the nuts both times, and he pulls out of the stall. What's your take on the market today, Chamath? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:03): Yeah. I mean, I'll just do it again. But I think the the Schiller PE, Nick, I sent it to you, shows near all time highs. Then the second is the Buffett index, which is the sum of all, US equities divided by GDP, is also at all time highs. So this would generally mean that you need to be increasingly a little bit more risk off. But then the opposite side of that, and I sent you a third one, and this is why it's so confounding, is you have signals showing everything, which typically doesn't happen. And this is this dispersion point where when you see this performance and it's up 5% in the first, you know, April, typically, market is up almost 32% on average for the rest of the year. And we were already up, as Sax said, you know, seven and a half percent already. I'm trying to Travis Kalanick (01:16:50): read this graph. This is crazy. I don't even know what's going on here. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:53): This is just the this is just the dispersion. But the the idea of all of this is I think we're in a moment where you can find a piece of data to underwrite your bias. And I think that's where there's a lot of danger. I don't know. For me personally, I'm generally more risk off right now. And more importantly, I'm waiting for these IPOs so that I can, to be very honest with you, delever and get some chips off the table. I think that it is crucial that this SpaceX IPO get done ASAP. And then I think it's even more crucial that one of Anthropic and OpenAI front run the other one and get out first. And the first two charts are the reasons why. Jason Calacanis (01:17:37): I I it's fairly obvious to me what's going on here. You have these multiple trends going on at the same time. The reason people are traders are valuing this, and I think there is some smart money in the market right now, is what you're seeing in terms of the earnings potential of these companies as they deploy AI, as they have unlimited intelligence, and the top employees at the top companies become 10 or 20 or 30 times more productive. That's never been seen before. Microsoft Office may have made you 30% more efficient. The Internet may have made you 50% more efficient. But none of these things made you 10 times. And you had a really interesting point that you slipped in earlier, Chamath, which was nobody knows how to harness these things yet. Right? And it's producing slop. The truth is 10% of people do know how to harness it. 20% maybe. And I watch this in my own organizations, and I watch it in 600 portfolio companies. The ones that do deploy it correctly, they are running the table on the ones that are not. So the efficiency boom that we're gonna see at these companies, whether it's Meta or Uber or Airbnb Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:38): Maybe I'm just saying Jason Calacanis (01:18:39): executes it properly is gonna be phenomenal. The earnings will be insane. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:43): Maybe I'm an idiot, but it has not translated into a tsunami of more revenue and more profit for me yet. Maybe I'm the only one, and maybe it's everybody else but me, but I haven't seen it. Jason Calacanis (01:18:57): I see it in a lot of companies. So I think in private companies, we have two companies as just two examples, Micro One, which is doing data, you know, dark pools of data for these language models. And they have built technology that allows them to build data and allows them to collect data to help the large language models companies grow. And they are on a tear by using this to identify and find great people who can then contribute to these corpuses. And then we have one tax GPT that is making the accountants I think they have six or 7% of all accountants using their platform. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:27): Jason, you agree with ripping I hope you can agree Jason Calacanis (01:19:29): with of accountants. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:30): I hope you can agree with me with the following statement. Small companies nibbling at the edges is not where these guys will build a multitrillion dollar market cap. Jason Calacanis (01:19:40): I think we're we're both in alignment. Big companies, dumb companies, slow to implement the technology startups. No. They are dumb. They're not. No. They're not. Implementing new technology. No. No. They're not. The laggards when it comes to implementing new technology. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:52): The reason that they are slow is not because they are dumb. The reason that they're slow is their business is much more sophisticated and much more complicated than many other businesses. And what I'm saying is if you can't prove that this works in the big time, prime time, big league use cases, it's a toy. Jason Calacanis (01:20:11): Alright. Sachs, where do you stand? Are you in the JCAL position? The startups are showing the way they're being massively efficient. They're growing revenues like we've never seen in the startup community before with less people. Or you're in the Chamath camp, hey, big companies are not having a drop to the bottom line and they're smart, or both things are true. Where do you stand, Saks? Be the adjudicator of this case. David Sacks (01:20:30): I mean, honestly, I'm probably closer to you, Jay Kal, I hate to say that. Jason Calacanis (01:20:35): Listen. David Sacks (01:20:36): Because look, I think people are still figuring out how to drive business value out of AI. And change management is hard and the bigger the company, the harder it is. So what's happening right now is there are a lot of transformation projects at large enterprises that are failing. There's like a big McKinsey study on that. But if you look at activity from the bottom up, I think it's very interesting and it's becoming more interesting. And over the last several months, obviously with coding reaching a new level, we're starting to see very interesting things happening there. And obviously the revenue that's now being generated from these coding models is, you know, again, it's exponential like we've never seen before. So the ROI is finally there at the model layer. Meaning before, you know, people were saying that it's a bubble because you had all this massive capex at the data center level and there was no ROI coming at the model layer. Now we have the ROI at the model layer, and I guess we're sort of questioning whether the ROI will be there at the application level. But in any event, I think things are progressing. I mean, look, fundamentally I'm bullish on this whole thing. Jason Calacanis (01:21:43): Okay. No. No. Sorry. Let me be clear. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:45): Hold on. Hold on. Jason Calacanis (01:21:45): Okay. Gotcha, man. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:46): Obviously, I'm bullish. I'm in this I'm in this space. I'm doing it. Jason Calacanis (01:21:49): You're in the arena. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:51): We have seen in every single wave. In the mobile wave, we needed consumers to show up at scale. So we needed consumer experiences. And it was very obvious that there were these consumer businesses that were going to be, if not already, incredibly, incredibly profitable. Google and Facebook were profitable within the first few years. They never looked back. And all I'm trying to point out to you guys is there is not one great example yet. If we believe enterprise is where all the money is, and if we believe that's what's gonna underpin these trillion dollar valuations, just please somebody show me a couple of good examples of scaled profits. Jason Calacanis (01:22:29): Okay. Fair enough. Travis, final word here on David Sacks (01:22:33): But by the can say one other thing? Think think Chamath has a good point about being risk off right now, because if you just look at valuation metrics, they do seem to be quite high. And I've seen other versions of those metrics as well. So look, it's very, very hard to time the market. I don't try. But I think you could make an argument just based purely on valuation levels, not events, that you wanna adopt a more conservative posture right now. Jason Calacanis (01:22:58): I I think the bet you're making then, Travis, is are these valuations so high right now on the standards that the efficiency that AI could bring to these companies is not real enough to continue the growth from here. It's not a catalytic enough technology and you know when you look Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:21): at No, the opposite. All these traditional companies have horrible valuations. They've been crushed. So my point is if AI is real, the upside is also real. All I'm saying is the details, guys, matter. It's very hard to take a very complicated business and all of a sudden, quote, unquote, transform it. It's not as easy as it sounds. That word is easy to say Jason Calacanis (01:23:43): for sure. Travis, go ahead. Final word. Travis Kalanick (01:23:46): Final word from Travis, First is when it comes to big companies, I think the big thing about, let's call it the the autonomous enterprise, is change management, is the big boy. And and change management actually is about all the people that already work there, the middle managers, the technocrats, the bureaucrats, the whatever, the crats. Jason Calacanis (01:24:06): The crats. Travis Kalanick (01:24:07): And getting the change management The change management going there is it's a human thing, and it's very tricky with very complex processes, many of which are not even documented. And in theory, it's just all gonna happen real fast, but in practice, like that's hard. So that that's part one. Part two, what I'm seeing with true tech companies. Real companies, public, I would say public, like hardcore public companies. I mean, like, you know, founder led, you know, folks that are really cranking public companies and tech companies that are sort of up and comers. I talked to CEOs across the board and they're like, they're fired up about the development, the sort Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:51): of Travis Kalanick (01:24:51): the the productivity and deployment schedule and like the new features they were able to roll out much, much, much faster because they've pivoted their culture sort of very pro AI development. And I'm getting like almost at this point a consistent feedback from real founder CEOs that like this stuff's real and it's it's it's not just hype. Now there are folks pushing, you know, selling their book that are like, oh, we're at AGI and all this. Anybody who's worked with these agents and done the AI dev stuff, there's a lot of good stuff, but they're not they're not that smart yet. They're just not that smart. Anybody who's done like, I've got a side quest where I'm just investing. I have agents investing and betting on Kalshi and Poly and, you know, these other places. And it's silly how dumb the agents are, even their best agents, to be honest. Jason Calacanis (01:25:53): Yeah. The agents are what you you you have to be human in the loop with the agent. The agent has no taste. The agent can do repetitive tasks. The agent is not gonna do something novel, and they quickly can get lost in the forest. Travis Kalanick (01:26:05): We had to spend a lot of time we had to spend a lot of time with our investing agents, getting them on board with the idea that if you wanna make money investing, you can't be on both sides of the same bet. David Sacks (01:26:20): Yeah. Travis Kalanick (01:26:21): You know what I mean? Jason Calacanis (01:26:22): There it is. Travis Kalanick (01:26:22): It's just like that way that's where we're at. It's the AGI is not here, and it's kinda silly for folks, I think, to sort of suggest it is. Jason Calacanis (01:26:30): Absolutely. Hey, guys. We gotta wrap. Travis, you didn't get to play, the price is wrong. I have two more. You guys wanna do a bonus round if the price is wrong? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:39): Yeah. Do it. Do Do it. See see if Travis gets it. Jason Calacanis (01:26:42): Okay. Two. But you guys can steal. You guys can steal here. Let me get my background. David Friedberg (01:26:46): I gotta Jason Calacanis (01:26:47): give me the music. Travis, you're gonna get to do the bonus round here. Travis Kalanick (01:26:50): Let's Jason Calacanis (01:26:50): go. Everybody, we got Travis Kalanick. He's here. He is a professional water sports player from Tallahassee, Florida. How is it down there in Tallahassee, Florida? I I understand you do a little handiwork to pay the bills, but you spend your most of your time out there on the lakes and the oceans doing water sports. Yeah. You like the water sports. Travis Kalanick (01:27:09): I love the water sports. I I I'm doing water ski lessons, on the weekends. Anybody's interested. Jason Calacanis (01:27:15): Alright. I'll be out there, in Tallahassee, Florida. Okay. Now here we go. It's your job to figure out the price is wrong. The price is wrong. Here we go. Travis Kalanick (01:27:27): It's so funny. Okay. Jason Calacanis (01:27:29): Is wrong here. Here we go. Is your bonus round. Alright. This startup raised 900,000,000 at a $9,000,000,000 valuation. Is a big one. This is a big one. Before dissolving in 2018, and their famously deep voiced founder CEO is currently serving an eleven year sentence in a federal prison. Travis Kalanick (01:27:52): Yes. Jason Calacanis (01:27:54): Can you name that mispriced star now? Can you name the mispriced star? Travis Kalanick (01:27:59): It rhymes with schmarinose. Jason Calacanis (01:28:02): Shmiranos. Okay. You're you're closing in here. Be careful. You have form a question. You could lose to a steal. Travis Kalanick (01:28:08): Answer. Fairanos. Jason Calacanis (01:28:09): Fairanos. Okay. Very good. A 100 points. You're on the board. And here is your next one. This is your next one. Okay. This is the overtime. All three players get to play this one. Whoever's in the first and says it, this is your final. That's the mispriced startup here. The price is wrong on this startup. Here we go. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:28:29): You can do this. Come on, Chamath. Jason Calacanis (01:28:30): You got this now. Here we go. You can do this. Short form mobile first streaming platform raised 1,700,000,000 from top investors. Jeffrey, can just first Chamath Palihapitiya (01:28:41): set the the the the the what is it? Jason Calacanis (01:28:43): You gotta yell it out. Yes. There's your champion, everybody. Let's tell him what he won. He apparently, he's won a pied a terre in Downtown East Austin. A pied a terre in East Austin by the airport. God knows what shenanigans are going down there. I think if you need methamphetamine or a date, you're gonna have an easy time there, Chamath. Okay. Oh, hey, Chamath. I'm getting hammered with people who wanna come to the sold out liquidity. 500 was the cap you put on it. You've been dicking around as dictator. Can we add 50 seats? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:31): I think we can add 50 or a 100. I don't know. Lisa, can we add a 100? Jason Calacanis (01:29:34): Get a simulcast room going. Alright. We'll see you all. Oh, and the All In Summit tickets are on sale. Go to allin.com. And yeah, don't get shut out of the summit folks because this happens every time. You guys email me two months out, the tickets have been sold out for four months. So get your tickets now at allin.com. Another amazing episode, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:54): and we'll Jason Calacanis (01:29:54): see you next time. Bye bye. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:56): Bye bye. David Sacks (01:29:58): We'll let your winners ride. Jason Calacanis (01:30:01): Rain man David Sack. David Sacks (01:30:05): And it said we open sourced it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:29): We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like this, like, sexual tension that they just need to release somehow. Jason Calacanis (01:30:37): Wet your feet. Your feet. Wet Wet Where did you get murky? I'm doing all of it.