加密货币投资深度解析、Facebook 吹哨人余波、查普尔新专场

Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:00): Our daughter's head has dropped because the our doctor, she she felt the head, and she was like, yeah. It's it's David Sacks (00:00:06): Hey, Chamath. Who's head has gotten bigger? Yours are your daughters. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:13): What do you mean? Speaker 3 (00:00:14): Don't quit your day job, sex. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:16): Yeah, sex. David Sacks (00:00:16): They didn't quite land. And Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:20): he's trying out material. Yeah. Total fluff. We are not in rhythm. You know why? It's mercury retrograde. Our fiftieth episode is gonna suck because of this. Here we go. 3, 2. The weather winner's ride. Rainman, David Sachs. And I said, we open source it to fans in a Alright. The Facebook whistleblower hearings occurred, and Facebook Okay. Where's your hey, everybody? Hey, everybody. Hey, everybody. Hi, everybody. 32. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the all in podcast episode 50. We made it to 50. Nobody expected us to make it. Here we are. We've made it at Everybody is thrilled to be here with you, and thank you for the support over the 1st 50 episodes. 1 episode closer to getting canceled. one episode closer. Man, how great would it be to be canceled? I'd never have to work again. Ugh. That'd be wonderful. Okay. So Francis Houghton revealed herself on Sunday night on 60 minute and then appeared before -- Wait. Don't we get our own personal intros? Or no. We're done with that. Have you -- -- unbelievable -- -- the audience. -- retrograde. merch Mercury Retrogate. I'm all fucked up. David Sacks (00:01:41): Doesn't the audience know us by now after Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:43): 60 David Sacks (00:01:44): of a surgery. You really have to put a -- 3. Do you have to put a part Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:47): with us again this week is the rain man himself, David Sacks, and the queen of Kenwa. David Friedberg. Speaker 3 (00:01:56): I love the intro. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:57): Of course, the dictator, Shamoff, Polyapatina, and I'm your boy Jay Cal. Sacks, I gotta say, I think I think your AUM is positively correlated with the bags under your eyes. If you mean it's getting bigger, you're correct. I mean, Lost. They're heavy. Good lord. Speaker 3 (00:02:14): They're heavy dragging you down. That's where you're hiding Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:16): all that Solana in your fucking under your eyes. Come on. You better clear that Solana position. What's your lockup? 24 months? Fuck. No. He's trying to sell it to me and text message. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:02:27): Of course, the ocean. We're negotiating discounts. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:29): I just had the fact that -- David Sacks (00:02:30): You're fucking the whole thing up. Speaker 3 (00:02:32): Bro, you don't you don't think this game? David Sacks (00:02:34): I'm Hodling. I'm Hodling. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:36): You think I buy a 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars of anything without a discount? Everything is a discount. Everything's discounted. You wanna clear that position in an LLC. Are David Sacks (00:02:44): you saying I got a $1,000,000,000 to Solana? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:46): No, bro. I'm saying I have 1. But, you know, I brought it at a discount. David Sacks (00:02:49): But you're holding. Correct? Ish. Ish. Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:53): Yeah. Week too. Wow. if something appreciate at what point is the appreciation in an asset that you've invested in early, something you need to you know, at least clear a position of them lock in a win. I mean, what what's enough? A 100 x, 500 x? You gotta, at some point, bank a win. Well, I think you have to put things in a bucket of, like, is it an investment or is it something that represents an idea that you love so much. If it's the latter, you should never sell. If it's the former, yeah, you gotta manage risk and Or David Friedberg (00:03:25): rather, you know, is it a trade or is it something you wanna own? David Sacks (00:03:28): by the way, let me just clean this up because it what Solana was not a direct investment for us. What we did is we invested in a in a crypto venture firm called Multicoint Capital. This is back in 2017. We realized, like, crypto was becoming, like, a full time job for us as a total rabbit hole. And we were like, we we don't have time to figure out this, like, 247 trading stuff, but we met Colin Tushar who were these 2 young guys. We met him through Vinny Lingum, actually. and they were creating multi coin capital. And we actually invested we gave them a a million bucks at a 20 cap to help set up their firm. And then we invested in their they had a both a venture fund and a hedge fund, and they were, like, the first money into Solana. So that fund I mean, it's it's like a 100 x fund. It's just like bonkers. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:15): Crazy. David Sacks (00:04:16): And so as a result of that, we are indirect beneficiaries of this huge increase in Solana. It will end up being about, you know, a a $1,000,000,000 of, I think, Solana for us in terms of returns. But But it's the multi coin guys determine the trading decisions on that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:34): Yeah. And so people who don't know, Solana is a programmable you know, Ethereum competitor, I guess, and it's at $50,000,000,000 or so market cap. It was trading at a dollar not long ago, and now it's at a 164. David Sacks (00:04:48): It's an Ethereum competitor, basically, for -- Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:50): -- David Sacks (00:04:50): you know, smart contract platform, and there's a lot of people, I'd say, smart money in Silicon Valley who are betting on a flippening where Solana could ultimately overtake Ethereum as the preferred platform. But even if it doesn't overtake Ethereum, it you know, it's the number 8 cryptocurrency right now. You know, it could go there's a lot of people betting it'll go to number 3 or you know, what have you? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:13): Additionally, it is a fraction of a penny for a transaction, and it can do many more transactions than Ethereum. So it's you know, technically, should be much cheaper if you're buying NFTs right now, you're probably spending you know, tens of dollars, you know, in fees on Ethereum, whereas if you did those same NFTs, which some people are starting to do on Solana, they would cost a fraction of a penny. Correct David or Chamath? David Sacks (00:05:42): Yeah. I think the the platform is is known for being a faster, cheaper, you know, blockchain Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:47): really, really congratulations. And if Vinny Langnam's -- Speaker 3 (00:05:51): Instagram is any indication he did pretty well because his Instagram suddenly turned into a world tour on private jets. David Friedberg (00:05:57): He's like, which which which island should I buy? And David Sacks (00:06:00): Well, look, Vinny was sort of like a I I don't think he's full time in multi coin, but he was sort of venture partner to Kyle and Tushar, and he helped set them up. This is back in 2017. He helped bring us in as the 1st investors And, I mean, for us, it was sort of a founder bet combined with a, like, a a team like, sort of a space bet. Like, we knew the cryptocurrencies were starting to be traded 247. We knew it required more of, like, a hedge fund skill set than what we had. And so we made, you know, we made a bet on those guys, and man has gotten to us Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:35): paid off. -- strategies. Right, Saks? Is if you are l p ing in new fund managers, which I've done a couple of times now, you get to learn from them and basically dive into a dataset of a new market. Right? I mean, it's like one of the nice things about being an LP in a fund is you can place a small bet whether it's 50k or 500k or 5,000,000, whatever it is. you you get like this meta education of an entire sector. Correct? David Sacks (00:07:02): Yeah. But I think, you know, we didn't do it to learn from them although we have. it's more that we realized that crypto was, like I said, becoming such a rabbit hole. Like, we realized we we would either need to do crypto full time as a fund or we would need to, like, partner with people who actually did. Yeah. And you you see that with, like, a lot of VC firms now. Is they're creating, like, specialized crypto funds or at least they have specialized crypto partners? There's so much to know about the crypto world. It's a hard thing to invest in unless you're, like, totally focused on it. David Friedberg (00:07:31): I've struggled with that. Like, I've tried to go deep in a couple topics. And, like, I realized, holy shit. I've been in this for, like, 4 to 6 hours just trying to learn this stuff, and I'm not, like, there. And then I feel uncertain about making any decisions. I I I totally get it. I mean, you gotta have folks, like, working on this. And the the the pace is changing so rapidly. You really need to kinda be up to date on on what's You know Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:52): what the other the other issue is, when you look at crypto, people use the word crypto as if it's like that's all there is. David Friedberg (00:07:58): Totally. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:59): crypto is like -- That's like streaming computing. Yeah. Right. E cache, cryptography, you know, financial modeling or building new economic systems, Chamath? David Friedberg (00:08:10): There's business model innovation. There's technology innovation. There's economic innovation. It's It Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:14): should be computing innovation. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:08:16): In in for infrastructure, hardware. I mean, there's there's quite a lot of layers of activity. Timoth, are you spending time in crypto yourself, or do you have people doing it for you, or how are you Kinda. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:28): We have look. We have we have a lot of it. A lot of a lot of everything. So, yeah, we have things. David Friedberg (00:08:36): But do you go deep yourself, Jamob? Like, how do you spend enough time to really get up to speed on all the goings on? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:45): I cherry pick and I snipe and opportunities where I get intellectually curious and jump in but a lot of the credit goes to my team. There's a couple folks that spend a lot of their time in it. And, you know, we've we've had a couple people do extremely well for us. you know, similar similar to David's story back in the day, you know, I invested in Barry Silbert. And DCG -- Back to market, Barry Silver. Yeah. And, you know, DCG is now I don't know. I'm guessing a $20,000,000,000 company. Maybe more. I don't know. So how does it mechanically work with your team? They they are investigating opportunities, and then they come to you and bring you, you know, hey. We'll do a meeting, and I'm gonna for with you, and then you say, hey. Let me get on the phone with that guy. David Friedberg (00:09:33): Do you basically go deep go deep when something shows up tomorrow? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:37): No. So so, basically, what happens is they have carte blanche to do whatever they want. And what they're typically doing is they're working with entrepreneurs to seed projects and, you know, to to to get projects off the ground and then at some point when those when those projects become large enough, then they'll issue tokens and, you know, we'll get a certain allocation of those tokens. And so we've done that for, call it, I don't know, some number of projects that we think are valuable. Then along the way, you know, they'll have certain views on Bitcoin They'll have certain views on Ethereum. They'll have certain views on Solana and we'll make capital allocation decisions. They tend to have the ability to do whatever they want. And then what I tend to do is just think about when it gets above like, it to me, I need to see the chance to make at least, you know, in the rough justice around you know, 500 to a $1,000,000,000, and then I'll get involved. But otherwise, they just kinda run the whole thing. Let me ask you guys, a question here. You know, when you look at the market caps of these projects, it seems like things are changing. Cardona, Orkodana is number 3 now. And Tethr still remains number 5. XRP is still number 6. But Solana I would encourage people to not look at it like that. I think looking at it as a ranked list betrays what it is. So, you know, I'll give you a simple example. Let like like, compare the the fate of 2 projects. or actually right now there's a distributed form of Discord that's being built Discord, the Chamath app -- Yeah. -- popular amongst gamers. -- in a completely distributed way with an integrated crypto wallet. Because if you look at Discord, it's really 2 cohorts of people. There's gaming and there's crypto. Right? So it's the 2 big ones. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:19): Yeah. So, you know, that's an example of a really interesting product that has some real potential. Then if you look at something like DISO, DISO is a decentralized social programming framework. Then if you look at something like helium, that's completely about building a large distributed connection of of on ramps to the Internet, so Internet connectivity. So those are 3 completely different ideas with 3 completely different paths to success. If to invest in those tokens, you you have to believe in 3 totally different sets of things. Yes. So to look at it on a rank list and just buy something because it's cheap is stupid. No. No. No. I'm just gonna be blunt. It's stupid. don't -- Well, no. No. That wasn't really my question. My question was, you know, we we have an extraordinary number of the public who've invested in Bitcoin and Ethereum as number 1 and number 2. and those projects feel maybe stagnant when compared to the dynamism of what I'll call you know, the projects launched in the last 3 or 4 years. Because they're at a different number. But you're talking about confusing. Again, that's what I mean. Those are layer 1 protocols. Right? Meaning, they are at the core substrate of how all of crypto is going to work. Then you have these other projects that build on top of these things in different ways or build around them. So my point is, if you don't have If you don't wanna take the time to understand which layer twos you wanna own, and which layer ones you wanna own and why, I think you're much better off. I I I understand your point. My my point is -- -- ETF or something else because there are there are ways own these things. So for example, David the David Solana is does not need Ethereum to exist. So my point is, do we do we see a day when this you know, the past decade has been about Bitcoin And Ethereum. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:09): Do we see a day when maybe people stop buying those and start buying these new ones? David Sacks (00:13:14): Anything's possible, but here's here's the evolution in our thinking. I mean, the the first step was realizing, okay. We need to own Bitcoin. Why? Because you know, there's now enough evidence where, what, like, a a decade or more than a decade into this, nobody has been able to essentially counterfeit a Bitcoin. it is, you know, new money. It is it is better money. So if you it's so I'm not gonna convince people right now of the argument for Bitcoin, but if you believe in it, That's sort of the first step is you realize you really need to have 1 to 2% of your portfolio in Bitcoin in the event that fiat money sort of becomes debased and eventually you move to crypto. then you realize, well, wait a second. Bitcoin is just one application of blockchains. There's a bunch of applications of blockchains. So maybe we need to own not just sort of, you know, digital money, but we also need to own the underlying blockchain platform and that leads you to Ethereum. Then you realize that there's a bunch of competitors to Ethereum and is still very early days, and one of those guys might ultimately displace Ethereum as a blockchain platform. Then you realize that there's all these applications on top of all these blockchains. And so, you know, the conclusion I come to after all of that is I can't figure all this out and well, maybe I could if I was willing to go back to school and, like, make this a full time job, which I just don't wanna do. I mean, I'm lazy and that's why I focus on SaaS. Like, that's what I know. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:30): You kill disaster. David Sacks (00:14:31): Yeah. Like, I'm not gonna reinvent myself. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:33): It's like you playing Holden versus PLO. David Sacks (00:14:35): Right. Right. Right. Exactly. So but this is why we partner with multi coin capital. So what I would just say is, like, the idea that you as an individual investor are gonna, like, you know, pick off the one cryptocurrency here or there to invest in. I mean, that's gonna be a lottery. I would I would find a manager basically who is really good who has a track record who understands this stuff. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:56): Our approach is to hire very young, extremely technical computer scientists and mathematicians to basically do the work. That's that's working. David Sacks (00:15:06): Yeah. And, you know, one of the things that I think these guys do and the reason why it is very helpful for the big computer scientists is These are all open source projects. So they go look at the repos. Just go look at go look at what -- You Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:18): can actually see the changes being made. And this is like, do you realize there's only twelve people who are actively working on Solana in in the -- David Sacks (00:15:24): But you need to you need to look at all Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:26): the coach David Sacks (00:15:26): check ins. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:27): -- 7 of them work for Solana. You need David Sacks (00:15:29): to look at all of the coach check ins. You need to look at the velocity of the coach check ins. You so you can see, like, how many projects are being created on these platforms. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:36): The white papers are also really exceptional. Like, if you if you read these white papers, they are They're they're they're really incredibly thoughtful and and well written, and you can really understand what their goals are. And You can make some informed decisions there. But again, if you're not gonna be in the business of being in this ecosystem because I think David's right, everything is moving so fast. What's successful today could be just a dog tomorrow and vice versa. that I think speculating in this market will not only will it be super volatile, but more than likely, you're gonna lose all your money. So I would encourage people to not speculate crypto. I would encourage you to figure out an elegant way of having an abstracted bet if to the extent you care about it. And by the way, In the UK, for example, there are ways where you can own publicly traded mutual funds that give you exposure to this. It's just simple. Yes. Yeah. But there are mutual funds of credit. Do the work. Find these mutual funds. Just own those things and let somebody else do the hard work because this is too It's too hard. David Sacks (00:16:38): Some of the other investments we made back in Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:40): 2017, 2018 David Sacks (00:16:41): time frame, one was a company called BitWise, which was creating an ETF for crypto. So it's a a a a monthly rebalanced portfolio of, I think, the top 10 cryptocurrencies. And you could buy it they they finally got approved by the SCC, and you can buy it like a like, with a ticker symbol from your e trade account. David Friedberg (00:17:01): Robin Robynell Road. Exactly. David Sacks (00:17:02): So that was that was pretty incredible to see the progress they've made. And then the other big that we made was just institutional custody back in 2017, we invested in BICCO. Actually, Bill Lee helped found that company many years ago. And then that became Last year, Galaxy announced a deal to acquire them for, I think, 1,200,000,000 largest crypto acquisition to date. The thesis there was just that crypto would go more institutional, and I think we're starting to see that now where endowments and so on are realizing they need to have some portion, maybe 1 or 2% of their portfolio in crypto And so, you know, they Chamath Palihapitiya (00:17:37): -- It's unrealistic. Look. We have 2 almost $3,000,000,000,000 of market capping crypto. It's unrealistic for folks to people to be able to be living in Discord channels and doing all of this work. I think what that means is that the SEC is going to be asked increasingly more often to approve simpler on ramps for this stuff. And now, in the last week, by the way, we had a pretty important 2 things happened. Both Jerome Powell and Gary Gensler basically said, cryptos here to stay and and, you know, we're not gonna ban this stuff. And so, hopefully, what it means is that you get some ETFs passed in the United States. You know, grayscale is 1. There could be more. and I think that stuff makes it much easier for folks to own this stuff. Well, a clear regulation would be a great thing for the industry for people to buy into it and removing some of the, let's call them, I don't wanna say, bad actors, but people who are maybe questionable like Tethr, you know I don't know if you saw the Bloomberg story yesterday, but, you know, a Bloomberg reporter basically found out that Tethr he got the list of what Tethr owns with their stablecoin, and it looks like they're giving a lot of loans to other crypto projects. and own a lot of Chinese paper in that they are basically making the float on $69,000,000,000 sweeping it. which then incentivizes them to take risky bets because they get paid on them, and it's anything but a stablecoin if you think about it from that regard. David Sacks (00:19:02): It's I don't know the details on Tethr. I won't speak to that, but I'll say that any stable coin, if it's not 100% backed by dollars, if that's a currency that's going in and out or Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:13): -- David Sacks (00:19:14): Yeah. -- other hard currency, that's not a stable coin. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:17): Right. David Sacks (00:19:17): You know, stablecoin is supposed to be a service. It's not supposed to be a a speculator's currency. It's basically just supposed to be a mechanism by at the onramps and off ramps of the crypto ecosystem, you can convert your dollars into a temporary like, again, stablecoin that will hold aside. So you can at poker chip that you can use to then buy Bitcoin or Ethereum or whatever. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:40): Yeah. USD c USD c, Jeremy Alair's -- Circle. -- competitor from Circle just said that he would switch to a 100% to what you're saying, cash, cash equivalents. Hey. The guys, this is this has always been a money market fund. It should be Right. -- treated like a money market fund, and it should be regulated and managed like a money. Which was Tether's original vision, and then they flipped the script because I think they got greedy. And now they own, I think, 3 David Friedberg (00:20:05): to 4 business days. -- regulated. By by the way by the way, it it speaks to the role of regulation. Like, you know, a lot of people have trust and because they make some claim, but there's no regulator actually checking on their claims. The only people Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:16): that want regulation are at two ends of the spectrum. So young and so disruptive where they want rails to operate legally and so big and so over the top that they want to basically entrench themselves for the rest of their lives. That's it. No Everybody in the middle doesn't really want regulation. What's a what's a way to create? -- company or if you're a big tech, you both want regulation. Well, but there David Sacks (00:20:37): yeah. But there but there there are some narrow cases. Like, again, you know, if if if a stablecoin is gonna say that we are just a money market Fund where a 100% dollar reserve, it is really nice to have a regulator. Somebody we trust to go in there and put the stamp of approval on it -- FDIC. -- trust it. Or that is that is a valid role, I think, for a regulator. David Friedberg (00:20:57): In traditional financial markets, you have these self regulating bodies. I I think it's FINRA is a self regulating body. Right? And so, you know, somebody's self regulating bodies should be formed in the crypto community. I don't know if they're doing this. I'm so naive in the space, but certainly would make sense to have an SRO form that that does self policing effectively within the community rather than try and bring in a government regulator. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:17): Here's the thing. If you police yourself, you can really define the execution and the ramifications of that policing. David Friedberg (00:21:26): If you have 30, call it, competitors and cooperators in the in the market space doing this together. It can be a a highly effective model for creating a system of trust and and reliability and not having to you know, bring in, you know, call it outside incompetence to overseeing the rules and rights. David Sacks (00:21:43): Yeah. Another area we need standards is around the token tables for these projects. Right? So how much how much of the token cap table goes to the founders? What are the rules around them selling? What are those vesting periods? And what are the disclosures around them selling? In public markets, we have 10b5. So if you're an insider who runs these companies, you have to disclose when you're selling, there's no similar rule for crypto. I think there probably should be. Right? Like, if you own the if you own the token, and you run this project as publicly traded and the public can buy it, you should really probably have to disclose your your sales. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:22:16): Yes. And maybe you know, these it's very strange because they're running foundations and I had a crypto person on from a music crypto project And he said they had, like, 3 or 400,000,000 in this project in Panama. I was like, who's on the board of that? And he's like, I can't say. I'm like, why can't you say? and he said security reasons. I was like, well, anybody who's on a public board has to be public. And, of course, they have sick you know, people who are on the board of GE or IBM or Amazon, they have security issues. Like, they deal with their security issues. That doesn't mean they don't dispose who they are. It's like, yeah. I'm not comfortable saying who they are. And it's like, okay. Well, they sold 3 or 400000000 I was like, how do they give that money out? I'm like he's like, I'm not sure I'm not on it. I'm like, what? Like, there's some organization in Panama that's it was really weird. And I think one thing that I'll say positively about about these crypto founders is that they will never allow A single venture investor to clog up their cap table number 1. They do a great job of creating these large broad syndicates of participation when they seed their projects. And then a lot of it goes into treasury where then they issue coins as needed. And I think that that strategy actually is very pro employee and pro ecosystem. So You know, when we see these projects, all these companies tend to raise, you know, 3, 4, 5,000,000 bucks. It all tends to be at like 30,000,000 pre And it all tends to be distributed. So like, you know, it's us and Reese and Sequoia and it's like, you know, we put in 200 grand each or 400 grand each. you know, that's why you're forced then go into the market if you believe in a project and then spend 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars to buy into it after the fact. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:52): And I think that that's very Very powerful. It's a really important dynamic that if it comes back to a traditional venture, it could be really disruptive. Why? Well, could you imagine a a SaaS founder that basically all of a sudden says, alright. You know what? I'm raising a $6,000,000 series a you know, craft can take 500 k Sequoia, you can have 500 k, you know, blah bitty blah folks, and then you raise 6,000,000 bucks that way and you never allow anybody to have more than call it, you know, a few percent of a company. So the fact that it's like a it's like a mini IPO. It's like a private IPO. on Santel Road. Yeah. And and then your board construction looks entirely different. And then as a result, you know, founder protections probably go way up. Employee protections probably go way up. It's -- Absolutely. -- goes way down. No. I actually think what'll happen is you're less likely in a round like that to be okay with some dork dingleberry joining your fucking board. You're gonna actually point to some industry expert and say, this person is joining my board. She does x, y, z job at such and such a start up. And then the investors say, well, that's a pretty great advocate for the business. Go ahead and do that. Another thing I learned about this whole token space was when I talked to Anatoli from Solana. When they sold their 3 or 400,000,000 tokens to fund the company because they consider them utility tokens, not shares, they paid taxes on it. So the IRS is getting massive amounts of tax revenue. Well, think about it. They're selling the token. It's supposed to be for utility. Well, therefore, it's a taxable event. David Sacks (00:25:24): That actually was really smart. That is showing, I think, some wisdom because there's a lot of founders who wanna have their cake and eat it too. which is to say they wanna say that these are utility tokens and and and they don't pay tax and then they when they later get traded, they wanna say that they're not, you know, they're not securities. But when does the tax get paid? I think it's really smart to pay the tax upfront to establish that this is a corporate sale. They're basically paying the corporate tax. Right? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:49): Yes. David Sacks (00:25:50): That is what is because this is this is the problem is if if you wait until they're traded publicly and then say, no. No. No. No. Their their utility focus security tokens, the government's gonna ask you, well, why didn't you pay corporate income tax when you sold them. Right? So that that is actually showing some persvicacity, I think. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:10): Could somebody look that word up for me while? -- David Sacks (00:26:12): org. Foresighted this, Jakeel. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:14): Okay. Great. Awesome. so great that Speaker 3 (00:26:17): you have the 2 producers on either side of you right now feeding you vocabulary words. Well done. So here's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:23): a here's you know, another question with this. If the majority of people, Saks just put your legal hat on for a second. If the majority of people who bought a token in a a project. We'll call it the, you know, Acme crypto project. They buy Acme coins. If they're buying them and they have App absolutely no interest in using them for the utility. And they say, I bought these as a speculative device. And the founder says there are utility tokens, but let's say, 70% of the people who bought them said, I didn't buy them for that reason. They just came out right and said, I bought this to speculate on the price. What should the government do? Should they deem them a security or should they deem them a utility token? David Sacks (00:27:05): I think that's a a complicated question, but I I think that there should be an opportunity for these cryptocurrencies to establish themselves as utility tokens because they are they do serve a purpose. They are designed to be part of a system. Right? They they're not just objects of speculation. And by the way, even if they were, we don't we don't treat baseball cards as, you know, as as sort of as security. So it wouldn't necessarily make them a security just because they're speculated on. They actually do serve a function and a designed computer system. So I think what's important here is that there's a safe harbor where these crypto companies know what the rules are. And if they if they can basically meet the criteria such as by paying corporate income tax when they sell the tokens and other things like that that they won't later be deemed to be engaged in unlawful sales securities. I think the I think the important thing is just that entrepreneurs, founders know what the rules are so they can abide by them and not be Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:03): surprised right now. David Sacks (00:28:04): Well, they don't get surprised later. They don't get whammied, but with basically you know, because they are building something legitimate here. You know? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:12): Right. But it would seem to the sniff test if the people buying the tokens have no idea, have never written a line of code, have no use for them. David Sacks (00:28:23): I don't see why that's relevant. I don't see why that's relevant. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:26): Well, because they're profiting off of them as if they're shares. And unless baseball cards, which you can't sell a 1000 baseball cards for an increasingly, you know you know, in a in a very instantaneous way, you would put them in an auction David Sacks (00:28:40): when it gets there'd be Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:41): a lot of friction. There'd be a lot of friction. You can't trade it, certainly, like yeah. Friedberg, what do you think? If the majority of people buying a token or doing it to speculate, can the founder say it's utility token and then those people who are trading it like either baseball cards minted coins, whatever analogy shares you wanna use are in it for the increase in the value, should it be a and should they have to play by the rules we play at in the traditional venture startup game? David Friedberg (00:29:08): I mean, the question is what's the utility? So, I mean, if you can demonstrate some utility, then maybe that's the the the and this will probably be litigated at some point. Right? I'm sure there'll be enough capital sloshing around here that someone will say, you know what? We believe strongly. I mean, we're seeing this happen with Ripple already But someone will litigate this, and we'll get some clear definition on, you know, what statutes are gonna be referenced and what those sheets might say with respect to the how this ties to the definition of utility, and then that'll become hopefully a standard that that people can kinda look to to guide them in the future. But it's definitely the wild right now, and everyone's gonna try -- The Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:50): reason I bring it up is because Gensler was sort of floating this argument. Jamath, what do you think? I think that you can't wipe $3,000,000,000,000 of value out of the world. And so -- So pragmatically hard to do. Got it. So it's here to stay, and it's too institutionalized now. So, you know, there's just way too many organized pools of capital that are now speculating inside of this entire ecosystem. You know, I saw a tweet today. There was a there's a firm I think, like, called jump trading or something. It's like a high speed frequency trading organization and they tweeted out some pictures where, you know, they're they're they hired a bunch of folks to start a jump and they did a coding boot camp on Solana. That was their onboarding as an example. So when you have people in High Finance, you know, really invested in this thing. And you have $3,000,000,000,000 of value that'll go to $6,000,000,000,000 and then go to $10,000,000,000,000,000. This can't go away. So That's why I think Powell and Gensler had to say some version of that on the record which is, you know, we're not gonna ban this stuff because they know it's not possible. So I think David's right. You have to create some rules, make folks and let folks pay their taxes, You know, I remember, for example, like, I did this Bitcoin transaction 2014 or something. I bought some land. I used BitPay. I transferred some bitcoin. I bought the land. Blah blah blah. It was like, you know, whatever. But whatever? Yeah. But, I mean, I I I I left I mean, I I owned a lot at the time, so it wasn't that big of a deal. But my point is, Finding a way for me to pay my taxes was a huge deal I remember. And, you know, we filed the tax return, and we tried to make sure that we paid our taxes. These are very complicated even if you want to be conforming to the government. It's impossible right now. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:36): So they just need to create some rules where folks can say, here's what I own. Here's what it's worth. Tell me how much I owe you. And we're all willing to pay or not maybe we're on a I'm I am because I just think it's like, make sure that we can we can trade around it, hedge it, structure it, do the things that we would normally do with any other risk assets. Right now, that's very hard. And when you own Lots of this stuff. It sits in your balance sheet and you just take these enormous swings and you're just like, god. You can't do anything around this stuff. And that's not a a viable financial market. That doesn't Yeah. To to to be specific about Gensler said, I just looked it up here. You know, he he compared Utility tokens with, you know, laundry mat tokens or tickets to the Opera. And he said entrepreneurs are choosing to perceive their tokens as utility to sidestep regulation, and that here's the quote. They are highly speculative investment tokens for people who are trying to save or speculate for the their future. And that's why I think it's appropriate to bring them inside the investor protection perimeter I agree with him. I also agree with you, Chamath, that this is a can of worms that I don't know how you put the genie back in the bottle. But he's he's partially right. I mean, he is partially right on some tokens, but he's not completely accurate on some other tokens. I think it's on a case by case basis and it depends. David Sacks (00:32:53): Listen, I think anybody who is buying these tokens right now knows that they're engaged in in financial speculation. This idea that people at Middle Middle America are gonna blow their retirement savings on crypto. I don't I just don't Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:06): really buy it. If they're doing speculation, then it should be a security. No. No. No. David, I think you're totally wrong. I totally buy it. Look at the quarterly returns the filings of earnings from companies like Robinhood and how much And Square and how much money they make from crypto and look at their audience. That's totally not true. David Sacks (00:33:24): But don't you think that audience skews really young? And they're getting their, like, COVID stimulus check, and they're yellowing it into meme or crypto. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:31): What does that have to do with -- David Sacks (00:33:32): Well, because you're making it sound like they're gonna blow their retirement savings. Okay. Well, if you're talking about a twenty five year old, you've got $5000 for retirement savings. Maybe. but they still got, you know, they still got 40 years of work ahead Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:42): of us. Hold on a second. Wait. No. They don't. This is gonna be the least hardworking generation of our lifetime. Why? No. No. No. Not not because you're not hardworking. Why? There's $70,000,000,000,000 that boomers have that they are about to pass down to these folks on average between 23,000,000,000,000 a year for the next 30 years. Also, they know how to do gig work. Like, they're so smart this generation. They'll have to do projects for $5 and float themselves. You're gonna take one entire turn of the world's GDP and give it to a 100,000,000 people in America over the next 20 to 30 years. That is what is actually going to happen. So David Sacks (00:34:20): Yeah. Look. I think I think -- Of course, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:22): they're gonna keep yolo ing this stuff. David Sacks (00:34:24): Yeah. Look. I think I think we're getting off on, like, a little bit of attention here. My my point my my point is not that there shouldn't be investor protections. But rather that, I think we also need to balance another important objective, which is to create a hospitable environment for innovation. And the fact of the matter is that you've got a lot of brilliant young entrepreneurs, computer scientists building this financial infrastructure of the future with crypto. It's not just speculation. There is a lot of code being written. It has functionality. There's a purpose to it. we don't we don't necessarily wanna interfere with that to to the -- Well, every start has Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:00): to do their security, though, David. All the other startups that are not in crypto are playing by the rules. So It's crypto. People get a pass. It's unfair. I agree with Jacob. People make this claim, and I just think it's so suspicious. Do you think that you would have made a single professional decision in your life based on tax rate. Have you ever made a single like, I'm gonna start this company, I'm gonna make this product, you know, I'm gonna change this job, I just think that most people -- I'm not David Sacks (00:35:24): talking about paying taxes. I think it was smart for, for example, Solana to pay corporate taxes on their token sale. I'm I think everyone should pay their taxes. That's not what we're talking about here. And I'm not saying that Ginsler shouldn't prescribe regulations. I think that part of the purpose of those regulations should be to give entrepreneurs predictability to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:42): be able to give them a David Sacks (00:35:43): safe harbor so they can build what they wanna build. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:44): Let me make one final point. I'm just saying from my perspective, I just think that If you have clear sensible taxation, that's 90% of what this industry needs. And I don't think it will it will change anybody's real motivation to work inside this ecosystem. Alright. Great. Just like just like entrepreneurship doesn't change when capital rates capital gains rates Look, David Sacks (00:36:03): I I I paid I paid taxes at you know, on on on my crypto sales like it was any other investments since the beginning. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:11): No. That's not the issue. The issue is when you're a company and you're raising money, should you be allowed to not follow securities law because you say it's a token, Friedberg. When you look at this, an NFT company came out last this past week, that was selling shadow shares in startups and anyone in the world could buy a shadow share in a private company like Stripe, Etcetera, in this fantasy football league, they wound up shutting it down or changing it because they didn't wanna trade on other people's intellectual property. They were concerned about that. But just looking at it, the public in America, 96% of them who are not accredited cannot buy shares of Stripe in the secondary market, But you can buy NFTs in it and speculate on the NFTs, which are accelerating from, you know, a $1000 to $500,000 in these different clubs How is it fair that crypto companies get to not obey basic securities laws? Friedberg. Well, it's David Friedberg (00:37:06): not a security. There's no underlying asset. David Sacks (00:37:09): Okay. It's a collectible. And NFT is clearly a collectible, Jake. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:13): Okay. And -- I don't have I don't have any legal I don't have any legal -- Could you send that to them and have a marketplace for people to sell them, and they're appreciating. I mean, I I do agree with something different. David Sacks (00:37:22): Sounds like art to me. David Friedberg (00:37:23): Yeah. You could go draw a piece of picture of stripe and put it on a piece of paper and go down to downtown wherever and stand in front of the burrito shop and try to sell Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:31): it to people more about -- -- different than a security, but there acting as securities in relation to the fundraising of these projects. So I think that's the David Sacks (00:37:38): challenge. Everything is a security. David Friedberg (00:37:39): Yeah. There's no secured interest. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:41): You David Friedberg (00:37:41): don't have any secured interest. It's literally just a a a, like, an image, a figure. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:45): I was just offered a Giacometi sculpture, but I turned it down. David Friedberg (00:37:50): How much? 60,000,000? If -- I'm not gonna comment on the Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:52): price. Yeah. I had to say no. David Friedberg (00:37:54): Was Steven Cohen selling it? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:56): I'm not commenting on the seller. David Friedberg (00:37:57): I bet Stephen Cohen was selling it. That was the record deal. Stephen Cohen bought that Giacometi sculpture a few years ago. It was, like, the highest price ever paid it in for a piece of art in the US. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:06): What's -- Can I just tell you my problem with with it? I I took the price, and I divided it by the height in centimeters, and it just tilted me. David Sacks (00:38:15): Is price per square inch a metric in Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:18): -- David Friedberg (00:38:18): It is in Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:18): my head. What's in in 20 615, David Friedberg (00:38:23): Stephen Cohen paid a $141,000,000 for the Giacometi Sculpture. pretty incredible, and I think you're right. It's about 12 inches tall or something. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:36): That's all I have. Totally, you know, if you look culture, it looks like it was done by a twelve year old. Oh my god. Stop. Oh, Jay Cal. Jay Cal, you're Gotta stop. Yeah. David Sacks (00:38:47): Jay Cal. -- a billionaire equivalent of a of crypto and NFTs. Right? I mean -- Totally. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:53): I don't know. What scam? The scam is running, but that looks like David Friedberg (00:38:56): anyone can raise their hand and say, I have an independent objective assessment of the value of anything in the world. And you can look at it from high to low, and this is all effectively Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:08): at subjective business. -- looks like it was a beautiful sculpture that was in a giant fire and that somebody pulled out of the ashes. David Friedberg (00:39:15): It's a beautiful piece. If you wanna read a little bit of art history, yeah, you can understand a little bit about Yacometi's work, but it's it's a 70 inch piece, not 12 inches. Sorry. And, yeah, his work is all about kind of, like, how do you capture the essence of the form? Anyway, this is a a super ridiculous tangent. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:32): -- like somebody made something out of my -- Come on. You should've bought it. -- David Friedberg (00:39:36): to be joking. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:37): I have a very funny Stevie Cohen story. So this is, like, 10 years ago at Art Basel in Miami. And the the day before the art fair opens, it's called the furnace size. -- rich people? And so, you know, it's like a day where you can go and see the the stuff the day in advance, and you can, you know, kinda buy stuff or whatever. And it's very funny. It's kind of like You know, like, when Walmart does, like, a Black Friday thing, like, everybody lines up, and then they open the doors and we all run-in, and I was standing side by side. We were right at the front of the line. And I noticed that he had these and this is my first time there. He had new balance running shoes on. And I thought, what is he doing? But then when the doors went open, they just took off and started running. And I was walking wearing normal loafers, and then I realized I should have been wearing running shoes. You had our own normal loafers. You were wearing Italian loafers. I miss, like, a balloon dog guy. David Sacks (00:40:26): It's like the it's like the running of the bulls. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:28): I miss that. It was it was it was the running of the bulls. So I miss out on everything -- Running of the billionaires. I got to the things after, and I was like, oh, sorry. I sold it to Stevie Cohen. I sold this stuff. My friend, the Cocker. Jesus Christ. I had posters on my feet. It was brutal. Do you David Friedberg (00:40:41): guys know we haven't even started our agenda? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:43): No. So fifty off our right stuff. So fifty was the parameter. I Speaker 3 (00:40:48): Fucking moderating this. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:49): 32. Alright. There's coverage of blood here. It's occurred yada yada. Everybody, everybody. Welcome to the online party. -- taste kind of cool. Well, that's the only Let's start our show. I'm sure everybody by now has seen Francis Houghton on 60 minutes and testifying She seemed incredibly credible, well spoken and had very common sense non extreme views about what should be happen what should happen with the research that Facebook has been funding that shows like other media forms, Instagram, and Facebook have a a really terrible effect on young people, specifically young girls and body dysmorphia, which seems to be the one thing that is landing pretty well. Her suggestions were not to break up Facebook. Hers was to have a regulatory body and to do soft interventions if you don't know soft interventions. Her her suggestions were worse than breaking up Facebook? Well, soft interventions. Let's get to that. Include things like, hey. In order to retweet the story on Twitter, you probably should read it first. she thinks she wants to reform or or she's an advocate for reforming section 230 in relation, I think, to the algorithms And the idea here would be that the algorithms are making an actual editorial decision, which is something that I remember in the YouTube early days. They said we will not feature your videos that you're making, but we will have the algorithm pick them because that keeps our safe harbor. Zuckerberg came back and wrote a spirited defense basically saying, why would we do this research if we didn't care the people at this company care a a ton. Saxx and the entire Peter T. L. Cobble of you know, acolytes and friends are coming on strong as pro Facebook. I'll have him talk about that. He thinks it's Facebook. It's laughable that people are addicted to Facebook, yadayadayada. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:48): So who wants to go first? Do you Chamath or Zach's? Well, look. Here, let me let me say a couple things. I think that I think Zuck's the title of Zuck's internal company post could have been titled Nuh-uh. which basically is what's this what I'm saying. The this is ridiculous, and I don't believe it. The the thing that she asked for in substance is a little different than what the DOJ did with Microsoft in 2000, but in Form is actually quite similar, which base is like gumming up how the internal product development would work inside the company. And, you know, the most damaging thing you already saw, which is that they had a bunch of planned product releases, and then they put them on ice. And I think this is really where, unfortunately, the most damage gets done because engineers won't really tolerate that for some amount of time. Right? They'll put up with it initially. But, you know, you've had I don't know. I think, like, a 20% reduction in stock price, so you had you lost $200,000,000,000 of market cap, there's probably gonna be more turbulence in the company You can sustain and get through all of it as long as the engineers hold the line. But if you basically slow down and put a pin in their ability, to generate code and to put out features. On the margins enough, people, I think, will get frustrated and leave. And I think the way that she you know, what she is asking for was tantamount to that. And I think that's the really destructive part of of what could go on here. So they need to get this pin down quickly. Get in front of regulators, get some laws passed, whether it's section 230 or whatever. That's the path to salvation for Facebook. Sachs, what do you what do you think? I see you are basically saying this is, like, ridiculous and silly on Twitter. Mike Solana is saying that. Obviously, Peter Tills on the board of Facebook and -- You're gonna have David Sacks (00:44:48): to you're gonna have to give me time to unpack this, Jake Hall. It's not getting hysterical because there There's a lot of struggle here. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:53): I want I'm get David Sacks (00:44:53): I'm literally throwing it to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:54): you in a non historical way. You think that this is there's nothing to this, and you think it's ridiculous. David Sacks (00:45:00): Let's understand what this really was. Okay? You have this so called whistleblower who is working with the staff of the senate judiciary committee giving doc Missus The Wall Street Journal, and then appears on 60 minutes in this great unveiling. 36 hours later, she's testifying on Capitol Hill That does not happen. The senate committees do not operate that fast. This was coordinated. She's got a democrat well known democratic operative named Bill Burton working for her. She's got a team of lawyers. She's got a PR team. This is coordinated Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:29): by who? David Sacks (00:45:30): This is a coordinated hit, okay, by anti Facebook forces starting with the senate judiciary committee. who want to regulate Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:39): -- David Sacks (00:45:39): Who? -- she's working with the staff, Jay Cal. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:41): Jason stopped. David Sacks (00:45:42): You're already interrupting. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:43): Jason stopped asking you who? You said she's working with somebody. I don't know David Friedberg (00:45:46): who it is. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:46): Just let him make this argument and then just stop. Let I wanna hear what he has to say. David Sacks (00:45:51): Okay. What is the purpose of this testimony? First of all, we can go over the details of what she said. I don't think there was anything new here. This was all the same arguments we've been hearing from these same sort of forces who wanna regulate Facebook, whether it's the whether it's the senators on the committee who've hauled up Zuckerberg no fewer than four times to lecture him about the need for more censorship, or it's these forces in the media who basically want Facebook. It's all about, you know, having more censorship. But in any event, there was nothing really new there. What this really was was corroboration and of of of these same talking points they've been hearing for years, And where and what it's all leading up to is there's a very important part of her testimony, which is this is really the crux of it, is that they that she proposed And what Blumenthal wants, he's the chairman of the senate district committee, is a dedicated oversight body. This is in this clip. Okay? with a power to oversee social media platform. So what we have here is the government is now gonna have a new agency. They're saying like the FTC, then she said a regulatory home where somebody like me could do a tour of duty after working at a place like this. And and Hagen said, right now, the only people in the world who are trying to analyze these experiments to understand what's happening inside of Facebook are people who grew up inside of Facebook or Pinterest another social media company, basically people with her experience. I mean, I have to admire the Hutzba. I mean, she's basically proposing that she be made Zuckerberg's boss, okay, that a new oversight board be created by the government, which she would be appointed to, which she presumably would run, And this board is now gonna prescribe regulations and rules for social networks in terms of how their news feed is gonna run. That is what was proposed on Capitol Hill. That is what this operation is all about? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:38): So it's about her getting a job and being lording over Facebook is your claim. David Sacks (00:47:44): No. I think it's I think I think I think the purpose of all this is to create new regulatory oversight of social networks. I simply would note that she has proposed herself as somebody who would be on this board, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:55): which is David Sacks (00:47:55): pretty amazing. But what this is really about is that new oversight power. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:00): And is that a republican or a are you insinuating it's Democrats who want to regulate this or all politicians wanna regulate this because they're scared of Facebook having too much power? I think we all agree Facebook has too much power in in the public David Sacks (00:48:13): You've had the leaders you've had the leaders on the senate judiciary committee now for months. calling up Zuckerberg and Dorcey and other social media leaders and basically lecturing them on the need to censor more to take down more material That is their objective. This is not a conspiracy theory on my part. This is expressly what they've said. Okay? Now until now Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:33): -- Is it left to a right or both? David Sacks (00:48:34): come to that. I think the Republicans are a little bit confused on this issue, but we get to that. So what you've heard until now is it is that is is a tax on the supply side of the platform. So what they've advocated is deplatforming people with heterox heterodox views desenting voices. And they have been deplatformed in large numbers. Obviously, it started even before Trump, but certainly the sitting president of the United States was deplatform. YouTube just took down a million COVID videos because they disagree with official position on COVID. So until now, the censorship has been on the supply side of the platform. What they're advocating for now is censorship on the demand side of the platform, which is we're gonna rewrite these news feed rules. Okay? We're gonna rewrite them because we can't give people what they want. the the they're making these algorithms sound like they're these incredibly evil sinister things. All the algorithms do at the end of the day is give the user more of what they're looking for. Okay? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:29): Well, hold on a second. David Sacks (00:49:30): That is not good enough for these politicians. They wanna rewrite Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:33): those rules. -- see what they say. David Sacks (00:49:34): They wanna rewrite these rules to determine what people see. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:37): No. No. What they said about the algorithms was that the algorithm had a multiplier on it and that this multiplier of people resharing it, reengaging the content would lead people and this was statistically proven in Facebook's own research that things that were either misinformation or that were supercharged you know, polarizing issues, they would rise quicker, which then gave people not what they wanted in their feed. They gave people what would increase the length of a stay on Facebook or on YouTube or on Twitter for that matter, and they think the antidote for this is to maybe not allow things in the algorithm to go viral because what you're doing is saying things that are either misinformation or polarizing or we'll make things go to the top of the list, and maybe we don't want that as a society. David Friedberg (00:50:24): Let let me intervene with a with a point of view on this because is your head you're headed down a path that, to me, I I don't think actually speaks to what's really going on. It sounds like there's some sinister architecture here that's driving this outcome. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:42): If you have some of that -- David Friedberg (00:50:43): Yeah. Well, I mean, it it's implied because it's like, oh, well, they're they're multiplying sinister stuff. What makes Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:48): it -- -- they just care about length of stay on the site. Might be because they just wanna grow -- -- care about revenue. Yes. That's my my point, Shamont. They they David Friedberg (00:50:55): care about what consumers wanna consume, and consumers demand what they wanna consume. So think about media in the old Right? We used to have books that an author would put out every year, and so the author would get feedback on the book, and so it would be 1 year on that feedback cycle. then magazines would come out. Magazines would come out every month. And so every month, the magazine would get feedback on what sales were, and they would make decisions, editorial decisions, and they would iterate. TV shows came out every week. News papers came out every day. Cable TV came out every hour, and they could adjust their content accordingly. In the Internet age, the media is getting a much more kind of instantaneous feedback cycle. And the call it publisher or editor or curator of that media ultimately ends up putting in front of the consumer more and more of what they want as a function of what they're choosing to watch. And what we're calling kind of these algorithms, quote unquote, are really just the same thing that editors and publishers and others have done in the past, which is looking at what the consumer votes by what they choose, making decisions to put more of the things that they want in front of them. The consumer consumes more of that. And here's what's messed up. We're getting a very ugly look in the mirror. and what humanity and what citizens and what individuals actually wanna consume and choose to consume and get turned on by. And that is what's making this also ugly. And when we see that, we don't like to accept the fact that maybe that is just what humans are attracted to and what humans wanna consume at scale. and we end up wanting to blame someone. And I could argue, and I think others could argue that these algorithms that are effectively just recursive optimization functions. David Friedberg (00:52:26): They're recursively trying to figure out what do people wanna consume and then giving them more of what they want. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:30): But you you keep seeing what -- -- David Friedberg (00:52:31): solving for those very specific needs and and use cases. And I don't think that the algorithms are less Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:38): -- Go ahead, Shamap. Why is it not want? I I I'm interested in that unpacking it. No. The the I everything Freebrook says is absolutely right. but it's not the word want. It's not what they want. It's what they will react to the most. And sometimes what they react to the most is -- -- David Friedberg (00:52:53): subconsciously want. I don't know. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:54): But my point is that there's there's a I guess, I don't I don't use Facebook, but they went from thumbs up and thumbs down when I was there to, like, this nuance, like, there's likes, there's tears, there's angry shares. David Friedberg (00:53:05): But there's also analytics data on engagement. Right? Like, on how long someone's watching a video or Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:09): -- What I saw in there was that There was an amplification of things that were more extreme emotional reactions. Right. Now and and the point is that I think everything you said is absolutely right. The algorithms are amplifying. I think all I would say is I would restate what you're saying is these algorithms tend to amplify the things that are the most extreme and elicit a reaction. Yeah. Those reactions aren't necessarily the things that you want. Those are the things that you will react to the most. And by the way, algorithm wants to serve why you see that the top 10 things that are reshared the most often tends to be very extreme. Right? David Friedberg (00:53:44): Fundamental emotional responses are typically associated with things that I think we call hedonism. And the things that you can ignore your emotional responses and take another course of action, we typically ultrism or or what have you. This is a a kind of a common reason why people would wanna watch a comedy or watch a horror film because there's some emotional It's not a universal response, and people aren't rushing to the theater to watch documentaries. They're not rushing to the movie theater to be like, oh, I wanna be informed and educated on something that's factual and interesting. they wanna go and have emotional experiences, and that tech humans are biologically wired. And the same is happening in these short forms of media, these little tweets or David, you Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:24): do understand that they won't show murders and porn on Facebook. So they're making an editorial decision to say, hey. We're not gonna -- David Sacks (00:54:31): It will every night on the local news. If it bleeds, it leads. That how long has that been the motto in media? So David Friedberg (00:54:38): I'm listening David Sacks (00:54:38): I'm listening to Hagen on 60 minutes. I'm hearing her describe a corporate profit making machine that tries to get more reach, more ratings by fueling pullers, division. And I'm thinking, is she talking about cable news? That's what she's talking about. Isn't she? Is she talking about the New York Times? Is she talking about the traditional media? Because every single thing she said about how social media fuels polarization and division applies to the media. And yet those same voice in the traditional media are the first ones howling about Facebook and calling for its regulation. It is completely hypocritical because the real purpose here is not to reduce divisiveness or polarization of society. The regulations on Facebook will not do that. It is to seize control and influence over the machinery of social networking. Why? Because the news feed now controls the flow of information in our society. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:31): Don't think the damage has been done though, meaning in the sense that if you cripple Facebook's product velocity, and you shrink the surface area of the areas in which they can operate, isn't that more damaging than any regulation? David Friedberg (00:55:48): No. People will just stop using it, and then they will find another place to get Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:51): that same David Friedberg (00:55:52): emotional behavior. David Sacks (00:55:53): I've already stopped using face book. Okay? I don't find it compelling at all, and I'm not really on Instagram either. I I do find Twitter rather compelling, and I'm probably more addicted to that than other things. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:03): Yeah. Exactly. Off the rails. Off the rails. -- for me. David Sacks (00:56:07): Okay? But but but here's the thing. I think I think all of us on this show right now we none of us find Facebook particularly addictive in our own behavior. Okay? I think we understand in our own behavior that Facebook is sort of like a mildly diverting amusement that occasionally yields information. Sometimes it's useful. Okay? We understand that it's sort of like a newsfeed with a lot of noise, okay, in our own usage. But somehow, we've bought into this larger narrative that in everybody else's usage that somehow this is a brainwashing machine that is pumping people full of disinformation and warping their thinking. In other words, There's a sharp dichotomy between how we perceive our own usage and other people's usage. And what I would submit is our own usage is what we know and what we know to be true. And what we believe about other people's usage is simply a narrative that's been fed to us over and over again by the traditional media who hate Facebook because it's just remediating them. That is what's really going on here. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:05): You may you may be right. I'll I'll I'm seeing something different, which is getting apart from all of that stuff what's happening practically on the ground right now is that as a company who has to now slow way down. And what I'm saying is that's not dissimilar to what Microsoft had to do, which was there was this 10 year period at Microsoft where they really couldn't innovate. And that's really how the government solved the Microsoft problem. Yeah. They they made them less aggressive. Right? They gummed up the internal machinery so that Microsoft couldn't really be there for the next few major so for example, that we just spent we just spent 40 minutes talking about crypto. what do you think the chances are that, you know, Facebook now can land a really compelling crypto project? David Friedberg (00:57:47): Right. They can Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:47): they got totally shut down David Friedberg (00:57:49): with Libra. Right? I mean, they went after it, and the regulators stepped in and Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:52): -- It's too bold for them to launch that after what happened. It's it's 0, you know, with their behavior and other arenas. David Sacks (00:57:58): I think that like Microsoft back in the the late nineties, I think there are are real and legitimate concerns about the power of these big tech companies about how power how big and powerful they've become about their ability to crush competitors. I think that those are all legitimate. And in a weird way, if this government scrutiny slows those companies down. That's not an altogether bad thing. But I am concerned about the I'd say separately just because these companies do deserve to be scrutinized more, I do think that we have to see that the people who are engaged in this really coordinated hit campaign against Facebook They have other they have another agenda, and that is to control the flow of information online. It is to control online discourse. It's already been happening over the past year with censorship on the supply side of the news feed. And now they're trying to control the demand side, I think we have to be extremely wary about this? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:50): Well, David isn't you you've been on the other side of this because on previous podcasts, you've talked about Facebook being too influential having too many users And now you're saying, well, these tiny little news networks that get a couple of low millions -- He has a he has an issue, Jason, with the way in which they're going after Facebook. Okay. I get that. He thinks it's a coordinated hit. Fine. But you also have had an issue with Facebook having too much power to take somebody off the platform or to promote certain ideas. Yeah. So which is it? It seems like you're a little bit Both can be true. David Sacks (00:59:26): No. It's perfectly it's it's per it's no. It's perfectly consistent. I've expressed concerns about the way in which Facebook is is deplatforming people. it's cemero summarily silencing them and ghosting them. It's it's engaged in censorship. I've expressed concern about that, but we should understand that the people in the senate judiciary committee who hold up who who had this hearing who featured and spotlighted Hagen and turned her into this great hero their agenda is even more censorship. They the the they are complaining about the fact that Facebook is not censoring enough, and that is what their real agenda is. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:00): I I do think it should have been disclosed that Hagen does stand to gain financially from whatever happens. You know, I don't know that that's been confirmed that there is a whistleblower reward here, so we'll have to wait and see about that. I haven't heard. David Sacks (01:00:13): There's no reward until there's a fine. But Chirop is right that she qualify if she's a whistleblower, she qualifies for, what, a 30% portion of or some very large percentage of Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:23): 25. -- be here, though? What would the fine be? How would that be frame Jamoff? David Sacks (01:00:27): This whole thing is just getting started. There are gonna gonna be government actions, and there will be settlements from those government actions. And the the and Facebook, as you all know, will pay any kind of fine to put this behind Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:38): that -- You're the one that said, Jason. They they spent 5,000,000,000 just so that they wouldn't subpoena Zach and Cheryl. Right? That's what you said last week? We talked that last week. Yeah. So, I mean, I, yeah, I think there's a fine coming. Let's let's be honest. I I do not think Lena Kahn or Gary Gensler or any of these other folks are going to be in the business of making a quick decision, nor the DOJ, nor any of these other folks, they're gonna wanna really take their time to figure this out. But what I'm saying is it's not the ultimate result of it because I I again, I go back to, like, if you look at what happened in 2000 in Microsoft, The substance of what Microsoft had to agree to was was ultimately not as bad as the way in which it was implemented. which is that, you know, my understanding was, like, Microsoft had to submit feature reviews to lawyers at the DOJ who would then approve you know, updates and upgrades to their code base for things like Windows. That's what caused them to miss an entire wave of compute. And so this is the this is the point which is, I think, practically speaking, the beginning of what Microsoft went through, Facebook is gonna have to navigate. And so the faster they can try to say, alright, folks. You're right. You caught us. letting us tell us what to do. Maybe actually the the better path because it allows them to get past it. Because the longer this This this period of, like, gray stretches out, I think, is is actually the worst outcome. Well, let let's go through what we each think would be a possible solution here. 2, allowing free speech to occur on Facebook but maybe not having the things that, you know, fake news you know, misinformation, you know, maybe lowering down the rhetoric on the charge nature of the algorithm. Freeburg, do you have any common sense solution here that might address both sides of the issue, freedom of speech, and maybe things being amplified to a 100,000,000 people that are fake and and just simply not true. David Friedberg (01:02:35): We've talked a lot about this notion of, like, decentralized social networks. I mean, we haven't talked a lot. We talked a little bit about it. But if you end up putting a regulatory them are down on Facebook and Twitter and telling them what consumers and remember, these guys aren't media creators. They're platforms effectively for search discovery and access so you, as an individual, can discover 3rd party content on their platform. If they start putting the regulatory hammer down on these, quote, unquote, platforms, telling them what they can and cannot make available to their users, there will be another platform that Willemur And that platform may end up being in this kind of decentralized model. And in that decentralized model, you're not gonna have the same degree of regulatory oversight And that system will end up solving the same use case. Eventually, consumers will get what they want, which is, you know, what Chamath calls kind of this emotional response listening this emotional reaction, they will consume it until they, you know, achieve one of their kind of 7 deadly sins objective. which is what's driving the emotion underscoring their decisions on what to watch, what to consume, and and there will be an alternative. So, you know, go ahead and play whack a mole. You'll play whack a mole a few years, maybe a few decades. But at the end of the day, digital technology in a connected world will drive consumers to exactly where they will naturally find themselves, which is consuming ever more of the things that create this emotional response in them. The consequences are unfortunate. You know, I don't know what the right solution is. You know? We we've we've to some degree put a regulatory hammer down on things like smoking. And in some places, things like sugar, things that have kind of a, you know, an obvious effect on our physical health, these other things that we're seeing now are having an effect on our mental health. And I think that there may be kind of an emerging regulatory regime around mental health standards and how much of things can be consumed. And I think what we're seeing is the leading indicator of this is what's going on in China. Because China is the nation that I would say is probably at the forefront of research and understanding of what the consequences are of consuming more and more of media and content that causes an emotional response to you and what happens down the road, isolation, loneliness, suicide rates go up, unhappiness, etcetera. David Friedberg (01:04:53): It certainly is the consequence, but it's not a function of any individual company's misconveyance of content to consumers It's just a function of where these systems end up going because of the way humans are biologically wired. And so I guess my my first concern is maybe we end up in a decentralized system that ends up replacing all of these tools, and this just doesn't end, or you end up having -- -- works. Or you and it could be worse or you end up having these kind of regulatory regimes emerge -- No. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:18): -- it'll the address would be better. A decentralized solution is actually -- No. -- better in 1 no. It's better in one key way. which is that it's fundamentally harder to create the exact same network effect and density that you can have with one model with a closed system. So you're much more likely to actually have a very fragmented ecosystem of 100 of different solutions depending on what of the sins you want to feed or you know, what of the feelings you wanna feel at any one time? I think it's a big assumption that it would be a fragmented network. If you did replicate Facebook on a decentralized platform, and then some piece of misinformation came out, and it trended all the way to number 1, like, say, the January 6th interaction. And -- No. No. No. You know, there's no broad guns to There's not one network. There's not one network. -- that. But if one net hold on. Hold on. Let me finish my point. If the if one network became so large and there was nobody who could turn off something, what if people said, hey. There's a riot going on at the capital and more people showed up with more guns. Right? You have nobody to sit there and say, hey. Don't go to the capital. Turn those trending posts off. Go ahead, Saxx. David Sacks (01:06:20): Okay. So let's let's talk about this problem of misinformation. Okay? I think there's an old Mark Twain quote saying that the a lie can travel around the world faster than the truth can put on its shoes. Okay? Correct. There is a problem of falsehood spreading online. I agree with you there. The question is what you do about it? And the problem we have right now is that is that truth is not by the beholder. There is no truth API. And so at the end of the day, it's the people in power who get to decide what is true and what is false if you give them the power to censor misinformation. Example, we just saw. We talked about in this program, the Rolling Stone ivermectin hoax. provenly false story. And yet Rachel Maddow still had it up on her post. She was not sanctioned by MSNBC. Twitter never told her to take it down, and she was not fact checked. However, the Hunter Biden Laptop scandal or story, which came out in the New York Post a couple weeks for the election, turned out to be a provably true story and yet it was taken down by Facebook and Twitter. At the end of the day, this term of misinformation is just another vector for partisan attack, and it will be used by whoever we give it the power to to decide what misinformation is. So what is the answer then to this point of false search spreading online. Well, at the end of the day, the answer to bad speech is more speech. You try to create a free marketplace of ideas to let to let the good speech ultimately drive out the bad speech or prove that it's wrong. That's the best you can do. That's the best you can do in a free society. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:53): Yes. But we've this is the first time a free society has had social networks that can reach a billion people instantly in in, you know, an hour. So I think there's one differentiator there that we must think of. David Sacks (01:08:04): If somebody defames you on a social network, they are absolutely liable. I mean, you can sue them. Okay? But I think and you should. And I think we Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:11): can -- We've talked and I cancel culture people are destroyed before they even get their day in court. David Sacks (01:08:16): I think I think that's being destroyed for something different. I think if somebody Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:19): -- But it's because it trends. If it didn't if it couldn't trend to so many people, it wouldn't leave lead to the cancellation and destruction of somebody's life. You've talked about that many times yourself. David Sacks (01:08:29): If if somebody labels you, I think they should be you should be able to sue them. And I think we could actually we could have a libel regime more like the UK where it's easier to prove these cases in court, and people are much more careful about defaming other people. I would be very much in favor of that. Okay? Because defamation is not free speech. But the question really is, about really we're talking about non defamatory statements that somebody in a position of power has decided is not true. Many of these statements are subjective. Dave Portnoy got labeled for his subjective opinion about AOC's dress. Why did that happen? And why is that kind of labeling only used to protect one side of the political spectrum? So, I mean, that that that's what's really going on here. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:09): Let's end with this. Has anybody watched Chapelle's the closer? I did. Incredible. I I I watched it. Pretty incredible. I mean fearless. fearless is a word. I was really I think that he slightly missed it because I think he could have really actually called out cancel culture and locus and more think he kinda left it a little bit to me where I was, like, a little I don't know. I just I just didn't think they were as good as his other ones, and I felt like he didn't really make the point he wanted to make. It was a little convoluted. -- somebody who can actually stand up and and and actually, you know, be more satirical and tell the story of why all this cancel culture and defamatory statements and judging people, doesn't make sense. But then -- Did he seem he didn't he didn't get the job done at Philip. Well, did let me ask you this about the performance. Did he seem qualitatively different than you in that? The other times, he seemed very light on his feet. you know, having a good time being a comedian. And this time, it felt like he was personally hurt or he was -- It wasn't comedy. It was less -- It wasn't comedic. I agree. It like he had an agenda. He was hurt. He wanted to get some stuff off his chest, and there were some jokes in between, which is very different. Like, the percentage of jokes in this like 20% and the, like, heavy on max max. And then the other ones were 80% jokes, 20% social commentary. This felt like He he was actually really hurt and, like, I don't wanna say bitter, but just fed up maybe frustrated. He he had a chip. Which made it interesting to me. You know, in the in the early 2000, Chappell for me was really important because he was an advocate for minorities and I felt seen and protected by Chappell. And and I thought that was really important. and then his his comedy was just so sharp. Oh, yeah. And I I said I just think that it was a little bit of an opportunity lost. Yeah. I I think if he had really actually taken the you know, it it to its conclusion, he would have actually There was just too many uncomfortable moments in that thing. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:18): It was super uncomfortable at times and You know, I really would like to see it again because, you know, if you just think about his career you know, him talking about police brutality, him talking about race in a very fearless, you know, entertaining but also informative way and and just being a truth teller. Yeah. The this was so uncomfortable at times. I agree with that. I need to watch it again, and I need to let it sit because I was taking -- It's on Netflix. It's the last of his contract. Yeah. I mean, this could be I almost felt like he was trying to break Netflix because he does seem to have a He does seem to have a streak in him where he's like, okay. I'm gonna I'm walking away from Comedy Central, and he does seem to burn the boats. like he was burning the boats with Netflix to me. I don't know if you got that vibe where he was like, this is the last one. I'm being canceled after this. Fuck y'all. I'm out. And he has that I mean, he torched it, Saxx. I mean, you're gonna watch this thing in -- David Sacks (01:12:14): I'm definitely watching it. I I have not seen it yet, but I'm definitely watching I'll watch it tonight. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:18): I give it a 50% chance that Netflix takes it down. David Sacks (01:12:22): Well, let's watch it quickly then. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:23): Well, there were there were everybody was screaming for for him to be deplatformed. everybody was screaming. David Sacks (01:12:28): Well, then I I like it even more. You know one of the ironic things about these warning labels? I've noticed it, but it started to come a badge of honor where you know, if if the if the Hall monitors Twitter are trying to label your tweet as as, you know, being incendiary, maybe it's just interesting. Right? Either Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:45): by -- Well, it's -- -- Speaker 3 (01:12:45): to buy signal. David Sacks (01:12:47): It's a yeah. Exactly. So, you know, I was listening to Antonio Garcia's interview Camille on on Colin, and they they labeled that. I mean, just the post about they were gonna have a conversation. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:01): You're saying the link to it was even flagged as, like, oh my lord. I think there needs to be a a Netflix for a comedy where it's only subscription and it's owned by the comedians. Like, if Dave Chappell were to create his own Netflix, I think it gets 10,000,000 paid subscribers -- Overnight. -- 1st 2 years. Overnight. Now overnight Overnight. Okay. So wait a second. How do we wet our beaks on this? If we go to Chapal and we say, hey. Listen. Here's $25,000,000. We'll set up the tech team. You set up the meetings. I'll I'll ask Kayhart. I'll ask him this weekend. I think that yeah. You get k heart. You get Chapelle. You get Seinfeld. Do you get now do you get Louis CK in there? Or CK, what's his name? I never found that guy funny. That guy never did it for me. But, I mean, anyway -- You know who's funny? You know what's funny? Have you have you had this Asian guy, Ronnie Cheng? He's on he there's a great Netflix special on him. He is fucking funny. And then Joe Coy. Joe Coy is very funny. Yeah. I think Ronnie Chang taped his own special Hassan Minhutch. That guy's very funny. He's great. Yeah. He's legit. But, I mean, I this would be a great way for them to just control their destiny and not have to worry about cancel culture because I think a lot of the folks who are on well, they are probably the the last line of people that actually will be the defenders of free speech. Yeah. It's pretty scary. As much as I think Facebook should be more thoughtful about their algorithm, you know, back to you know, circling Netflix and censorship back to the Facebook issues. I just think Facebook should say, hey. Listen. We've throttle the algorithm so that any one piece of content can only reach this many people over this period of time. And yeah. Sure. That's gonna lower our time on-site or whatever. but we want things to have a little bit of time to spread and get fact checked. Does anybody think that that's a good idea to say, just, you know, if you're trying to cancel somebody instead of it going to number 1 on trending topics before the person has a trial, the the algorithm would just take a little bit of time to propagate content. Here's what I can tell you conclusively. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:59): If Facebook wanted to solve these issues in the ways that the government expects in their head for these problems to be solved? Facebook market cap would be $250,000,000,000, and they'd have a million people working there at the company. So this is not an issue of whether it's possible. The question is, is it right and does it actually get at the solution or does it just, as Friedberg said, create whack a mole someplace else? And so, you know, I don't know what obliterating 3 quarters of a $1,000,000,000,000 of market cap will do, but I suspect that the government is gonna wanna find out. Sachs, do you think that throttling the the velocity of the algorithm so that news doesn't spread as fast and violent or which could be misinformation could be valid information. Do you think that's a possible solution? David Sacks (01:15:48): Look. I I think that at the end of the day with -- Or Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:50): just closing the algorithm maybe? David Sacks (01:15:52): with both Facebook and Twitter, you only see stuff from people who you're following or you're friends with. It's actually Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:59): -- Not true. What do David Sacks (01:16:00): you mean? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:01): If things they will insert stuff into your Twitter algorithm now that's adjacent to you, and Facebook will do that David Sacks (01:16:07): as well. Well, maybe maybe if people respond to someone who you're following. But I've never seen anything my Twitter feed out other than an ad that's not from somebody I follow. So -- You Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:15): never heard of the trending topics? David Sacks (01:16:17): No. I mean, not Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:18): my feed. -- the explore feed? Oh, okay. No. But you the explore feeds right there, and they are surfacing things in your feed now that are not people you follow. But, anyway, David Sacks (01:16:25): what what they're really doing okay, is there's a universe of people who you're following or you're friends with, and you could just see all of that content in a reverse chronological feed. but that would be too much. It'd be overwhelming. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:37): Originally worked. Yeah. Yeah. David Sacks (01:16:38): Exactly. And I get it, and that was fine. I didn't I I liked it. Okay? But As you're following thousands of people now, there's too much content and so they will simply surface the tweets that you're most likely to wanna interact with. I don't believe, by the way, that those tweets are necessarily the ones that make you angry. I think I think for some people, it is clearly, but it's not certainly not the case in my case. What I would say is it it's more refined than that. It's the tweets that you think are interesting. It's the tweets that perhaps express a sense of outrage that agrees with your sense of outrage. a little different than anger, but it's it's basically the subset of content that you, through your revealed preferences, have have shown Facebook or Twitter that, you know, that you care about the most. And that's basically what they're doing. They're giving the consumer more of what they want. And I think that we've blown this thing so far out of proportion. I mean, yeah, it's there's an analogy that is addictive, but I think that It's been blown so far out of proportion we've exaggerated the fear beyond any reasonable recognition. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:42): By the way, I think the I think the reason that that tweet was flagged, I'm guessing, is that in the tweet, Camelo says he's gonna talk about critical race theory. and that may be why -- Or Twitter said -- -- because it was linking to the -- Well, Peter just said, these conversations like this can be intense. That's all it says. -- David Sacks (01:17:59): because he says the gloves are coming off. It looks people fighting or whatever. I just think it's sort of ridiculous. You know? Like, this is where, like, the war -- It's a Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:07): little patriarchal. Yeah. It's a little condescending. Like, patronizing. David Sacks (01:18:11): Pictureizing, I think so. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:12): patronizing. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. I mean, I got the the soros up here. I'm not done. David Sacks (01:18:16): Hey. You know Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:17): what I mean? I'm gonna -- I'm gonna -- I'm gonna monetize. -- sorry. It's a very pallet drug. You're Speaker 3 (01:18:22): gonna look out Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:23): for me. It was my brother's ass. Find it a little iconic, you know, contenders. I don't blame him. David Sacks (01:18:29): I'm I'm smart. Not like they say? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:32): Not a dog. That's funny. Did you get your fucking sunshine bodice? Oh, Shit. Oh, good boys. I love you. Happy 50 episode. And what's going on with you, Friedberg and Sacks, that you're you won't make the journey down to the poker game? Is this like, some sort of David protest here? Zach, why David Friedberg (01:18:51): are you holding the limit? The robots are protesting. David Sacks (01:18:55): I will come back. I will I will start playing again. If we get if we get the game going at, like, a a regular time or is it Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:01): What the fuck is on your schedule? talking, I Speaker 3 (01:19:03): think, going wrong. David Sacks (01:19:04): Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:05): Yeah. You have nothing going on, Saks. Alright. David Sacks (01:19:07): I'll start, you know, I'll start making I'll start Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:09): pulling it down. -- your family. Stay in the city. Come -- See your fucking friends. Play some cards. There's some money. We're we're not playing PLO. Yeah. No PLO. I mean, we did at Speaker 3 (01:19:19): the end just to get Skye's money, but just keeps guy there for another 30 minutes since he was flushing cash. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:26): He didn't want real good, Saksipoo. We beat him up real good. Skyfall. When you crumble. Actually, the new I'm really excited to see the new Daniel Craig double 07. I can't believe that. Can you still rent a mintire movie theater for, like, fifty bucks? Yeah. 300 bucks. So yeah. David Friedberg (01:19:42): It used to be not it was 99 during the pandemic. It was awesome. It's 300 now. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:47): I've done it the last two times I went with the girls because it was first run movies and the theaters were pretty empty. But it's, like, 300. If you get, like, 10 of your friends to come, it's, like, basically Yeah. 5 of your friends to come, it's worth it. I mean, at 60 bucks each. And, yeah, I mean, it's -- David Friedberg (01:19:59): Or would you go to taxes theater? He's got Chamath Palihapitiya (01:20:01): -- The taxes theater is better because you have a a chef there. We'll make you food. But yeah. And for those of you asking about the all in summit, Saxe and I are leading the charge for a February or April, We got a couple of locations. Thank you to everybody who sent us location ideas 2 days, 250 people, 200 paid tickets, 50 by scholarship, and you can go to the all in website. When we have information, we will post it there, but we're just in the planning phase right now. But we're thinking 2 days. Right, boys? Yep. 2 days rolling summit. And then 5 hours of content, something like that a day, we each interview people. Yeah. And then we're done. Okay. in Miami is the host city and we'll draw a high card for who picks the next city, Chamath. You said you're picking something in Italy. I'm gonna probably pick my -- Romer Venice. Romer Venice, I'm gonna probably pick New for mine or Austin? And then FreeBird, where would you pick Napa or something? David Friedberg (01:20:52): Marin County. Oh, wow. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:20:54): What where everybody wants to go. Great. Go to anti vaxxertown. Fuck. Fuck you, free brew. Moraine County. Speaker 3 (01:21:01): Wow. What a destination. I'm I'm Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:03): a free brew. Where would you pick? Where would you pick? David Friedberg (01:21:06): So who we're doing Miami first. Is that right? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:09): Miami first, then we draw a high card for the next city. Who gets to pick next city? Each bestie picks for 4 years, each party picks. And if we go twice a year, even better. David Friedberg (01:21:17): I mean, I'd probably split Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:18): it between David Friedberg (01:21:18): London and Woah. Woah. London and Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:24): somewhere in Hawaii. Oh, wow. David Friedberg (01:21:24): Hawaii, Hawaii. Yeah. Hawaii is in Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:30): Spire choice. Can you imagine 250 degenerate? London's great. Iconic classic, but London would be we would take it over. We would take over, like, Miami is freaking out. Well, I know Annabelle's boys. I bring you all to Annabelle. That cry that members club is, I think, the most over the top thing I've ever seen. David Friedberg (01:21:48): You're you're referencing something that no one knows what you're talking about. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:50): Nobody knows what you're talking about. Is that a nightclub? Or yeah. It's a night club. Well, no. It's a private Pantebels. It's -- All right. All members clubs are used. -- David Friedberg (01:21:57): down on the in the West End. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:58): Yeah. No. You have to have members clubs in London because a because you can't drink alcohol after, like, 9 PM unless it's a private club. Yeah. Alright. We'll see you all next time on the all in podcast. Here's to another 50, everybody. 1st 50 done. Love you guys Let's get another 50 in the book. We'll let your winners ride. Rainman, David Saxon. David Sacks (01:22:22): We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy labor. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:29): besties are gone. We should all just get a room and just have think you, George, because they're all just useless. It's like this, like, sexual tension, but we just need to release them out. David Friedberg (01:22:53): When you're the thief, What? Your feet. David Sacks (01:22:56): Be your feet. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:56): Beaky. What? David Friedberg (01:22:58): We need to get mercies are back. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:00): I'm going all.