加密项目估值、Rivian 千亿美元市值与通胀的成因和纠正

Speaker 1 (00:00:00): Saxes, old, dude, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:00): dude, dude, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, David Friedberg (00:00:06): do, do, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:06): do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, Speaker 1 (00:00:08): do, do, Jason Calacanis (00:00:08): do, do, do, do, do Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:09): Jay Cal's fat. Jay Cal's fat. Jay Cal's fat. Jason Calacanis (00:00:15): Jay Cal's not fat anymore. He's getting the cannons back Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:18): do do doot. Friedberg, not human doot doot David Friedberg (00:00:24): doot doot Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:26): doot doot doot doot dooty. Jason Calacanis (00:00:27): a robot. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:29): Stupid. He's a robot. David Sacks (00:00:30): Don't quit your day job, Chamath. That's all I can say. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:33): Bro, you don't remember baby shark? Jason Calacanis (00:00:35): I mean, how many no. He doesn't know his kid's first names for birthdays. Speaker 1 (00:00:38): How does Jason Calacanis (00:00:38): he know his favorite shirt? The Ledger winner's ride. rainman, David Sanders. Speaker 6 (00:00:47): And I said -- We open source it to the fans and they just got the reason. Speaker 1 (00:00:51): Love US Jason Calacanis (00:00:52): Ice Queen of Kids Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 55 of the All in podcast with us again this week. The Dick Tater himself, Chamaq Palihapitiya, the queen of Kenwa, David, Friedberg, and coming back from Portugal and the Solana conference Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:13): riding his -- Where heroin and prostitution are legal. Jason Calacanis (00:01:16): David Saks? We were gonna we were gonna double click on that, but you jumped the gun here on the docket. So, David, how was the heroin in Portugal? Great. That's great. Okay. We have it first. David Sacks (00:01:28): I was I was fully drinking the Kool Aid at this Lana Conference It wasn't heroin. It was Kool Aid. Jason Calacanis (00:01:33): It was kudos literally Kool Aid. How many people were at the Solana conference in Portugal? Why is it in Portugal? what happens at a Solana crypto conference? David Sacks (00:01:46): I think there were thousands of people there, and it was I mean, easily. And, I mean, it was kind of a mad house. And people were trying to get in last minute. Nobody could get in because the conference was, like, totally sold out. It was A lot of crypto developers, a lot of people with projects. And why Portugal? I think because there's a lot of conferences happening in Portugal right now because they are easier on the COVID restrictions than a lot of other countries. So you can actually get in there and host a conference. Jason Calacanis (00:02:15): What was it in stores with no masks? For mask optional? David Sacks (00:02:20): I can't remember if, like, masks were required Speaker 1 (00:02:22): or not. David Sacks (00:02:22): I did see people wearing masks indoors. Jason Calacanis (00:02:24): So -- Were you required to be vaccinated? They do I did show David Sacks (00:02:27): I think I did show a vaccine pass at one point when I checked in. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:31): I just did my booster. Jason Calacanis (00:02:33): I'm gonna do my booster. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:34): Kinda kind of it was a little, I would say, the same kind of shitty feeling as the second one. David Sacks (00:02:41): What does that mean? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:43): I just got I mean, I had the first 2 were Pfizer, so I took Pfizer. She was the the the nurse actually gave me a choice. She's like, you can do whatever you want. Pfizer, Moderna, J and J. I just I didn't know any better. I texted my doctor, so I just took Pfizer. Although the interesting thing is Moderna is the only one that's dose regulated for the 3rd dose So there's a they they they actually give you less specifically, but Pfizer is the same for all Speaker 1 (00:03:06): -- Jason Calacanis (00:03:06): I think we talked about this on the pod. There's one theory which They told you get whatever one you can get was the instructions because it's more important to just get one than which one you get. But they said there's a Swiss cheese theory, which is if you took 2 slices of Swiss cheese from two different bricks of it. The holes would not be the same. And therefore, you overlap them. So whichever deficiencies each one had Maybe the other one doesn't. So I should Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:27): have gotten Moderna is what you're saying? Jason Calacanis (00:03:28): That would be I if you believe in the Swiss cheese there, I don't know, Friedberg burger or science guy I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:32): should ask Kiran Rogers what he thinks. Jason Calacanis (00:03:35): I mean, he's just straight up lied about being vaccinated. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:38): I think so. And I think the NFL's not doing anything about it. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:03:42): That's not cool. I why would you lie about it? I mean, he's not he would have still been allowed to play, so there was no reason to lie about it. I I I'm not totally up on that story. The rumor is that Kyrie is gonna be playing basketball soon because because Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:57): Eric Adams is gonna lift the vaccine restrictions. Jason Calacanis (00:04:00): you will not need to be show a vaccine card or wear a mask. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:05): Rowley, I don't think -- Or maybe you'll just get a PCR test every day. think it's gonna matter because the warriors are shooting the lights out, and Klay hasn't even come back yet. And so Speaker 1 (00:04:14): -- Jason Calacanis (00:04:14): That Gary Kaiten the second -- Did Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:16): you see Gary's did you see Gary Payton? Yeah. Junior? David Friedberg (00:04:20): That oh, the second. I mean, Jason Calacanis (00:04:22): I mean, he's, like, living above the rim and just trying it Smith. His Wiseman back, and then Wiggins is playing great basketball. I mean, Warriors are gonna win this year. I don't know. Steph is otherworldly Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:33): right now. Jason Calacanis (00:04:35): Yeah. I think Steph's got something to prove even though he doesn't, but he he's playing like he's got something to prove. Okay. So Do we wanna just cover the elephant in the room? There the last episode, I think we should get out of the way because it relates to Solana. There was we took something out of the last podcast so people understand we have an agreement between the four of us. If there's something that somebody doesn't want on the pod after we record it, we'll take it out because we don't want anybody I mean, I think the philosophy haven't said this out loud is we don't want anybody to say something they regret that could cause damage to other people or to themselves. So if they wanna take something out that they said that's fine with all of us. And, basically, each of us has veto right on something. So last week, two people took their veto right on something and took something out. You wanna explain our thinking on that Saxx and why we're reversing. David Sacks (00:05:27): Yeah. Okay. So a few we're we ago on the pod, there was an oblique reference between me and Chamath regarding Solana. And so and so some Internet theorists that claimed that we were trying to engineer a pump and dump and slawanna, which if you actually listen to what we said, It certainly is not a pump. Let me explain what it was. So Craft is the beneficiary because we invest we're the 1st investors in multi coin. We were kind of like their senior investor investor in their who put in something like 40% of the money for their special opportunity fund. They were one of the investors in Solana. So we are the beneficiary of about a $1,000,000,000 of Solana. So thank you, Multicoyne. at some point well so so they have started doing distributions. But at the time I texted Chamath, they hadn't really started doing distribution. I didn't know how deep and liquid the market for Solana was. I just asked Chamath like I I'd heard that Chamath may have said something that he was long salon and want to accumulate. So I sent him a text saying, hey. Are you interested? You know, I thought maybe we could do an OTC transaction at some point when we get our Solana He basically you know, we had a brief exchange about that, and then he mentioned on the pod. That was the extent of it. What I didn't know at the time, but learns subsequently is that the market for Solana is very deep, about 3 and a half 1,000,000,000. Notional is traded every day. So there's no need even if we wanted to fully get of our Solana position which by the way we don't even have, you know, multi point still has most of it. We it's not a necessary to do an OTC transaction. We could just sell it. Jason Calacanis (00:07:01): Explain what OTC Transactions is. Speaker 1 (00:07:02): Oh, it David Sacks (00:07:03): just means over the counter. It just means that instead of going to, like, an exchange, you would deal with, like, a trading desk or it could just be direct, like, for me to Chamath. So that was basically the exchange. It Shamath and I talked about it for maybe 2 minutes and then it came up on the pod for 20 seconds. So then some Internet theorist basically clipped it and tried to accuse us of organizing a pump and dump. Well, obviously, if you're talking about selling something, it's not a pump. It's also how to dump either. So anyway, the reason why we said cut it out last week is because we didn't wanna give oxygen to this stupid, like, conspiracy theory that somebody had invented on the Internet with, like, no basis whatsoever. because you could spend all day trying to, like, shoot the stuff down. But then at the Solana conference, enough told me enough people told me that this was becoming a meme that I thought was worth addressing. And what and and look. What you have Speaker 7 (00:07:57): to understand with crypto is that for every cryptocurrency like Solana, there are haters because they're invested in a serial -- -- or a Jason Calacanis (00:08:04): card owner. Everybody's talking about their books. They're they're all pump and dumps, and there are armies of anonymous Twitter accounts. that will coordinate attacks and or memes, etcetera. Right. David Sacks (00:08:16): So they're trying to spread the rumor that, like, VCs are big holders and slaw are gonna dump it. The reality is that multi point has a large position, but they have LPs. They are slowly distributing their positions to LPs. Jason Calacanis (00:08:29): We -- -- the forms of the tokens. They're not selling them giving you cash. They're giving you the tokens you decide what you're doing. David Sacks (00:08:34): Yes. And by the way, that's what we'd like to do as well. We're currently working through those mechanics because it's actually complicated for a VC firm to distribute, you know, in kind through tokens. Speaker 1 (00:08:44): But Jason Calacanis (00:08:44): if you had to give them to your LPs subsequently. Speaker 1 (00:08:47): -- David Sacks (00:08:47): like to do. Exactly. Jason Calacanis (00:08:48): So -- People are doing that with Coinbase. So Coinbase is providing that as a ServiceNow, if I understand. David Sacks (00:08:52): So we're so we have to work through with ROPs because that's what we're gonna try to do is distribute it in clients that everyone can make their own decision. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:59): I I have a couple things to say. So I've only been a buyer. I've never I haven't sold a single Salana token. And so we are, you know, net buyers, and we're buying a bunch of stuff. But I hate acknowledging that. And the this is why, you know, my tone was more noncommittal when we did the pod. is that I really don't like this culture that's emerged via Twitter mostly where You all of a sudden have to be this maximalist that basically falls on their sword and never sells in order to be legitimate. Speaker 1 (00:09:40): And I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:40): think that that's a really dangerous place to be. So, you know, look, if I take a Jason Calacanis (00:09:44): Why is that dangerous? Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:45): Well, if I take a much, much bigger step back Let me put Solana in the context of crypto and let me put crypto in the context of the markets and where we are today at the end of the week after Q3 earnings in November of Speaker 1 (00:09:58): 2021. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:58): We have the stock market at absolute all time highs. Ripping. We have crypto at absolute all time highs. Ripping. We have the art markets. I don't know if you guys saw Phillips and Christie's and Sotheby's this past week. at absolute all time highs, sold another people for Speaker 1 (00:10:18): 25,000,000. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:19): We have inflation at a 30 year high, We have 10 year breakevens at a 25 year high. We have, you know, one point somewhat $1,000,000,000,000 that we just approved last weekend. We're still frustrating on another $3, you know, $1,800,000,000,000 of stimulus that we're going to put in. And so when you And then you have I and I think the the most important thing, which is the 2 most important founders Speaker 1 (00:10:44): of our generation, the 2 smartest Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:44): people who have really recently won, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have collectively sold more than $11,000,000,000 of their holdings. This year alone. And if you can't take all of that and decide for yourself what's right for you and your family, you're doing yourself a disservice. I think it's important for me to never sort of like, you know, be forced to tell folks whether I'm buying or selling, although I'm willing to do it in moments where I think it's important. But I think it's really important to understand the context. And so I think like these folks that like think derisively about individuals who are managing risk, I think it's really naive, and I think it's it creates a lot of missed opportunity for them as well. If the smartest people in the world are now selling their core holdings that they told you they would never sell, and you are not reconsidering your position on things. You're either much smarter than them or you're being really, really reckless. Jason Calacanis (00:11:48): Alright. Speaker 1 (00:11:49): There you Jason Calacanis (00:11:49): have it. Yeah. No. You know, I we for usually people also know inside baseball. We have a docket of stories that we talk about on our group chat that make up the docket for the show, but I'll bring stuff up. And I didn't bring that up in some way to cause trouble or anything, I thought you guys would wanna clear the air about it. And I understand Tremont's position of, hey. You don't wanna give this exoxygen or whatever, but An exact Speaker 1 (00:12:12): -- Speaker 6 (00:12:12): I didn't even David Sacks (00:12:12): know that we needed to clear the air until, you know, I went to the conference and enough people mentioned it. So Speaker 1 (00:12:17): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:17): But what's so funny is half the people on Twitter spend all their time in crypto land saying things like never gonna make it, have fun staying poor. They're extremely, Jason, as you said, tribal. I'm not sure that they're doing 1st principles analysis of these things. They've gone they've gone exceptionally lucky. Yeah. Some of them are exceptionally good, but many people broadly speaking have gotten exceptionally lucky. And I think a little bit of it is getting to their head where they become very virulent against people that they think, you know, whose perspectives may actually be negatively affecting their position without actually understanding what David said, which is these are deep liquid markets, and one person's opinion just can't do much of anything. David Sacks (00:12:57): Right. I mean, that's a really good point. I mean, I'd like to give my opinion on Solana. But the thing or just crypto in general, the thing that's, like, hard about it is that it's hard to talk about the benefits So say the slaw on a blockchain without being seen as a pumper of soul or a dumper of ETH or whatever because all these things are so intrinsically connected. I mean, I learned a lot of really bullish things about Solana, you know, at this conference. I mean, the the biggest thing is I mean, there there's basically a a battle for the hearts and minds of developers going on right now between Solana and Ethereum. That's why Solana has raced up to, you know, over 200. I don't know what, like, 7000 percent increase or some something incredible like that. The reason is because Solana as a blockchain gives confirmations and something like 400 milliseconds, whereas Ethereum takes, you know, minutes. And, you know, a transaction that might cost tens of dollars, 10, 20, 30, 50 dollars, of gas on Ethereum cost pennies on Solana. And so that's the advantage. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. It's also, you know, a lot of developers feel like the tools, the developer tools that they've created or easier than building on Solidity. The thing that Solana gives up, the trade off that it makes is decentralization. There's base basically, that transactions are processed by 20 validators, and they're a top 20 based on holdings of souls. So it's kind of like this proof of stake model. So anyway, there's some trade offs there. I can tell you that, you know, it's the view of, you know, our friends at Multicoyne And, you know, I heard a lot of this fused at the conference, although, obviously, you have to take it with a grain of salt because these are the biggest believers. But their view is that Solana over the next year will flip Ethereum based on developer activity that there's real the company's been creating Speaker 1 (00:14:40): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:40): I we spend a lot of time actually before we do anything is that's the only thing we've been looking at. You know? And Syndica, fractal, A lot of the stuff that we've done, DeSow, is purely driven by developer interest. When we see developers in the open source ecosystem building things on top of this stuff, making stuff composable and usable by other people in building infrastructure? You know, we don't really second guess that because they are spending their the most important currency, which is not monetary capital, but human capital. Jason Calacanis (00:15:12): Yeah. They're taught in Speaker 1 (00:15:13): their skill. -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:13): the time and their skill and Speaker 1 (00:15:15): their application. Jason Calacanis (00:15:15): They apply to another project. David Friedberg (00:15:16): Yeah. And Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:17): so when enough developers so I I I've always thought you just follow the developers and as more and more projects get started, You just have to unemotionally support that. I think the writing is on the wall, which is Bitcoin, is gold. Ethereum looks like it's trending to be silver. And Solana could be the first, but there will be others that come after it of real developer ecosystems that can be built on top of it. The other the other thing that I would offer up to people for them to think about is before you blindly go and rush into crypto, One way in which I try to think about these things is in the following way. You see these projects get started all the time. And I would view each of these projects as a mini economy and really try to think what is the economic value of what happening under the hood. So simple example, you know, helium is an interesting project that's trying to build a completely decentralized, you know, 5 g infrastructure. Right? Render is a really interesting project that's tried to build a completely decentralized, you know, graphical processing infrastructure. Right? GPUs, essentially. In both of those things, you can quantifiably economically measure what the value is that people get. Right? In in the case of render, you're basically displacing an an AWS instance. And so that has a price and a value. And so you know, for render to be valuable, there's an economic value that it replaces. If you're joining a hot spot that has an economic value where you hadn't necessarily have to pay, to get Internet connectivity if you all of a sudden are on the helium network that displaces a measurable economic quantum. Understanding that is probably and taking the absolute value of that is the best way of really understanding which projects have potential. So if you take those two ideas and marry them together, Where is their developer interest? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:17:03): And where is their measurable economic activity? At the intersection of those, I think, are the really compelling projects I can win. Jason Calacanis (00:17:09): One thing that complicates all of this is that the developers are not just picking based on which language or technology or stack they think has the most potential. They also have acquired economic stakes in it. So a developer who might be objective and say, hey. This new platform is better than Ethereum. might be sitting on 1,000,000 of dollars in Ethereum. And they're like, I I wanna keep my bet going here, and I'm gonna keep talking in my book. David Sacks (00:17:34): Possibly. But I but I do think that developers in general will choose the platform that's easiest and cheapest and fastest for them to develop on. Jason Calacanis (00:17:43): which would mean the list on coin market cap of market cap ones that has been static for a decade of crypto almost, you know, or largely the top 10 doesn't change that much. It's XRP stellar, Ethereum, Bitcoin, Tethr. That could be up for grabs. That whole thing could change now that people are actually building projects and that the projects are getting competitive with each other. And that's that flippening we're talking about. Correct, Saks? David Sacks (00:18:06): Yeah. I think that what's tricky here again is I never want to give anyone investment advice. I mean, that's just not my job. And if there's anyone out there listening to the show because they're trying to get, like, tips or tricks where for investment, Like, I'm not really comfortable telling people what to do. Jason Calacanis (00:18:23): Sure. David Sacks (00:18:24): So, you know, everyone just has to understand that. I I do feel like what I saw this conference over the past week in terms of developer enthusiasm and activity was very bullish. Actually, it was a a lot like I went to the Ethereum conference, I think, was back in 2017 several years ago, and it felt a little bit like that. Although, I would say that this time, it felt less academic. Like several years ago, it felt more like white papers. Now it actually feels like real projects and businesses that people are trying to create Jason Calacanis (00:18:51): infrastructure and less applications or more applications in infrastructure? David Sacks (00:18:55): Chamath mentioned a couple of them. Yeah. So there's Helium, which is creating a decentralized network for Wi Fi by. There's a render, which is creating a decentralized network for GPU. There's one called Hive Map. I met the founder. It's a decentralized network for people to map the world. You can think of know, the concept of a miner that Bitcoin invented. Think of them more as, like, a resource provider to a network. So with Bitcoin, you know, we call them miners, but they're validators of transactions, and we're trying to incentivize them through block rewards, basically, through small bits of Bitcoin that get released. to to provide these valuable computing resources to the network. And so people are figuring out now how to create massively decentralized networks where you have you know, 1000 or millions of resource providers provide a little bit of something to the network everyone's benefited in exchange to get some coin. that's like a really interesting model that couldn't exist before crypto. And so, yeah, I mean, I think it's it's very interesting. But, you know, in order for that to work, you have to have like, very you need fast efficient scalable blockchains. And the feeling as I mean, I'll give credit here to to Tushar who's one of the GPS of Multicoyne, his view is that this was the iPhone moment for blockchain. Speaker 7 (00:20:08): That that what's Lana has built because his massively scalable and also very cheap. I mean, again, you can run a lot of transactions for pennies. Now all of that is obviously very bullish for Salata. The thing I wrestle with is and Chamath kind of alluded David Sacks (00:20:21): to this is I think everything's kind of Speaker 7 (00:20:23): in a bubble right now because of monetary and David Sacks (00:20:25): fiscal policy. And so, you know, I guess I Speaker 7 (00:20:29): you could say that I'm long Solana versus ETH, but I do kinda worry that the whole world right now is very bubbly. And so as a GP, like, what do you do about that? I can tell you right now, like, this second, we are sitting on Solana that we have not sold. So, you know, I am long in that sense. However, sometime over the next whatever number of years, we will distribute out our position of Solana to LPs. Jason Calacanis (00:20:52): LPs will make their decisions. David Sacks (00:20:53): And then Speaker 1 (00:20:53): they'll make their decisions. -- Jason Calacanis (00:20:54): might specialize in crypto and want to keep it. Other ones might not want to hold assets and need money to fund their endowment to give scholarships to students or whatever your LPs Speaker 1 (00:21:03): -- Right. -- Jason Calacanis (00:21:03): particularly you. Well yeah. I mean and so I guess to the issue of, hey. We're not giving investment advice here. We are all capital allocators and startup creators. So we're talking about our day to day lives here. nobody should interpret this as investment advice and especially not in a world. Now I don't know if you guys saw what happened with Rivian this week. I I don't know how we don't talk about a company with Essentially, no public sales. They've sold a 148 cars to their employees. It's worth a Speaker 1 (00:21:33): 120 $1,000,000,000. Jason Calacanis (00:21:36): Any at Friedberg, did you see this IPO and your thoughts on it? David Friedberg (00:21:40): Seems like we're at high level. Jason Calacanis (00:21:41): Do you have investment advice for the audience that you'd like to give? Tell me what Rivian does. Wait. David Friedberg (00:21:47): Can you play that video that you found that you shared with everyone? You have that video? You know? Okay. Jason Calacanis (00:21:52): Well, I we we do have it. I can Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:54): we would queue it up. Did you see this yet, Simon? No. David Sacks (00:21:56): I haven't oh, that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, but but just so I don't wanna beat this point to death. But I just think it's so important for the audience that what they should be getting out of the show if they're fans is maybe, like, advice on how to think David Friedberg (00:22:06): What a critical thing exactly. David Sacks (00:22:08): Right? -- thinking and how we think about investors, not tips. Exactly. So, look, if you wanna invest in crypto, first of all, like, go understand, like, what all these different projects or blockchains do and figure out what is the purpose of the token in that system? What are the token economics? Does it even yeah. Does it even make sense or is it just a scam? Then if it's a if it's something like a blockchain, go research how many projects are have developers on them and how much code is being checked in? Jason Calacanis (00:22:36): And maybe open a wallet and buy some NFTs and buy some ETH and transfer it and learn just how to set up your Internet connection. Speaker 1 (00:22:43): Right. Right. Jason Calacanis (00:22:44): Exactly. -- was 1995. Right. David Sacks (00:22:46): Exactly. And then on top of all that, you gotta consider macro forces because I mean and I think, you know, my friends at multi point would fully concede this that, you know, it could be the case that if there's a crypto bust over the next year. And this thing, you know, crypto has gone through boom and bust cycles for many, many years. Jason Calacanis (00:23:02): That is a standard. David Sacks (00:23:03): Yeah. It's a standard. So you could have a situation in which, for example, Salana flips ETH and yet still goes down in value because there's an overall bus cycle. So, you know, you have to consider the macroeconomic factors at the as well. So there's a lot of things to consider here. then you also have to consider your own risk tolerance and, you know, what is appropriate for your portfolio, and it may be different. Jason Calacanis (00:23:22): When do you need your money? Are you a twenty five year old? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:25): Everything is at all time highs and the 2 smartest men in the world are selling. David Friedberg (00:23:30): Not just not just them, by the way. There are other guys that are heavily on the other side waiting for this whole thing to go. like, Druckenmiller has been very vocal about this, and he's he's been the best macro trader in the last 30 years. So Speaker 1 (00:23:44): -- Jason Calacanis (00:23:44): Wait. His position is what? Exactly. David Friedberg (00:23:46): that we're printing too much money and we're in a lot of trouble. So, you know look. I mean, generally, there is, I think, a good point of view being shared here which is, you know, understanding how to think about what you're investing in and what your your expectations are versus relying on someone's advice or opinion on what to do. If you have to rely on someone else's advice or opinion on what to do, you're gonna eventually lose money. Jason Calacanis (00:24:12): You should not be in that you should -- You David Friedberg (00:24:14): should not be in the market. because guess what? Anyone that's giving you advice or opinions is gonna make money if you do what they tell you to do. If you do what they tell you to do. end of story. So at some point, they're gonna all make money, and you're gonna end up losing money. And it's a it's, you know, it's it's it's a better game to play to learn how to kinda be thoughtful about where's your money going, what are you investing in, and it takes a lot of time and a lot of money. I've been sitting here silently as you guys have been talking deeply about Solana and Ethereum and Bitcoin and and the crypto markets because I realized so much of, you know, what's needed to be successful in entering this market is a depth of understanding a depth of knowledge. My time is highly limited. I had spent no time understanding crypto markets. because it's so deep and it's so fluid. It's changing every day. It's changing every week. So if I can't get smart enough to feel confident about the opinions and decisions that I would be making as an investor, I decide not to invest and I stay out. And so I'm not an active crypto Jason Calacanis (00:25:10): investor for that reason. And you're on that razor's edge synthetic biology and and so many other -- Whatever Speaker 1 (00:25:16): it is. David Friedberg (00:25:16): There are there are other areas where it's better for me to spend my time and my energy, and I and I've chosen to do that versus being drawn into what view what feels like a very exciting kind of, you know, turbulent time. There are other areas that I kinda spend my time on, and I just kind of try to recognize that maybe I don't know what I'm doing if I were to try and get involved here. And so I'd rather stay out. And I think that's counsel for for anyone. You know, if you're gonna make an investment, it's important to feel confident about the knowledge and the depth needed to kind of be different than than than the response. I'll build Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:44): on your point. Like, when I when I started doing my specs, I started to write these one pagers. And those one pagers were artifacts for me to hold myself accountable for how I saw something in a moment in time and then to be able to see whether it was tracking to that. And then also to share it to other people, a starting point, as David said, a journey where they should then if they're curious, go and do their own work. It turned out none enough people were doing the work, so then I had to start adding disclaimers to these things saying, hey, guys. I'm not telling you to buy this. Please be abundantly clear. These next facts that I have I will eventually launch you're gonna see an entire, like, in bread block letters. Like, please don't buy this. Right? Because to your point, It doesn't matter what you say. People want a lazy, easy way out. And so I just wanna reiterate what all of you guys said. None of us are dispensing, advice. We are not telling you to do anything. Please do your own work, and please come to your own conclusion. It is your responsibility. And if you're not sure, go and look at your children in the face or your significant other in the face, you are responsible to them. And so do your own work. I'll say one David Friedberg (00:26:57): more point on where I sit as an investor I choose to only participate in investing in what I call productive assets. That is you put some money into something, and whatever that thing is, it's generating money in some way or or it's trying to generate value through a set of activities. like a business or owning an apartment building where you're making rent. You know, anything that or, you know, a group of people that are trying some breakthrough or some discovery, those are productive assets. There's a lot of what's going on now that is what I would call speculative which is the only way you make money is if someone else pays more in the future versus what you're paying, and there isn't an underlying productive asset to what you're putting money into. Jason Calacanis (00:27:45): Are you describing every ICO or -- Every NFT David Friedberg (00:27:49): and the art market. Right? These are these are examples of unproductive assets there are speculative assets in the sense that you're speculating that at some point the price of them are gonna go up, and someone -- Somebody wants that NFT more than you Speaker 1 (00:28:01): -- David Friedberg (00:28:01): Someone down the road will pay more for that asset than what you paid. But that underlying asset, that capital that you just put in didn't go in to build something. Jason Calacanis (00:28:09): It basically -- There's no new generation. David Friedberg (00:28:10): There's no IP. When does someone else's pocket that sold that asset to you, and you're eventually gonna try and sell it to someone else. And so, you know, there there there's a there's a real attraction here Because what we just talked about is really hard to do. Having fundamental analysis and understanding of businesses and a fundamental understanding of what's working and what's not and when to shift and, oh my you know, are things different, or are they not? To do that is really hard. So people end up relying on opinions of others. or they end up running into speculative markets. And the speculative markets are easy to understand. Someone just paid more for x than the other person did. Therefore, there's a trend line. It's going up. It's like playing roulette and, you know, black keeps coming up, and you're like, okay. It's gonna be black again. Jason Calacanis (00:28:49): It has to be black. There were 7. Correct? There were 7 black. David Friedberg (00:28:52): And so I I think that that's a really important kind of takeaway for for for folks that might be new as investors. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:58): We're all susceptible. We're all susceptible to this. Like, I was just looking, you know, at at at my own performance coming into the end of this year. And, you know, I did a lot of specs this year, but I also did These pipes, which are these 3rd party deals Speaker 1 (00:29:14): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:14): Private investment and public entities. Exactly. Other people's deals that they were bringing to the market where they said, Chamath, do you wanna be a part of and, you know, and I did. And part of it was I was looking at these things and you know, FreeBird doing my work. But in the end, it turned out I didn't do nearly as much as I probably should have because I ended up sitting on top of other people's work versus the original or underwriting that I would do if it was my own deal itself. Right? Anyways, the net net of it all, it's like, you know, That was very inefficient capital deployment. And as I look at it now it's like, you know, I'm down Well, I'm technically up Speaker 1 (00:29:52): 19%, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:53): but that's really because of one deal. If I take that one deal out, which is a total outlier, I'm down 17% on about $200,000,000 of investment. When you Jason Calacanis (00:29:59): are a fat follower not the originator. It wasn't your idea. This is critically important. There are many different ways to make money, but you have to specialize, and you have to 1st Speaker 1 (00:30:07): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:07): I didn't. -- and your knowledge. I trusted other people. I did the same thing that I that I'm saying to other people about to do. Do not just copy other people. You have to do your own principle work. And even when you do your own principle work, it may not be enough and you have to be willing to basically see the forest from the trees and walk away. And so all these pipes are in the midst of sort of cleaning up and selling down, and they've been just a kind of a disaster for me. You know? I Jason Calacanis (00:30:31): hold on. I'm gonna I'm gonna build on this for a second because I think it's critically important what you said as well, Friedberg, you have to be comfortable with the investments you're making. I look at these companies, and I look at the underlying customer, the product, you know, and and what kind of revenue it's gonna generate, and People thought I was dunking on Rivian yesterday, and I said, listen, you know, in Tesla went public, people forget their valuation was 1,500,000,000. 1.7. When they went. Speaker 1 (00:30:53): 1.7. Jason Calacanis (00:30:53): So 1,700,000,000, when they went public. Now they already had thousands of roadsters, and they had already had the -- No. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:01): They had 93 93,000,000 of revenue in year Speaker 1 (00:31:03): 1. Jason Calacanis (00:31:04): So this was dramatically different than what Rivian had. Rivian is being valued at, you know, whatever that is, a 120,000,000,000 I think yesterday. Rivian has 17,000,000,000 in cash. Somebody asked me at the poker game last night. What I value Rivian at? I said Speaker 1 (00:31:18): 17+3 17,000,000 Jason Calacanis (00:31:21): in cash plus 3,000,000,000, double roughly what Tesla's was. The market's hotter right now, whatever. But I put them at 20,000,000,000 and people were giving a hard time about it. I actually the realistic valuation for this company. And we are in a very dangerous moment in time right now where I think people are, whether it's meme stocks or crypto, or NFTs suspending disbelief, in some cases, specs because they're not all created equal. And certainly in private companies we're seeing this, where people are giving people an amount of credit which makes no logical sense and is getting further and further disconnected in from reality as an investor, you have a choice. Either you you have your fundamentals which I'm not gonna change my fundamentals. I'm gonna focus on the fundamentals that got me where I am and I'm not gonna be involved in a $100,000,000,000 market cap company that hasn't launched a product yet. Let alone a $120,000,000,000 1. I'll stay focused on startups. David Friedberg (00:32:12): But what you're saying is also important because you're highlighting how you value that company. You individually said, I think that company's worth some multiple of how many cars have been sold in the past. Elon sold, you know, 1000 of cars. He was worth 1,700,000,000. These guys have sold And other people are coming in and looking at this company and saying they've built facilities, they've built assembly lines, and they've got preorders and bookings for lots and lots of cars now in the future. and, clearly, they've gone in and you know, some people have gone in and seen these plants and seen these cars actually working. So, you know, it's really important to take note that your point of view. It's one point of view in a very diverse market with many points of view, and everyone's gonna come into this market. And that's why unless you individually as an investor have a strong point of view and can show that you can apply your unique insights to consistently beat the market making decision investment decisions like that you're eventually gonna lose because those other points of view will be a bigger view of the truth, and you'll lose money. And that's why and that by the way, that's why picking stocks it's ultimately a loser's game unless you have some unique ability and insight. For most people, historically, and in an upmarket, everyone everyone looks like a genius. Jason Calacanis (00:33:20): Right. You need to have an and and the public market's hard to say that. David Friedberg (00:33:22): There's some there's some unique competency. Yeah. There's some unique competency that you need to go there. Jason Calacanis (00:33:26): I mean, if we double click on what you just said as the things that would be reasons to embed on Rivian. Number 1, they have 48,000 orders of pickup trucks against the f One Fifty, which is now electric from Ford, and a million -- I don't know why you're David Friedberg (00:33:40): I don't know Jason Calacanis (00:33:40): why you're David Friedberg (00:33:40): arguing this. Right? Like, you're just making a point that that we don't have someone on the on the on the the panel right now, but someone else could come in and argue you -- Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:47): Gotcha. And and I I would just say this is the part of the conversation, to be honest, Jason, to give you feedback I don't like because Rivian just in defensive Rivian for a second. What I have heard is that it's a it's a well engineered car or truck rather they've done a very smart path to market, which is essentially to build these delivery trucks for Amazon that allowed them to even frankly you know, be default alive versus, you know, to use the program term instead of default dead. I think the point that's more important here is that it doesn't affect you. So let Rivian do well. You know? And this is part of the Speaker 1 (00:34:27): -- Jason Calacanis (00:34:27): Oh, you're saying you shouldn't have an opinion publicly? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:29): No. No. No. I'm just saying this is part of the cycle that I don't understand where people legitimately have these Speaker 1 (00:34:39): 0 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:40): some points of view about companies. And this is where I think Friedberg is more right than anybody else, which is there are the market is the sum of all these collective points of view. Sure. And I think it's fine to I think it's fine to have one I think it's a little superficial, your point of view, because it's not really, you know, sitting on top of a model or anything else. And I think it's the same kind of superficiality that the Tesla Q guys had about Tesla for many years as well? It takes a long time. Has somebody that does this every day And I just wanna point this out. It takes an enormous amount of time and enormous amount of work to be Speaker 1 (00:35:16): 55% Jason Calacanis (00:35:17): right. within 350 companies. I meet with 2 of the companies here. Jason, it's different. My companies are going public now, so I take exception to what you're saying. I know a fraud when I see it. I've seen them before. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:26): Oh, that's a really big statement. That's Jason Calacanis (00:35:28): not a fraud. No. But the distance between the valuation and reality is in the $50,000,000,000 to a 100,000,000,000 range. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:36): That's not in control of reviews. not in their control. Okay. That's in a bunch of external market participants control, so you can't pin that on them. My point is -- What's put Jason Calacanis (00:35:45): it on is at at the mark right now seems dysfunctional, but it's not properly measuring things. -- but throwing shade Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:51): that you then you should throw shade at 0 Fidelity, all these people that are bidding up your companies, by the way, because they are the ones that are taking Rivian to a 120,000,000,000, it's not Rivian's fault. David Friedberg (00:36:01): And, Jason, what's really going on in the market was public speculators. No. What's really going on it's not. You can't sell $16,000,000,000 of in an IPO to speculators. This these are -- These are institutionally placed trade orders. But regardless, the market is clearly right now in in productive assets. businesses, the market is looking at a time horizon that it has never looked at before, which is making bets that are at 10, 15, 20 years in the future, And that's because of the condition that we're in right now from a monetary policy point of view. Interest rates are so low. There's nowhere to get yield in other assets. So you have to look further and further out to find value. I accept that. The mark the market is betting is making 10 year bets, which is like a VC Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:43): type bet. More than a 10 year bet. And and Jason, sorry. I can I just I just finish my last point because you before you interrupt me? My issue, Jason, is I think you are an exceptional angel investor. But the same way you derided a bunch of late stage guys. Remember last night at poker when we were talking about late stage folks entering into the angel market, and the series a, you are extremely dismissive because you know what the job is to be done to do that job well and they have a different skill set. Similarly, what I would just offer for you to think about is the people that really underwrite public market stocks well do things and have a skill set that is extremely specific and it is well trained as well. And I think that Jason Calacanis (00:37:24): Okay. Alright. No. I I accept -- I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:26): mean, I'll I'll send me David Sacks (00:37:27): I'll meet you. I'll go to Jake House. Speaker 1 (00:37:28): -- Jason Calacanis (00:37:28): if you wanna defend me, and that's the people are in shock right David Sacks (00:37:30): now so people Speaker 1 (00:37:31): that you speak. And where Jason Calacanis (00:37:32): to get yourself back in the game? David Friedberg (00:37:33): This guy is The sky is purple. The moon is the moon is set. Speaker 1 (00:37:37): Breaking new this David Sacks (00:37:38): year. Hell's freezing over right now. David Friedberg (00:37:40): Hell's freezing over. David Sacks (00:37:42): here's where I think Jay Kal's right. I don't know anything about this reviewing company. But where I think Jay Kal's right is we've seen over and over again that when a company gets when a start up gets a $1,000,000,000 plus valuation without a product invariably, it ends up somewhere between a disappointment and outright fraud. Jason Calacanis (00:38:00): Chase is luck. David Sacks (00:38:00): Whether, you know, it was Theranos or Magic Leap or Quibi or whatever, I'm not saying they're all frauds. I mean, I think, just Theranos wise, but Speaker 1 (00:38:10): -- -- David Sacks (00:38:11): frauds. Yeah. -- whatever. So I think it's reasonable for any, let's say, seed or early venture investor to develop the heuristic that I'm not gonna invest in anything with a $1,000,000,000, with basically unicorn valuation without seeing the product first. Because we've learned. We've got our hands burnt so many times from these overhyped companies. And I well, here's where I agree. If I can't see and use the product, I'm not investing. I'll invest in a seed stage, but I will not invest in a unicorn stage in a way. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:39): I I agree with that. But what I'm saying is when a company is going public like that, there is demonstrable proof of concept there. Okay? The only market in which that's not true is in biotechnology. Jason Calacanis (00:38:49): Well, I would say for fist Erin Nicola, 2 related companies, those ones seem very, very shaky. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:54): You can debate about the scalability of these things, and you can debate that people didn't do the diligence, but they had to at least put a proof of concept out there for you to judge. If people don't do the work, I agree with you. Like, if you're rolling a truck down a hill, sure. outright fraud. No. But my point is if you were there and you did your work, you would have seen what you needed to see. What I have heard from people who were investors in both Lucid and Rivian is that they have sat in the cars. They've driven the cars. They've spent time with them. They've seen the factories, and it's very much real. Now what they're debating is ramp and velocity and scale, I don't know. I don't have a position in either. Neither do I. I have the bigger macro point of view, which is important to me, which is It's it just because these things are in the public markets, I think people think it's easy to judge, and I think actually modeling them and making good decisions is just as hard as it is for private companies. We need to this clip because there is Jason Calacanis (00:39:45): somebody who is giving exceptional advice on CNBC. Let's roll the clip. Speaker 8 (00:39:51): Yeah. So well, upstarts up about 25% just in 4 days since we since we bought it. We bought it on about 4 days ago. So that's actually made a a nice little move in the short term probably a little extended right now, but longer term, that that's a that's a a good looking name. Very powerful and very strong earnings. These stop David Sacks (00:40:10): How do they do? Speaker 9 (00:40:11): How do we know? What do they do? Excuse me? What does Upstart do? Well, I'm I'm I'm I'm sorry. Jason Calacanis (00:40:21): What kind of company is it? Speaker 8 (00:40:23): Yeah. I'm not you're you're breaking up. Speaker 9 (00:40:25): oh, well, I guess we've looked at it on your own. Oh my god. Sorry. Fuck this god. David Friedberg (00:40:30): Brutal. Who is this guy? Who is he? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:33): I have no idea. Jake, how David Friedberg (00:40:34): is that is that is that, like, your uncle or something? What's Speaker 1 (00:40:36): that guy? Jason Calacanis (00:40:37): Listen. Yeah. I I it'd be just Speaker 9 (00:40:39): to the point. Speaker 1 (00:40:40): -- David Sacks (00:40:40): see a BC? Jason Calacanis (00:40:42): Well, you know, the guy's been on many times. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:45): But doesn't this prove what we were saying, which is -- Exactly. Speaker 1 (00:40:47): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:47): you've gotta do your own principal work here? Jason Calacanis (00:40:49): that that is why we wanted to play. David Friedberg (00:40:50): Here's a talking head who's probably getting paid for selling some books and giving advice. Who knows nothing about what he's telling you? You can join his membership club for 1000 a month. Yeah. I'm sure he's publishing lots of papers that show that he's a highly successful, profitable investor, and Lucas Marty is. doesn't even know the company just promoted on CNBC. It's incredible. Jason Calacanis (00:41:09): On a mechanical basis here, Chamaov, you and I have been on CNBC many times, In that moment, what's going on? What do you think is going on in the host's mind? and the the producer who has to dump this call. Let's move on. Let's move on. I just the breakdown when he says I'm sorry. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:30): I I I have no idea. Jason Calacanis (00:41:31): What do they do? David Friedberg (00:41:32): I think the point's been made. I think the point's been made. Oh my lord. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:35): Well, everybody should do their own work. Yeah. Do David Friedberg (00:41:37): you -- Let's keep work. Jason Calacanis (00:41:39): Sachs, you look like you wanna say something. David Sacks (00:41:42): I mean, it just shows the agenda. Yeah. Look. I mean, there is a massive agenda in core journalism. There's an agenda by the people on these shows to promote positions. There's an agenda by the reporters themselves. and on and on and on it goes. So it's Jamal's point. If you just take on this value, you're and you don't do your own work, then you're buying into someone else's agenda. Jason Calacanis (00:42:04): trust yourself. Okay. One thing that we are trying to all understand is inflation. The CPI has gone up 6.2 percent in October, highest jump in 31 years since 1990 according to the Wall Street Journal, 5th largest straight month. 5th straight month of inflation above Speaker 1 (00:42:24): 5%, Jason Calacanis (00:42:27): you know, somebody tweeted out, we'll pull it up here. Denver, Bitcoin, put out a year over year commodity chart. Get the rub on the screen. And then I think, Friedberg, you shared in the chat the average weekly retail prices around fertilizer, what are our thoughts on the nature of inflation and how that affects our Investment I I think it's persistent. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:55): And and the reason I think it's persistent is that there's a the the all of these things are intertwined, and so Gina, if you wanna just bear with me for a second. Like, when when this let's just go to the the the entry level economic job. Right? So you're a barista at Starbucks or you work at McDonald's, and you're making 17 to $20 an hour. What that does is it it shifts labor. And, eventually, there are other people that are entering the workforce or, you know, may shift jobs. And, essentially, it just causes this leaky bucket effect where everybody else has to then accommodate itself. So, you know, you have a guy like you know, you have a company like Amazon, which is now gonna pay 25 or $30 to keep folks Right? Because otherwise, they may say, oh, you know, if I make 15 or $16 an hour, I'd rather work at McDonald's. It's simpler. college? It's not backbreaking work, blah blah blah. So then they start to increase the amount that they pay. They increase their benefits and the like. Didn't I saw this thing this week. There's a crazy thing that's happening though, which is it's now pulling people from nontraditional job classes into those jobs. There are teachers that are leaving teaching to go work at an Amazon warehouse. There are firefighters that are quitting being a firefighter to go work at an Amazon warehouse because you make the same or more plus you have all of these other benefits and the job is structurally a lot easier and so people are making different optimizations. And to that point, I think we talked about this and Nick you can put it in the group chat. In Reddit as an example, there is more engagement in the subreddit around having a simple work life than there is now in Wall Street bets. Right? So there's been a structural cultural change where people need to get paid more to do the same amount of work. And then at the same time, you have all of the all of the supply side getting more expensive. Fertilizer makes corn more expensive. Lumber makes house prices more expensive. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:52): chip prices makes the iPhone and cars more expensive or completely backlogged. Yesterday, a poker Sunny was showing us he bought a Tesla and the delivery period is October of Speaker 1 (00:45:03): 2022. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:05): Yeah. Crazy. It's freaking crazy. So I I think that it's a it's this is the beginning of a persistence side. Jason Calacanis (00:45:12): I think those are all, like, really valid points. The thing I'm seeing now is I think we've moved into what I'll call a contagion phase of inflation, which is people are hearing about inflation. They're seeing it in some My guess went up a little bit. My milk went up a little bit. Whatever. And they're saying, well, I guess if everybody's raising prices, I need to raise the prices as well of whatever I provide in the world. So I can just keep up with everybody else, and they're not looking at their inputs necessary and saying, I need to charge more or that's the best business decision. They're just saying, everything's going up around me. And so they raised prices. I've literally had this happen three or four times, and I went to buy a car and they wanna 15 k hour sticker, and I didn't buy it based on principle. But I'm sitting here going like, maybe I'm an idiot. Maybe I should just pay the 15 k hour sticker. What are your thoughts, tax on inflation? and they can teach Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:58): you if you have David Sacks (00:45:58): any thoughts. My thoughts are, I told you guys, like, 6 months ago about this. Yeah. Can we just replay what I said on episode Speaker 1 (00:46:04): 32? Jason Calacanis (00:46:05): It's got his researchers Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:06): in the background giving -- Yeah. Yeah. -- written down what you said Speaker 1 (00:46:09): on -- Yeah. -- Jason Calacanis (00:46:10): per episode daily. No. This guy's in the fucking debate club. Stanford debate club Speaker 1 (00:46:13): over there. -- David Sacks (00:46:14): us when we make predictions take them seriously. So, you know -- Was Jason Calacanis (00:46:17): that a gig of Professor ice cold eggs? David Friedberg (00:46:20): I'll give you guys a link to a prediction that was made. David Sacks (00:46:22): Here's I'll I mean, I just wanna replay the 20 seconds I sent about this back in May. Jason Calacanis (00:46:26): Here we go. The 2 David's dueling again just like in the group chat. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:29): I'm not Jason Calacanis (00:46:30): late. Here's Friedberg, January 1st Speaker 1 (00:46:32): 2021. Jason Calacanis (00:46:33): If you don't think inflation is already here, you missed what happened to the stock market. Companies aren't performing better. We're just inflating everything, financial assets first, everything else will follow. Speaker 1 (00:46:41): That David Sacks (00:46:41): was a good one. David Friedberg (00:46:42): Sach, just make your point. Just make your point. David Sacks (00:46:44): Just add the clip. Speaker 10 (00:46:46): I'm beginning to wonder if Biden's gonna be a Jimmy Carter here because frankly all he had to do was leave things well enough alone. COVID was winding down. We had a vaccine. All they had to do was distribute it to as many people as possible and COVID, let the recovery take shape, and instead, they push this insane $10,000,000,000,000 agenda he's gonna backfire massively. Look, if the economy turns, we were set for a post COVID boom. And right now, that is all at risk because to mouth like you're saying, They're keeping the economy closed or part parts of it way too long. They then overcompensate for that by printing a ton of money and then they overcompensate for that by raising taxes too much. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:26): Just to just to build on that. So that second step of their overcompensating, their inability to open with money is so true because then what happens is your labor force stays impaired because people make enough money by not working. David Sacks (00:47:42): It was true when I said it in May. It's even more true now. David Friedberg (00:47:45): He said it was there was inflation. Okay. So there was inflation. Okay. So now great. Good job. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:49): Somebody had David Sacks (00:47:49): a prediction. It was proven true. David Friedberg (00:47:51): Yeah. I made one in January that said the same Now, look, you can do 3 things to you could do 3 things to curb inflation. Raise rates. Right? When you raise interest rates, you slow spending. Prices come down. Inflation slows. But the issue when you raise rates is, obviously, you see things like job loss and economic growth declines. it can very quickly spiral the other way. This is the the big challenge of Fed tapering. The other option as we've seen a significant attempt at lately is to raise revenue. Right? So increased tax rates, tax, a broader swath of people at a higher rate or a broader swath of business at a higher rate. So it's very likely that, you know, tax revenue could kind of present itself again as a driver if inflation continues to spiral up. And the 3rd, which is the least likely, is cut spending. Right? The the the federal government spending the way it does right now makes a very inefficient way of kind of putting capital into the system and inflating it. We've seen historically that anything the federal government spends money on, like, health care and education that costs very quickly spiral out of control. Super inefficient. Why not just give that money to the free market to make decisions on how to spend it? it would be more efficient, etcetera. And the market would effectively find balance where buyers and sellers are equivalent as opposed to having the federal government driving the price of everything up. The 4th option that people don't talk about, which I think may end up becoming an important option, not kind of oblique option, but more kind of backdrop is to start a war. And, you know, when you start Speaker 1 (00:49:20): a war -- Jason Calacanis (00:49:20): Wack the dog. Wack the dog. David Friedberg (00:49:22): Yeah. When you start a war, you stimulate the economy without needing to pump additional capital in so you can increase growth and avoid the risk of stagflation. And you can source resources that otherwise wouldn't be kind of flowing in the trade or basically in a in a land grab type situation. But it doesn't necessarily mean that policymakers would say, hey. Let's go start a war to decrease inflation. Taiwan. But the premise that conflict can improve the economy is an important backdrop that starts to play into policy decisions that might get made over the next couple of months and quarters. And that's really important. Whether or not the posturing is one of partnership and and reducing the tension with foreign nations or one of increasing the tension, it's more likely that we would wanna increase the tension when we're in an inflationary environment. So it's quite Jason Calacanis (00:50:13): a conspiracy there. So what do you think, David Sacks (00:50:15): Okay. Let let me let me go back to 1st principles on this thing. We're not gonna start a war to tame inflation. Okay? But let me just explain what inflation is because I'm not sure people, like, fully understand, like, how this works. Inflation is very simple. It's too much money chasing too few goods. Okay? And we have both sides of the equation going on right now. On the supply side, on the good side, we've got shortages. We've got the ports backed up. where you've got paying people not to work. We still have the 2,000,000,000,000 of COVID relief passed earlier this year, which was responding to a problem that was largely winding down. So we have these labor shortage of people dropping out the the workforce and record numbers in the the number that just came out showed and more people quitting their jobs never before. So we have a shortage in terms of the production of goods and services that people want. At the same time, we have this monitoring fiscal expansion coming out of Washington. You've got you know, again, they did the Speaker 1 (00:51:12): 1,900,000,000,000 David Sacks (00:51:13): of COVID relief, they did $1,200,000,000,000 of infrastructure. Biden's still talking about another $2,000,000,000,000 of social welfare. You have the Fed still printing money with QE So you've got this massive expansion in the amount of money. So look, too much money chasing 22 few goods creates this problem. And it was very predictable. And so what I said back in May, this is what I was warning about. And it goes back to the Drucky Miller clip that we that we were talking about all the way back in May, he said the same thing that we had a reckless fiscal and monetary expansionary policy coming out of Washington. at a time we didn't need it. Because if you looked at, like, retail spending back in May, it was back to above trend. So, you know, in other words, like, there was no demand problem. The economy was back. and they've just been pumping and pumping out of Washington. Jason Calacanis (00:51:59): We made a we had a we had good intent. We wanted to make people not suffer. We wanted to get the economy on top we may have just made a bigger bet than we needed to. David Sacks (00:52:07): We overdid it. Jason Calacanis (00:52:08): We overdid it clearly. David Friedberg (00:52:09): But but David Sacks (00:52:09): but look who wants to be the politician, quite frankly, Jason Calacanis (00:52:12): He's not gonna get you Who who who ends David Sacks (00:52:14): the who ends the eviction moratorium. Right? Jason Calacanis (00:52:16): The gravy train. Yeah. David Sacks (00:52:17): Nobody well, nobody wants to be the politician who says, okay. Now you suddenly have to pay your rent. obviously, people have to pay their rent. Jason Calacanis (00:52:24): And we're taking away your bonus unemployment. I mean, people have to go back to work at some point when there's 10,000,000 jobs open just as a I've I've been watching the Taiwan situation like a hawk, and I don't know if you saw that this week to go off on another tangent, but the US testing, Israelis, Iron Dome, and Guam as a defense against Chinese cruise missiles. Obviously, for possible deployment in Taiwan. And I don't know if you're watching and it's can't turn the NBA, but he has been going on CNN and stuff like that now talking about China. Pretty amazing leadership. David Friedberg (00:53:01): I I predict escalating global conflict. That'll be my prediction to mark the q Speaker 1 (00:53:06): 4. David Sacks (00:53:07): Well, I I think that's a I think, actually, that's a pretty valid prediction. but I I just think it's a little bit separate than inflation. David Friedberg (00:53:14): Like I said, it's not an explicit decision, but I do think that in the backdrop of an inflationary environment, where you have something that can temper the condition at home that at the same time, you know, might sell politically Speaker 1 (00:53:24): -- David Sacks (00:53:25): But we don't need but it it's not gonna solve anything politically. I mean, world war 2, you know, famously got us out of the Great Depression because that did stimulate demand. But in the situation we're in today, we have too much demand. We have retail is trending way above curve. What we have is a supply shortage. And devoting resources, taking them away from the productive economy to go to war would only exacerbate the problem and make it even worse. What we need right now actually is for Washington to back off to stop pumping demand with this with you know, now they're still talking about this $2,000,000,000. -- machine. Well, the money printing. That's what we need to calculate. Jason Calacanis (00:54:00): And to to David Sacks (00:54:03): to stop these disincentives for production and work. So you have man I mean, mansion was exactly right about this. Okay? Do you remember when mansion when he was resisting this Speaker 1 (00:54:12): $2,000,000,000,000 David Sacks (00:54:13): social welfare bill. I mean, the things he said are already coming true. I mean, he said this months ago, he said that we should take a strategic pause because he said, this is a quote. By all accounts, the threat posed by record inflation, to the American people is not transitory and is instead getting worse from the grocery store to the gas pump Americans know that the inflation tax is real, and DC can no longer ignore the economic pain in Americans feel every day. That's when he was saying this past summer several months ago, and they rolled right over him. Jason Calacanis (00:54:43): The psychology of this could be could be self fulfilling as well because what's gonna happen is you're gonna have everybody raise prices because it's now become an escalator you know, your hairdresser, your, you know, whatever, you know, services you're using, whatever product you're buying, whatever front you're going to is gonna put $2 on every advertiser and 5 bucks on every entree. Everything is just gonna keep going up. And then what happens is people who in the middle class or, you know, who are consumers of products in a large way will say, you know what? I'm gonna put off buying a car. Then we're gonna be driving all this supply up, and then people are gonna say, you know Fucking. I'll just drive this one for 2 more years. Speaker 1 (00:55:18): Right. Jason Calacanis (00:55:19): That's gonna cause stagnation, and this is being lifted. David Sacks (00:55:22): It's what we have in the 19 seventies. And you're right. It's called an inflationary spiral, which is the future expectations of increasing prices means that people start increasing them now, and that feeds on self. Speaker 1 (00:55:33): Yes. David Sacks (00:55:33): And that's what we had in the late 19 seventies. And the thing that broke that was Paul Volker, jacking up interest rates. It was very painful. It caused a very severe recession in the early 19 eighties. But then the economy came roaring out of that by 83. It got Reagan electing in 84. And you had 30 straight years of declining interest rates and that led to a stock market boom. So the problem we have now, okay, here's the problem we have is there's gonna be no Paul Volker. Why? We can't afford to jack up rates because the federal government's debt is so much bigger than it Jason Calacanis (00:56:04): used to be. -- not on a fixed rate. We're on a variable rate. All of the debt we take Speaker 1 (00:56:08): -- David Sacks (00:56:08): The average maturity of government debt right now is 5 years. Okay? So that I mean, that means the whole debt rolls over within 5 years. So if they jack up interest rates, we have almost 30,000,000,000,000 of US Federal Debt right now. So every 1% that they increase interest rates, that means another 300,000,000,000 a year of of of debt service. Jason Calacanis (00:56:28): Yeah. Exactly. So where it is exactly. David Sacks (00:56:30): So there's gonna be enormous pressure on the Fed not to raise rates. You already are hearing Biden rattling the saber saying that Powell may not be his choice for a second term. By the way, Powell is very dovish. He's basically saying, we can't raise rates right now because of this and that. So and and the Biden administration, nobody in Washington ever wants rates to go up. Right? They wanna keep these low rates forever. this is the problem is, look, at the end of the day, I don't know what the inflation picture is gonna look like next year, but what concerns me is we don't have effective tools to fight it anymore. because we've given up our ability to raise rates because it would it would increase the cost of the debt so much. And, I mean, so with just one article just to share with you guys, is this again, my one of my favorite sources of economic information is the the Fred blog, which is from the -- Fred Jason Calacanis (00:57:17): blog's great. Speaker 1 (00:57:18): -- David Sacks (00:57:18): from the. Okay. David Friedberg (00:57:19): So you wrote up the David Sacks (00:57:21): blog talking about two tales of federal debt. Okay? And and the article is about here's why there's so much disagreement on whether the federal government debt is too high. So the first chart shows debt to GDP. This is always the way of looking at government debt. We're simply looking at the ratio of debt to GDP. It's now something like a 125% in peacetime. I don't think we've had a higher peacetime ratio. That would tell you things were out of control. But for the last decade, while this has been going on, you had this whole school of thought, the MMT modern monetary theory, all these economists and experts, and politicians in the media were eager to buy in because they want to spend the money. Okay. And what they said is, no, it's not debt to GDP. you should look at debt service to GDP. This is the second chart on that blog. And so debt service to GDP was was staying constant or even going down as the debt to GDP was going up. Why? Because interest rates were so low. The problem is what was so foolish about this point of view is it had assumed that interest rates were gonna last forever. Well, if that was your point of view, why didn't you do what Trump actually suggests several years ago, and he's tested having 100 year t bills. They should have locked in much, much longer duration, maturities on the federal debt. And instead and Yellen rejected this. Okay? And so you've got a Speaker 1 (00:58:34): 5 David Sacks (00:58:34): year average duration, which means that if interest rates go back up, the debt service cost is gonna explode. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:41): Yeah. In 1980, we changed the goalposts for CPIs. even as a measurement to know what we look at and I think Jack Dorsey tweeted this out, so Nick, you may be able to find this tweet. But you know, we change the measurement of how CPI measures. And so if you go back to the original measurement, it looks like inflation in CPI is much more pernicious than we would otherwise think it if we just look at the the new CPI that we that we started to look at as of 19 8 So that's another sort of, like, point. Jason Calacanis (00:59:12): We did the we did the same thing with Speaker 1 (00:59:13): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:13): I just go back to what I Jason Calacanis (00:59:15): said earlier. I'd given up -- The Speaker 1 (00:59:17): 2 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:17): smartest people that we both know. our net sellers. Jason Calacanis (00:59:22): Well, they're selling some. Yeah. I mean They're selling. I mean Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:25): I'm just saying the 2 smartest people we go. Jason Calacanis (00:59:27): I mean, we don't wanna give financial advice here, but should everybody be moving to cash? No. Where do you put your money? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:33): I think the best thing to do is -- -- totally confused. Jason Calacanis (00:59:35): This is I think, the admission Speaker 1 (00:59:37): -- David Friedberg (00:59:37): Just buy productive assets, great businesses that have durability, and let them ride for 20 years. Jason Calacanis (00:59:43): I I like your answer. The fact is we're all confounded as to what to do at this moment in time. We're all trying to figure this out, and we do this for a living. David Friedberg (00:59:51): But then you're trading the market like everyone else all the time. Like, you know, trade the market where you can just buy great businesses, own stakes in them, and let it rest. No. I'm just talking about this. Jason Calacanis (01:00:00): They're really worried about money. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:01): I mean, practical issues that I don't have infinite money. And so in order to put my money into productive assets, I have to sell other productive assets. David Friedberg (01:00:09): Well, if you've got other productive assets, leave them in. Why so? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:13): Well, then it's like then I'm basically, you know, doubling down on a worldview that may be old and dated. Right? So I'm long a bunch of software companies and I really wanna do something in climate science or biotech, what am I supposed to do? David Friedberg (01:00:24): Don't try don't try and time the market. Shift your assets. Right? Why do you care what the No. No. No. Speaker 1 (01:00:27): I'm not David Friedberg (01:00:28): trying to Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:28): I'm not trying trying to time the market. I'm just saying if if my world view shifts to really wanna double down on climate science or alternative finance or biotech, I have to raise capital to do that. David Friedberg (01:00:38): I have to raise capital till you're saying. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:41): Right. But but for me, I'm not raising it from other people. I'm raising it self. So at the something that already on. Jason Calacanis (01:00:45): To me, the best place to be right now is in the company formation space, Because when you create a company like Friedberg does every 3 months, there is so much value being created that moment in time and so much further capital getting poured into it. But if you are the originator of the company and and you get some big slice of the cap table for doing that, which is completely valid. You originated the company, whether it's unique or call in or whatever it is. Man, that is a great moment of creation of wealth creation And when you have the person putting the money in at the $1,000,000,000 valuation for the company, whatever call in I'm sorry, clubhouse, went from a 100,000,000 to 4,000,000,000 with no revenue. I don't know what's happening in the world, but pretty crazy. Do you wanna go on to Xi Jinping and his Zoomi speaking with Biden on Mondays. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:37): It's done. He he he got it done before his his video his Zoom with Biden. Jason Calacanis (01:01:43): Oh, yeah. So they're doing that. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:44): This is now the supreme leader. He hasn't left trying out the supreme leader. Jason Calacanis (01:01:48): Explain what this means. Shamalff from the story. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:51): I mean, I think the basic the basic takeaway is that they've been working inside the body politic inside of China to basically reflect g on the same level as Mao and And effectively what this means is that it it allows him to remain the leader of China indefinitely. And so there is no transition of power. Typically, what had happened was these there were these 10 year windows and, you know, you you you go you know, 10 year cycles, and then they passed the baton. But it now looks like we'll be living with Xi Jinping until until, you know, he he joins the after world. So he's a ruler for life of China, basically. Crazy. I think David Sacks (01:02:35): that's exactly right. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:36): What an incredible feat of political maneuvering without judging it just to say How what a complicated Byzantine political infrastructure he must have had to navigate. I don't know how he played the three-dimensional chess With all these people, the slow systematic dismantling of the old guard, placing all of his people in, then slowly moving towards this this kind of recognition. Jason Calacanis (01:03:01): Yeah. No. The dictator got his name for a reason. Somewhere Donald Trump and Steve Bannon are like, what did we do wrong? We were so close. January 6th, we almost if Pence would have just played ball, Sachs, you'd still be in power. You your guys dropped the ball. David Friedberg (01:03:17): And we wouldn't have inflationary. Just thinking Jason Calacanis (01:03:20): Trump was needed for life. David Sacks (01:03:21): you know, Jason, given how accurate my predictions have been, you should have a little bit more respect for my political positions. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:29): What do you guys think happens now? The g basically is ruler for life? You know, he I think the Chinese term for it is historic figure, which is -- Yeah. It's horrible. -- of saying, you know, You're you're basically Speaker 1 (01:03:41): -- Jason Calacanis (01:03:41): You're a made man. Basically, you can't get whacked. Nobody can touch you. You're good for life. the end. Nobody can question you. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:48): I mean, can you imagine Mao Zedong, you know, Deng Xiaoping and now. Incredible. Incredible. Like, he is at that level. Jason Calacanis (01:03:57): Well it means if you start a war and a and a serious military conflict that nobody can question you. Right? You're the supreme leader. So It's sort of like Putin and MBS. Like MBS can go kill a journalist and he's got nobody to 2. It means you have nobody ever to. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:13): Mao Zedong initiated the revolution. And, you know, Dan Xiaoping was really the architect of free markets that has made China the economic powerhouse that it is today, their internal reflection as Xi Jinping is on the same scale of that. Now, I mean, I I can't claim But what is this vision for the future Speaker 1 (01:04:31): of China? David Sacks (01:04:31): What what is the accomplishment that's gonna really put him in that league? And and you'd have to say it's the annexation of Taiwan. I mean, that's the thing that he must be looking to do, but for, you know, his time. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:43): To reunify China Speaker 1 (01:04:44): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:44): That's the thing that David Sacks (01:04:45): could put him in that league. And so that that is the trip wire. that to Friedberg point that could lead to, you know, a conflict. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:54): I I think they you know, I hate to say that Friedberg is wrong because I I don't think in this case I can. I do think that there is some left tail risk For, like, a crazy wag the dog moment in Taiwan, it would be really scary. Really scary. Jason Calacanis (01:05:11): Right now, if I I was looking at the sizes of the navies. People don't know this. Japan actually has a very large defensive navy. The UK and the United States obviously have very large ones. China is large, but not on a tonnage basis. They have a lot of ships. But together, I don't know if you saw the military exercises going on, but New Zealand, Australia, the United States, UK, and Japan were basically oh, I think South Korea would were basically driving their ships around the trying to say. This is gonna be, I David Sacks (01:05:41): think -- So, you know, I did I I did a really interesting interview with the historian and commentator Neil Ferguson Speaker 1 (01:05:46): -- David Sacks (01:05:47): Yeah. -- who is also a pretty avid China watcher. And I did interview with him, actually, on on my app. You you don't want me to say that now. Yeah. anyway, so he he hit a really great line, which is he said that the the issue of Taiwan, it's basically like the issue of Cuba and Berlin and the Persian Gulf all rolled into 1. So it's like Cuba and the Cuba missile crisis because it's right there off the shore of China. It's like Berlin you know, because that was basically the dividing line between freedom and, you know, totalitarianism, you know, where the where the Berlin Wall got built And it's like the Persian Gulf because the new oil are the semiconductors, the chips that are fabbed in Taiwan Speaker 1 (01:06:36): -- David Sacks (01:06:36): Alright. -- at CSMC. And so all the resources that we're dependent on for the new economy are all right there. So Speaker 1 (01:06:43): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:43): Super smart framing. David Sacks (01:06:44): Yeah. It's I thought it was a clever fine. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:46): The the thing we have to remember about Xi is that his father was was a commander for Mal and was in a vice premier. And so, you know, his historical, he is the original princeling. Right? Remember, you know, there there's this context of these Chinese princelings. But he is he is one of these originalists, and so his motivation will be it seems at least to bring China back into that spectrum of power, which is really about a consolidated country and a single nation state, and that has to include Taiwan. It can't it can't not. So to your point, David, It's almost more motivation for him to go off on some crazy adventure and try to reclaim it. Jason Calacanis (01:07:27): That's gonna be great now. It's it's really interesting to look at the tonnage of ships and the number of ships. The United States has over 6000 tons of ships, 949 according to globalsecurity.org. China has only 2000 tons and a 1000 ships. They have a lot of smaller ships. And then Russia, UK, India, Japan, France, Indonesia, Turkey, Germany, Italy. -- warships, Jason? Or Speaker 1 (01:07:47): -- Jason Calacanis (01:07:48): Yeah. This is their their navy warships, and so they're fighting. But Japan has a very large one. I I wasn't aware of this because I thought they were not doing military buildup, but they have what's called the defensive navy, which can do offensive stuff. So this is I think this is really problematic. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:04): How many of these ships are smaller than Saks's yacht that he rented the system? Jason Calacanis (01:08:08): Yeah. So Sax's tonnage would kinda put the United States over the top, I think, in this complex. Speaker 1 (01:08:12): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:13): tonnage of Saks is yep. Jason Calacanis (01:08:14): Bezos is gonna be donating his For sure. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:16): No. For sure, it's bigger than Indonesia. I see Indonesia on this list. Turkey. I mean, how big is David Sacks (01:08:21): there yet? In in my defense, it was a starter yacht. Jason Calacanis (01:08:24): start. There was a Speaker 1 (01:08:25): -- Jason Calacanis (01:08:25): We might indefensible Speaker 1 (01:08:27): -- David Sacks (01:08:27): Next one next one will be better. Jason Calacanis (01:08:29): Yeah. Salon is gonna make sure of Right? Yeah. You can buy yachts with Solana. Alright. I think we covered enough. GE and Toshiba can't run their businesses, so they're each separating into 3 separate companies. Let's talk about David Sacks (01:08:39): that. actually. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:41): And Johnson and Johnson. Yeah. We can talk about Jason Calacanis (01:08:43): it today. Alright. So on Tuesday, G announced they were splitting into 3 separate companies, aviation, healthcare, and energy. Toshiba reported a similar plan. Johnson and Johnson today. Johnson and Johnson was today. This is in direct conflict with the consolidation and the creation of conglomerates and Speaker 1 (01:09:01): -- David Friedberg (01:09:01): But not conglomerates. I think this is an important point, Jake. You know, in the eighties nineties, it was cool to create conglomerates, meaning you would kind of stick businesses together that were Speaker 1 (01:09:10): -- Jason Calacanis (01:09:11): RJR. Yeah. Speaker 1 (01:09:11): -- David Friedberg (01:09:11): somewhat disparate because you could financially engineer a way to do it that would juice shareholder returns. Right? You could borrow money, add lots of scale, the cost debt goes down, you could increase your debt load, etcetera. And, you know, the the challenge is, like, when you're scaling a business, you either need to grow your revenue organically or you need to acquire. And when you're acquiring, you're either acquiring horizontally or you're acquiring vertically, meaning you're kind of integrating your supply chain or you're integrating or you're adding ancillary businesses that you can cross sell. So you're either reducing your costs or increasing your cross selling ability. So there's some inherent synergy in the acquisition. The problem with conglomerates is there is very little synergy. Meaning, like, when you acquire a new business like an aviation business, it doesn't create synergy for your health care business. And, you know, there was always a rationalization that these managers of these big conglomerates had, which was like, oh, well, we could do this and we could do that. At the end of the day, it was financial engineering. where they simply kinda use debt to reduce, you know, the cost of capital and increase the the shareholder returns. And now everyone's kinda waking up to the fact that you're actually decreasing value. Because an investor that wants to own an aviation company doesn't also wanna own a healthcare company, the investor doesn't buy those shares. And the investor that wants to own the health care company is the one on the aviation company so they don't buy those shares. So the way to increase shareholder value is to actually split those businesses up And then the investors that wanna own the aviation business will pay more, and the investors that wanna own the health care business will pay more, and the overall value of those two businesses goes up by having them be separate. And that's what the market's kinda waking up to, and this is kind of a trend that's been going on for years now. You know, going back to kind of 20, thirteen, fourteen, where the market started to kinda rationalize some of these silly conglomerate business ideas and break them apart into more kind of, you know, targeted businesses that can actually spin out or or or, yeah, or break off Speaker 1 (01:11:00): -- -- Jason Calacanis (01:11:00): breakups. Yeah. Speaker 1 (01:11:01): -- David Friedberg (01:11:01): that can basically attract shareholders to bid on each one of those businesses individually and drive value up. You know, we one business I was close to that I saw this with with DowDuPont where they, you know, downwards with DuPont, And then they split into several businesses that each were focused on a particular vertical, and it made a lot of sense to drive value for for for the for the overall shareholders. So at the end of the day, you know, these conglomerates are about kind of driving economic outcomes. And the only folks that you see doing this well are folks like Warren Buffett. where the job is really about capital allocation where, you know, you can allocate capital to the best business, and that business on its own will grow organically versus taking a bunch of crappy, low growth, no growth businesses, levering them up to kind of juice the returns on each other, and we're seeing this slow unwinding happening. So I think it'll it'll continue to And you could probably go and pick a bunch of these conglomerates, and you'll see the activist shareholders doing this. They'll they'll they'll buy a bunch of shares. They'll instigate and say, hey. You guys should break up. The share price will go up by 20 30%. So if you wanna stock tip of the day, you know, go find a set of conglomerates that are gonna get it back and broken up. Jason Calacanis (01:12:04): It's interesting, Shamaffia, and, you know, with public markets, Dell is spinning out VMware, and that's gonna create a massive amount of cash and shareholder value. They're doing a huge dividend. So I guess my question to you, Chamath, is when do we start to see this hit not from a point of weakness but from companies that are strong and see this as, hey, this is a way to just unlock shareholder value. Will we see an Amazon spin at AWS, a YouTube or an Instagram come out of their parent companies? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:37): I think it's very rare that these things happen on the offensive foot. I think it's typically a defensive maneuver that's driven by really poor returns over long periods of time or activist investors who wanna push their dialogue. David Sacks (01:12:50): But -- Totally. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:51): Like, you know, like, eBay Paypal. David Sacks (01:12:53): totally I was about to bring that up. I mean, do you remember how hard that eBay and remember, like, John Donna was the CEO? He, like, fought that so hard I remember getting a phone call from him asking if I would support them. He had rounded up read off and then other people support eBay. I'm like, no. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:09): Wait. Wait. Wait. No. The would you remember this? We were in Vegas and Donahoe called, and we were working on a plan, and then you went and walked Donah through the plan. Do you remember this thing? We were in Speaker 1 (01:13:19): -- David Sacks (01:13:19): No. What happened? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:20): We were in Vegas. Jason Calacanis (01:13:20): We were gonna try to do it in Vegas a spin out of -- No. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:24): I can't I can't no. No. Donahoe either called you or called me, and I said, you should talk to Saks. And we sketched out a plan for what PayPal should do. Remember that. David Sacks (01:13:33): Oh, yeah. Yeah. I do remember Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:35): Like, on Saturday afternoon, we sketched out this plan. Speaker 1 (01:13:38): Yeah. Yeah. David Sacks (01:13:38): Yeah. So I told I told John, no. I'm sorry. I can't support you because I believe it should be spun out. And so and the only 2 the only two people from the original PayPal team who said that publicly were me and Elon. And we said that if you could get PayPal out from under, you know, this, you know, this sort of eBay bureaucracy, it could be a $100,000,000,000 plus company. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:59): The bar for acquisitions is extremely high. Like, I think the the last really 2 acquisitions that were really done well was Zuck's acquisition of What's happened in Instagram? But since then, the bar is extremely high for these conglomerates. So as an example, PayPal was rumored to be buying Pinterest And, you know, it there was such an incredible shareholder revolt that they had to put out a press release saying we have absolutely no interest in acquiring Pinterest. But what that all that did was just, you know, accelerate the bleeding because then people were saying, wait a minute. How strategically lost must you be -- Totally. Speaker 1 (01:14:33): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:33): that you would wanna buy Pinterest as and so then it and as a result, the the PayPal stock price has gotten absolutely Speaker 1 (01:14:39): -- David Sacks (01:14:40): Yeah. Well, over a $3,000,000,000 company. And it it lost the entire value of Pinterest, basically. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:45): Here's the big issue that I think we have in American economics and company building. You know, we've gone through 20 or 30 years of really underinvesting in R&D. At the sake of share buybacks, at the sake of, you know, market consolidation -- Dividends. Speaker 1 (01:15:02): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:02): private equity, you know, driven take privates. And so all of this capital misallocation has really put us on the wrong foot, and the pandemic basically showed that we were really ill positioned. So a lot of these conglomerates, it doesn't make sense today because we've proven that the compensation schemes for CEOs the incentives for executive management are way too perverted and they just create horrible outcomes. A different example I saw. In the last, I think 15 or 20 years, IBM's MarketCap has gone down to Speaker 1 (01:15:41): 113,000,000,000. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:42): In the meantime, they've bought back $132,000,000,000 of stock. What? Could you imagine the kind of r and d that IBM could have affected with that Speaker 1 (01:15:51): 132,000,000,000 Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:53): in where they could beat? So We have -- But they're David Friedberg (01:15:56): not they're not good capital allocators. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:58): Well, we have horrible capital misallocation. So -- Well, look at Apple. Jason Calacanis (01:16:02): I mean -- I Speaker 9 (01:16:02): don't think David Sacks (01:16:02): they're not spending money on R and D. David Friedberg (01:16:04): They're they're not they're not good at it. That's David Sacks (01:16:06): the point. -- at it. They're better off they're better off taking those -- It's massive. They're better off taking those massive r and d budgets and putting it into m and a budgets. Not for, like, $50,000,000,000 Pinterest acquisition that doesn't make any sense, has no synergies. But on smaller acquisitions of teams that have built really technology. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:22): IBM IBM could have bought a lot of different data from how to innovate David Friedberg (01:16:26): or operate. Those guys don't seem to know how to do anything. So, like, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:29): My my my point is now we're in the cycle where these conglomerates will get ripped apart so that a brighter, fresher, and probably younger group of executive management can take a different spin on these companies that actually do some. So for example, like the j and j spin out is really exciting because you take med devices in pharma and you separate it from a really struggling complicated consumer goods, you know, package business you know, the shampoo, the q tips, the listerine, get all that off balance sheet. Now you can actually, you know, make drugs and med devices, and that's a really interesting business at the CEO can really do a lot of interesting things with. David Sacks (01:17:06): I heard an interview with this, then CAFG, I think, Kulp, who was putting forward this plan. The line that I remember kinda resonate with me. He said the benefits of focus are immediate. The benefits of synergy is our hypothetical. And I think that's really the key point here and that's what's gonna fuel all this sort of deconglomeration is that the benefits of focus to a company are so huge that, you know, that but but the reason why it doesn't happen is because of this instinct that all these managers have a vampire building. Right? So when times are good, they can keep Speaker 1 (01:17:40): building their empires. And that's something bad David Sacks (01:17:41): has to happen to force them to focus. And -- More positive. David Friedberg (01:17:47): By the way, just -- The the motivation, they're not they're not owners. They're typically not founders. And so what you end up seeing is their comp goes up linearly with market cap. So the bigger definitely. And more money -- Right. David Sacks (01:17:58): And this is just to just to close to the thought out on that whole eBay PayPal thing. I mean, it was so obvious that eBay should spin out PayPal. But -- 4th August history. Speaker 1 (01:18:06): -- David Sacks (01:18:07): the management resisted it, and it took an activist shareholder. I think I icon came in there. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:11): This icon. Yeah. David Sacks (01:18:12): It was icon who came Jason Calacanis (01:18:13): in there. David Sacks (01:18:14): And so -- -- icon Jason Calacanis (01:18:14): is in the lobby. You're fucked. David Sacks (01:18:16): Well, but but icons shouldn't have to come in there. The reason why there's opportunity for icon the managers want to do the right thing. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:21): He unlocked a quarter $1,000,000,000,000 of value. He was incredible. Jason Calacanis (01:18:25): No. I mean, they spent it out for Speaker 1 (01:18:26): 40 Jason Calacanis (01:18:26): or 50,000,000,000. Now it's worth five times that amount. Speaker 1 (01:18:28): It's a Jason Calacanis (01:18:29): quarter $1,000,000,000,000. Yeah. crazy. And just to to put this all in perspective, the stock buybacks that are going on right now, Apple did almost $20,000,000,000 less square. They've done 77,000,000,000 in the last year and you wanna talk about the impact of tax policy on innovation. Well, you've got on one hand here Apple is is looking at well, I'm gonna have to pay all these taxes. I might as well just increase the amount on buying back and be neutral. Why would I wanna show any kind of a profit here I'll just buy back as many shares as possible. The company will eventually be private. I mean, it it Speaker 1 (01:18:57): this is you gotta be really careful with Jason Calacanis (01:18:57): how you do this because there's no incentive for people now to put money into r and d or other stuff. They're just buyback the stock might be the most efficient thing to do, correct, in terms of, like, the Speaker 1 (01:19:10): share rep. If David Sacks (01:19:10): you don't spend Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:11): the money. It's the dumbest thing to do. It basically shows you're an idiot. David Sacks (01:19:14): Well, it shows you got enough thing better to spend the money on. So maybe maybe maybe that's maybe buying back the stocks better than triggering it away. But, yeah, it means you're out of ideas. It means you're out Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:23): of ideas. -- ideas. Jason Calacanis (01:19:23): Or you or or a or a combination of, my god, this core business is throwing off so much money that we can't come up with enough ideas at that time. I think that's No. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:33): It just means you're not ambitious enough. Jason Calacanis (01:19:35): I mean, what would you spend Speaker 1 (01:19:36): 20,000,000,000 Jason Calacanis (01:19:37): on? I mean, Zuck is having time spending 10,000,000,000 on creating the metaverse a year. I mean, you're talking about 80,000,000,000 a year. What would you put that towards? What should Apple Put it towards. No. Apple Apple could even more aggressively double down to Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:51): enter the car market. They could have done it much sooner than they have. Jason Calacanis (01:19:54): Biggest by 20 a year on that. Sure. You're right. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:56): You know, easily. They could actually enter, I don't know, power. They could Speaker 1 (01:20:01): -- Yeah. I David Sacks (01:20:02): mean but they're but they're you know, Apple their their culture is to have very few products as a company. They're always very proud of that. It's the Steve Jobs focused thing. I mean, I think it's worked pretty well for them. I know you're second guessing The the thing that I hear -- No. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:20:13): No. I just don't like buybacks because I think it comes at the sake of r and d for most companies. I think obviously -- -- choice. of the shareholder value. -- companies are different, but everybody else, what you see is r and d is, like, 1 or 2% of of of their, you know -- Yeah. But it's it's a shame. David Sacks (01:20:28): Look, Apple could definitely be more aggressive, but I wouldn't judge the Tim Cook Aaron till we see what happens with glasses because this is the product that I hear is coming is gonna be their, you know, their AI glass is gonna be -- And that's gonna be a new computing platform that they open up to developers and I guess Cook's been there for, what, a decade, but I think he doesn't wanna retire until this comes out and he can see this is gonna be his signature product, I think. But I'll tell you, just the other thought that this went through my head as I saw this news about GE, it really was kind of the end of an era. You gotta remember that back in the eighties nineties. I think even as late as 2000 GE was the number one company in America by market cap. It was the top of the s and p 500. The later subsequently got kicked out of the the Dow Jones. But the thing that went through my head is, you know, when I was a kid growing up, the only two business names that I even knew were just Jack Welch and then Lee Iacocca. You know, that was it. Jason Calacanis (01:21:19): That was it. You had their posters Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:20): on the wall? GED and Chrysler. Jason Calacanis (01:21:22): Farooq said in between the two of them. David Sacks (01:21:24): It was Brie Jack Welch and Iacocca. And now you don't even know the name of the the GE guy. I mean, I like, I know it because I watched some interview and I saw him up there. But, I mean, you can't think of a business leader today who's not in tech and and really a tech founder or somebody who's handed the ball by the tech founder. So We know Tim Cook because Steve Jobs handed him the ball. But otherwise, it's all tech all tech founders. You don't hear about any of these old like Dow Jones type type companies anymore. It's just the the the business the business environment, the the economy has changed so much since the eighties nineties. It's all totally dominated by tech now. David Friedberg (01:22:02): But, Saks, I would argue that the disruptive business and the disruptive business leader are always the icons. Back in the day, the chemical companies were the icons, and everyone knew the chemical companies and the guys running them, then it was the industrial companies, you know, then it was kind of the Antual, you know, then it were these guys in the eighties nineties that did all the all the others. Speaker 1 (01:22:19): -- David Sacks (01:22:19): COCA weren't founders. You know? David Friedberg (01:22:20): But they were in different ways. Jason Calacanis (01:22:22): Tell me the that's what we talked to companies on R&D Spending. Top 2 companies without looking on r David Friedberg (01:22:27): and d. In the world? Jason Calacanis (01:22:28): Yeah. Global. In the world. Number 1, number 2. Give me number 1, number Speaker 1 (01:22:32): 2. David Sacks (01:22:32): I say Microsoft is up there. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:34): It depends on classification, but I would say Saudi Aramco. Jason Calacanis (01:22:37): FreeBird, what do you got? David Friedberg (01:22:39): Yeah. I I would probably put Exxon up there. Jason Calacanis (01:22:42): You guys need to think about who it was been some of the most innovative leaders. Amazon, 42,000,000,000 in 2020. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:48): But, Jason, that's an accounting thing. If you're saying in the world, Saudi Aramco, their exploration, their E and P budget is probably $200,000,000,000 a year. Jason Calacanis (01:22:57): Okay. I I I guess maybe because that's not that's at that's is that a corporate entity? Technically, it wouldn't be on Speaker 1 (01:23:03): the list. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:03): It's a public company. David Friedberg (01:23:04): Yeah. So it -- Google's got to be spending Speaker 1 (01:23:06): 25,000,000,000 Jason Calacanis (01:23:07): a year. Speaker 1 (01:23:07): -- Jason Calacanis (01:23:07): shopping with 20 7,000,000,000. Oh, David Friedberg (01:23:09): off by Speaker 1 (01:23:09): 2. Jason Calacanis (01:23:10): Huawei is 3rd 22. Microsoft is 4th 19 Apple is 5th. You're saying tech. No. This is all companies. Samsung, Facebook. David Sacks (01:23:18): But some of this is just accounting categorization. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:20): Accounting categorization. Speaker 1 (01:23:21): -- David Sacks (01:23:21): who because the engineering budget is is basically what goes into r and d. So the more engineers you have on staff, the bigger you are David Friedberg (01:23:28): into the budget. Doesn't David Sacks (01:23:29): mean you're producing anything, by the way. David Friedberg (01:23:30): Bigger industrial companies traditional companies that list things as r and d. You know most of those dollars flow out to 3rd party companies, like enterprise software companies, services businesses, So it doesn't end up it gets accounted for its, quote, unquote, r and d because they get to capitalize it. But that spend is typically not paying in house salaries to engineers. And that's the distinction between true tech Companies and other companies that are, quote, unquote, going through a digital transformation or, you know, have a quote unquote r and d budget, they're outsourcing r and d and typically paying three times as much and typically getting one temp in the return. And I think that's the maybe a good heuristic for how you might kinda wanna look at what differentiates a tech a true Jason Calacanis (01:24:13): tech company. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:13): Depending on counting Saudi Arabia Amco spends 37 and a half 1000000000 to 50,000,000,000 depending on Speaker 1 (01:24:19): how you're going. -- Jason Calacanis (01:24:19): puts them at, you know, probably tied with Amazon for Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:21): all intents and purposes. -- means I was right, Jason. That's what I care about. Jason Calacanis (01:24:24): Well, I'm I'm wondering well, you know what? I the reason I think that you this might be might not be listed. David Friedberg (01:24:28): I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:30): No. It is a it's a really good suggestion. Speaker 1 (01:24:31): -- David Friedberg (01:24:32): with reading a BuzzFeed article and he has -- No. It's Jason Calacanis (01:24:35): Barron's. But, anyway, putting it aside, I think the the issue might be that they have recently public. Right? So maybe they're you know, they've only been filing public for 2 years or something. Alright. I think that's everything. How's everybody doing otherwise? How's everybody's personal life? Are people losing their mind? What's people's plans? for the end of COVID. David Friedberg (01:24:53): I'm gonna go have beer and pizza on the beach. Jason Calacanis (01:24:56): Nicely done. Speaker 1 (01:24:56): So I'm David Friedberg (01:24:57): ready to get out of here. Jason Calacanis (01:24:58): Nice. Yeah. I mean, I'm exhausted. Are you guys exhausted? And this has been a fucking crazy run. David Friedberg (01:25:03): I don't know what day it is anymore. I'm, like Speaker 1 (01:25:05): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:05): I'm I'm ready to wind the year down. Jason Calacanis (01:25:07): I am so exhausted. I mean, this has been the craziest pace I've ever experienced in my life. The number of deals going on, the amount of inbound David Sacks (01:25:15): Oh my god. I'll tell you at that conference. Every single so I have all these founders come up to me and pitch me what they're doing. A couple of them, I'm like, that sounds really interesting. Can we participate in that? It's like, no. None of the rounds are subscribed. I'm like, Why'd you come up to me and pitch me this stuff? Jason Calacanis (01:25:28): How dare you? Why? Yeah. David Sacks (01:25:29): So I -- Rule number 1. I tweeted I tweeted a new terms of service. If I this is only if I'm at a conference. Okay? If you set an appointment in my office is fine. That's like an opt in. But, like, if you come up to me to pitch me your idea at a conference, then and I say, okay. I wanna invest. Like, give me an allocation. Like, don't come to me and pitch me if you're not gonna give me David Friedberg (01:25:47): an allocation. Jason Calacanis (01:25:48): No. That's not cool. That's like being like, oh my god. I know the best restaurant in the world. It's open tonight. They've got the greatest steak. And they're Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:53): like, chasing ball or chasing. No reservations. Guys, tell Saks about the white truffles from yesterday. No. Honestly, yeah, we we we David Friedberg (01:25:59): had dinner at Tom's house last night. It was incredible. he got these white truffles from Alba. -- mail I've Jason Calacanis (01:26:04): had in a year. David Friedberg (01:26:04): I mean, it was really incredible. I really appreciate it. It was amazing. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:07): And 2000 like, it was a 1996 White Burgundy Leroy and David Friedberg (01:26:12): the laundry detergent. -- 9. Yeah. Never mind. I've got Jason Calacanis (01:26:15): a wine drink. Speaker 1 (01:26:16): Now we -- Jason Calacanis (01:26:16): I'm not saying that your guy, your chef, beat Sakses from 2 weeks ago, David Friedberg (01:26:22): Sachs wasn't Saks's chef your old chef tomorrow? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:27): He I think one of his my wife. David lives in a stratosphere of bird. He lives in a stratosphere of bird that's just at a different he's next level. David Sacks (01:26:37): Tomorrow. Are you are you eating my sloppy seconds? Speaker 1 (01:26:40): What's going on over there? No. No. David Friedberg (01:26:41): I think I gotta beat that one out. Speaker 1 (01:26:43): I don't know what Jason Calacanis (01:26:43): that term means. What you think it means anymore, Saks. Speaker 1 (01:26:46): by the David Friedberg (01:26:46): way, there was a there was there was a dinner there was a dinner conversation last night, Zack, to your point. Jamat, it's up to you to decide if you wanna disclose the dinner conversation, guess. But this guy said that there was a a guy that applied a y combinator that had $750,000,000 in crypto. And so he's, like, applying to Y Combinator with his 700 50 guy. for a 150 k to give up some percent of his company -- 70. -- like, all these stories of these guys are like, I will pre fund my own series a with Speaker 1 (01:27:16): $15,000,000. David Friedberg (01:27:18): to create this business inside of the YC machine that there Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:20): was -- -- incredible. David Friedberg (01:27:21): There's such an incredible, like, inexplicable inexplicable undescribed, I think, in the in the mainstream media story of crypto wealth creation that's been going on. And these crypto, yeah, these crypto 100 millionaires, billionaires, billionaires are emerging and doing their own kind of innovation completely under the radar right now. Speaker 1 (01:27:40): The Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:40): smartest people that we know are selling right now. Jason Calacanis (01:27:47): Yeah. And I think they changed their conversions for the YC safe. They're now getting preferred shares that used to do common and they now I think it happens post conversion. So they want their 7% fixed, you know, after your next round of funding is my understanding. I don't know if that's But yeah. So they got it more aggressive. But -- That's brutal. Speaker 1 (01:28:09): It's a Jason Calacanis (01:28:09): you know what's happening is, like, the accelerators have to move earlier back to incubators. So The idea of somebody, you know, grin or some of the other companies we funded coming to the accelerator with 20,000 in or 50000 in revenue in some case they may be able to raise money without and certain the crypto companies are raising $25,000,000. They're outpacing regular companies, regular startups, non crypto startups, and they raise it in 10 seconds from a bunch of ETH for buying tokens. They've created a whole shadow economy. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:28:38): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:28:38): That doesn't have to play by any of the -- Yeah. David Friedberg (01:28:41): Do you really need Venture anymore? Like Speaker 1 (01:28:43): -- Jason Calacanis (01:28:43): Well, if you wanna obey the law, I guess you do. But in a lot of these cases, like, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:28:48): I did this -- I Jason Calacanis (01:28:49): don't know. David Friedberg (01:28:50): This whole new economy could emerge completely offline. Right? Completely off the the current Speaker 1 (01:28:54): -- Jason Calacanis (01:28:55): The FCC. Gensler, do wanna get this thing tightened up. They don't want people doing this. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:00): I'm not surprised. Speaker 1 (01:29:00): 20 Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:01): I think it was 2015. I presented Amazon at Irosone. And one of the things that I did was we calculated what Bezos's investment track record was. Right? Because he basically took all his free cash flow and reinvested it in the business, and you could measure what his return on invested capital was, and it was, like, 42% and on a really big number on tens of billions of Speaker 1 (01:29:22): -- -- Jason Calacanis (01:29:22): IRR on the money Amazon deployed in r and d projects like the Kendall or AWS. 40 42% over, like, a multi decade period. And double what a venture firm would do or top Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:32): That that's funny. He he's in a class by itself, but my takeaway in that moment was, wow. This is the you know, smartest investor of our generation. That's what I said at Basel's at the time. And, you know, Bezos had a track record of selling roughly a $1,000,000,000 of Amazon stock every year. And this year, he, you know, snaps sold Speaker 1 (01:29:52): 6,600,000,000. Jason Calacanis (01:29:54): which, you know, when we talk about the percentage you're selling, we're talking about selling 5%, 10%. So, you know, they're not diluting their whole positions, but these are big numbers. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:02): You're right? I think it's a signal. Jason Calacanis (01:30:03): Jake, are you gonna close this out? Alright, everybody. It's been another amazing episode, episode 55 of the all in podcast from Yeah. Whatever. Where you know, where people are coming from. The all in summit will be in the spring at some point. I'm gonna go to I mean, look at the location scenario. Speaker 1 (01:30:19): 11 Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:20): through 15th, I can't because I'm playing poker. Jason Calacanis (01:30:22): Yes. Okay. You got your poker chair. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:24): That's fine. -- the location Jason Calacanis (01:30:25): by any time. I can go listen. Is there any way -- Big big boy poker. Big boy poker. Speaker 1 (01:30:30): -- Jason Calacanis (01:30:30): have a funny guy there. I mean, I'm not a great dealer, but can I be a waiter or something? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:33): I think the game to 2004,000, but it could get a little spicier. Jason Calacanis (01:30:37): Free spicy. So -- That's a good year. David Friedberg (01:30:40): Maybe you should go. Jason Calacanis (01:30:41): Yeah. Maybe you should have Solana Play. because get the Solana chips Speaker 1 (01:30:44): in play. -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:44): play. David exact. Jason Calacanis (01:30:45): I just had a David. It's a very David Friedberg (01:30:47): long -- Wait. That'd be Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:48): great. -- you do. You David Sacks (01:30:50): chip off Speaker 1 (01:30:50): 10,000,000 Jason Calacanis (01:30:51): in Solana. You put it in LLC, and then you buy into the game and then -- That may not Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:55): be enough. That may not be enough. Alright. 20. Whatever. 20 is enough. Jason Calacanis (01:30:59): for the Queen of Kinois, the dictator, and rain man, David Sacks. I'm Jake Howell. We'll see you next time when you all in pot sip drive to the channel. We'll let your winners ride. Rainman, David Saxon. Speaker 6 (01:31:16): We open source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy lately. David Sacks (01:31:25): besties are gone. That is Jason Calacanis (01:31:26): my dog thinking, and Speaker 1 (01:31:28): I was Jason Calacanis (01:31:33): driveway. We should all just get a room and out one big huge ordeal because they're obviously useless. It's like this, like, sexual friendship that we just need Chamath Palihapitiya (01:31:45): to release somehow. What? You're the big bee. What? David Sacks (01:31:50): Dear feet. Sweety. Jason Calacanis (01:31:52): Sweety. Sweety to get murdered? Becky's army back.