宪法 DAO、里滕豪斯案报道，以及私营部门与政府的效率之争

Speaker 1 (00:00:00): It was very interesting going to Saks's kid's birthday party. Friedberg and I were there for about 2 or 3 hours. Saks showed up for the last half hour. David Friedberg (00:00:10): I think I was there for Jason Calacanis (00:00:11): I I David Friedberg (00:00:11): think I was there for 2 hours and didn't see Saxx. I know it's all on my way out the door. Jason Calacanis (00:00:14): But he had some YouTubers there who were pretty cool. David Sacks (00:00:16): Yeah. Papa Jake and Logan. Thank you. Jason Calacanis (00:00:18): Papa Jake was great. David Sacks (00:00:19): Yeah. You know, they have 7,000,000 followers on YouTube. Eat your heart out, Jake. How many times bigger are is Papa Jake than you? Jason Calacanis (00:00:27): business and podcasting on YouTube is a new concept, long form, and long form is not what the algorithm is designed for. It's obviously designed for short form and people getting to completion. So getting to completion on a 90 minute video. Are we Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:42): talking about lovemaking again? Sorry. What god? Jason Calacanis (00:00:45): Jesus. When I say completion, I it's not there's we need an HR department at all end. David Sacks (00:00:50): Yeah. I prefer the short form format for that too. Jason Calacanis (00:00:55): Oh my god. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:56): Things are Speaker 6 (00:00:56): called up and folks. Well, when it's wide. Jason Calacanis (00:01:02): Rainman, David Sachs. Speaker 6 (00:01:02): And it said -- We open Jason Calacanis (00:01:14): everybody. Welcome to another episode of the All in podcast. It's episode 56. We've made it past 55. The show, the band is still together. coming to you every Friday night far too late because the rainman obsesses over every edit in the podcast with us again. the all in Scorsese himself, David Rainman Sachs and the Queen of Kinois, the Sultan of Science David Friedberg is here. and with a power sweater that cost more Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:47): Turtle neck. Turtle neck. Jason Calacanis (00:01:48): Turtle neck. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:48): Turtle neck. I'm sorry. Jason Calacanis (00:01:48): I I I power turtle neck that cost more than your mortgage payment this month, the dictator himself Chamath Palihapitiya. I'm Jay Cal. It was a pretty incredible week. I think we have to pander to the cryptocurrency crowd because that's just making ratings go through the roof here. I am absolutely inspired by what we saw this week. with the constitution Dow forming in about a week and going from 1 or 2000000 to $46,000,000 raised through a DAO if you don't know what these decentralized autonomous organizations are, it's basically analogous to a corporate structure, but that's written in code so you can get a group of people together, typically in a Discord, then you create a smart contract, They collect in a wallet a bunch of ETH or it's typically ETH right now. And then you get some kind of governance written into the Dow where people get voting power. They brought this together to bid on 1 of 13 copies of the original constitution of the United States and it was a very controversial moment last night. When 80 percent of the money was raised in the last Speaker 1 (00:02:59): 48 Jason Calacanis (00:02:59): hours and there was a crazy auction going back and forth with 2 representatives of Sotheby's on the phone. It hit $41,000,000 everybody thought that the Dow had won, which would have mean would have meant that almost Speaker 1 (00:03:16): 20,000 Jason Calacanis (00:03:17): people who participated in this would then vote on what to do with the $41,000,000 offer. CoinDesk incorrectly reported that the DAO won and then the DAO announced that they had in fact not some other statistics. Their Twitter has 36,000 followers. The group reported they needed 14,000,000 to participate 30,000,000 to be competitive and 40,000,000 to have a great chance of winning. They raised, like, I think, 6 or 7,000,000 while they were on the air, you know, and the auction had started And the only downside to all of this is that there were huge gas fees. People were spending 30, 40, 50 bucks to donate 200. Which was the average size of these? David Sacks (00:04:00): Yeah. They should have done it on Solana. Jason Calacanis (00:04:02): Alright. So here we go. Okay. Pocking their own buck again. Now we got somebody's gonna clip this out in the salon. Speaker 7 (00:04:07): There's a lot David Friedberg (00:04:08): of hooks are done. Jason Calacanis (00:04:09): Here we Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:09): go. Shamal, what are David Friedberg (00:04:10): you gonna do with your copy of the constitution? You know what's so funny? I I what are you what are you gonna auction it back to the -- When Jason Calacanis (00:04:15): are you gonna burn it and make an NFT out of it? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:18): So it's it's funny. I did buy something at these auctions. David Friedberg (00:04:24): Yesterday's? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:25): Quite unique. I will I will not comment on what it was. Jason Calacanis (00:04:28): But what's it that turtle neck? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:30): No. But -- Banksy. Jason Calacanis (00:04:32): Oh. Oh. No. No. I I -- No. No. No. No. But Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:37): I I did so but I I watched these auctions closely, I guess, is what I'm trying to say in. I was surprised that the US constitution foresold so little. you know, for a a basically like the Magna Carta of the best startup that's ever been created. David Sacks (00:04:51): Well, but there's 13 of them. Right? So on a market cap basis, on a market cap basis, you got multiplied by Speaker 1 (00:04:56): 13. David Friedberg (00:04:57): Yeah. Great. 13 times forty is still on the originals. It was the printing after the original was signed. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:02): We have a 20 we've created a Speaker 1 (00:05:03): $22,000,000,000,000 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:05): a year start up that keeps compounding by 4 to 5 percent a year. I would have thought these things would be worth, you know, a couple 100,000,000 each. David Sacks (00:05:12): Well, there's a lot of there's a lot of US memorabilia. But yeah. I mean but what I don't understand It Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:16): means the US constitution, David, is not as it's not worth as much as it used That's David Sacks (00:05:20): what Well, you know, you got all this you got you got the deadpool races. original David Friedberg (00:05:24): episode. Yeah. There's a David Sacks (00:05:24): lot of documents. You got the dead tissue independence. You got, you know, the Gettysburg address. There's David Friedberg (00:05:30): dime a dozen. The tea party minimum. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:32): I actually think citizens united. Technically, guys. The citizens united, if it was written not one time, in one document by the Supreme Court, that would be worth much more than 40,000,000 because it's basically invalidated. Most of the constitution Well, Jason Calacanis (00:05:46): here's one of the seeing things that happened here. No. David wait. David acknowledged that of what I just said is true. David Sacks (00:05:52): I don't even understand what you just said, but Speaker 1 (00:05:54): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:54): I just said if you had printed the Citizens United verdict from the Supreme Court on a piece of paper, that would be worth more David Friedberg (00:06:00): than $40,000,000. It was it was like democracy 2.0 is what you're saying. David Sacks (00:06:03): I don't understand why people are getting so swept up in this thing. It's kinda my point. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:06): Me neither. Jason Calacanis (00:06:07): Me neither. That's the whole thing. What you guys are missing is this is a critical moment in the history of cryptocurrency is because the first three major use cases of cryptocurrency were kind of you had money transfer, which is not as good as PayPal or Venmo or many other solutions Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:23): out, Jason. David Friedberg (00:06:24): I think what's -- -- had store Jason Calacanis (00:06:25): of value. Hold on. Let me finish. Store of value, which is like, who cares? This plan weights is for a value. And then NFT has got interesting, but these DAOs are absolutely game changing. The ability to have Speaker 1 (00:06:36): $47,000,000 David Friedberg (00:06:38): show up and Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:38): be prepared to be deployed in Speaker 1 (00:06:38): 48 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:41): hours. It's damaging. What are you saying? Speaker 1 (00:06:43): -- David Sacks (00:06:44): ICO. You ever hear an ICO? Speaker 1 (00:06:45): -- Jason Calacanis (00:06:45): were illegal, and they've been banned. And people are being Speaker 1 (00:06:47): -- David Sacks (00:06:47): How is down any different? I mean, Jason Calacanis (00:06:49): Because DAOs have governance. DAOs have governance, and it's a programmable governance. It's a programmable corporate entity. It is huge. David Friedberg (00:06:57): These things if these things transfer ownership interest, they will be regulated like securities. Jason Calacanis (00:07:01): Of course, they are. That is a very important point. David Friedberg (00:07:03): And in this particular model, the idea was it would all be kind of part of a nonprofit, and it would not be kind of There were donations in fact. Yes. But there were donations. And so as soon as these dials, which they should, and it's an incredibly powerful tool. If it does actually become a security instrument, then it changes everything. Jason Calacanis (00:07:19): And -- And it is gonna be that Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:21): My my little thing is, like, David Friedberg (00:07:23): it's what we'll do. -- outside the US first. Right? And then it'll be crypto ex US crypto investments that are gonna drive this, and that's why the US is gonna be left behind. Jason Calacanis (00:07:31): Here's what you're missing. These DAOs are pushing the envelope in the same way Airbnb and Uber did in terms of, you know, bending the rules about Friedberg sharing or renting your extra room, these DAOs are kinda breaking securities laws. They were telling people we're buying the constitution, people who donated Thought they were buying part of it. We're not we're not gonna see the point. So okay. But here's the thing. If they bend the rules like this, what they showed to the SEC is that there is a huge appetite for people to quickly form groups of capital at low dollar amounts to do something important or interesting in the world and Americans now have a taste of that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:08): They're gonna continue Jason Calacanis (00:08:08): to have a taste of it, and I think it's David Friedberg (00:08:10): gonna -- I can't afford -- -- getting it. Speaker 1 (00:08:11): -- Jason Calacanis (00:08:11): the accreditation loss to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:13): I disagree. I think that what it showed is that this is yet another explanation of fractionalized ownership. That demand existed well before DAOs. David Friedberg (00:08:24): Totally. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:24): It's it exists today. It'll exist tomorrow. A DAO was just yet another on ramp But much like most fractional ownerships are terrible financial trades for crappy assets, so was this. So said differently, if you're gonna spend the time to open a Robinhood or E Trade account, it still matters whether you buy a share of Lycos or a share of Google. Right. Okay? And so whether you do a DAO or whether you have an LLC, to me it's irrelevant. The underlying asset didn't make any sense. had zero chance in my opinion of any meaningful appreciation. And so if you really wanna make something work and if you wanna prove the DAO, then I would have hoped that they would have actually asked a few smart people. Hey, guys. People who buy art, people who know crypto. What are some assets that I should own? Because if this thing does appreciate Speaker 1 (00:09:14): -- David Sacks (00:09:14): I wonder Speaker 1 (00:09:14): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:14): You'll do more to prove the questions that Jason Calacanis (00:09:16): you just asked them out on the so, obviously, the value is greater than what they now thought it was. Jason, you don't see why in a credited investor. This is nonaccredited investors who are doing this. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:26): I know. And that that unsophistication was clear. The stupidest thing you can do if you enter an auction, okay, is to declare how you're gonna be an underbitter. So like it's basically saying, hey, guys, you know, here's my top tick And I'm willing to be and I can and so now you force these guys to be the underbitter at a dollar over their -- Okay. That's fine. Jason Calacanis (00:09:45): That that's a mechanical issue. Sachs, what do David Sacks (00:09:47): you mean? Well, I wonder Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:49): if the reason Speaker 6 (00:09:50): I I David Sacks (00:09:50): wonder if the reason why they chose this particular type of asset is because it's collectible and therefore, so explicit from the securities laws. So, basically, you know, the maybe maybe they're limited in terms of what they can go after because they don't wanna be a security. But until but but but if that's the case, then it does limit, I think, the applicability of DAOs. Right? Because what you want is is to create corporations that are programmable that you can have shareholder codes through the tokens Speaker 1 (00:10:18): -- David Sacks (00:10:18): Yes. -- things like that. You know, basically a digital version of what they do analog in the real world with you know Speaker 1 (00:10:24): -- David Friedberg (00:10:24): Share certificates. Speaker 1 (00:10:25): -- David Sacks (00:10:25): shareholder meetings and stuff like that that nobody ever attends. Yeah. That nobody nobody ever attends these showroom meetings. And, you know, I get these notices of votes that are to be held. Nobody ever fills yeah. because no one fills that stuff out. Jason Calacanis (00:10:36): Right. And people have super share super voting, and so you feel like you have no say. But in this case, you do have a say. And they're gonna do assets like imagine somebody had 10000 acres of rainforest or a national potential national park. And all of a sudden, you pop up a DAO. And if the SEC says, you know what? $500 or less, you can bet your money however you want. Hold on. Let me finish. and they take that Speaker 1 (00:11:00): $500, Jason Calacanis (00:11:01): and you get a million people to put $500 in, which is completely conceivable. Somebody could buy $500,000,000 worth of National Forest and say, I'm gonna make this into a public trust to protect the environment. This is an -- And that Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:14): but that's ICO's Speaker 1 (00:11:15): -- -- Jason Calacanis (00:11:15): changing the world. Speaker 1 (00:11:16): -- David Sacks (00:11:16): ICO's. You could have done Jason Calacanis (00:11:17): these exact same things before. Speaker 1 (00:11:17): -- Jason Calacanis (00:11:18): had no governance. they had no governance. That was missing. What was what you're saying? -- benefit hold on. ICOs were for the benefit of the scumbags who did those griffs and ran away with the money. This is an organization with a predetermined governance structure. This is like creating a new country or a new format for an LLC. That's what you're missing. David Friedberg (00:11:36): Okay. Are you done? Yes. What you're missing, you're painting the optimistic scenario of what these things could do, and you are correct. But what's always happened in the history of humanity is these scenarios have resolved to people figuring out ways to scam other people to make money. Sure. Sure. Speaker 1 (00:11:55): -- David Friedberg (00:11:55): while this one looks altruistic, just like Miguel. Let me finish with that interrupting. Thank you. But just like you know, this looks like a great altruistic action. We're gonna go out and buy the USS Constitution, US constitution. The next deal, will end up being some shitty art piece that's worth a $100 as Shamal points out. They'll buy it for 10,000,000. Everyone will lose their ass. And the next five 100 will look the same, and that's why we have securities regulators and securities laws. Because in the past, when these sorts of structures that that weren't digitally governed and all this sort of stuff, and people would go around and they would put together pools of money from other people and promise them the world, and then they would turn around and steal their money and walk away. we created securities regulators that could oversee and not have independent governance but have distributed governance across a regulatory system to make sure that this doesn't happen. And that's the slippery slope of where this goes. I'll say one more thing about the structure of this particular dow, which I know can be resolved, but it creates a problem in that everyone is betting or investing a fixed dollar amount without knowing how much equity they're getting. And so when you say, hey. I'm gonna put in $500, and there's currently $10,000,000 or let's say there's $10,000 in this thing -- Sure. Speaker 1 (00:13:03): -- David Friedberg (00:13:03): it's like, hey. Okay. I've got 5% ownership in this thing. If the next guy shows up and puts in $10,000, you now have 2 and a half percent ownership in this thing, and you've inflated the value of the thing you're buying. And that's effectively what happened in the or this particular Dow, where the more money people put in, the more they were paying and the less they were owning, and you couldn't adjust that. the correct structure in the future for people that do care about equity and ownership will be I wanna buy 1%, and I'm willing to pay a max of $500 to buy that Speaker 1 (00:13:30): 1%. David Friedberg (00:13:31): And with that rule engine, which I know can be built into DAOs, people can then structure what they're willing to bid and how much they're willing to participate in, and the DAO as a whole can resolve what it's willing to pay to go buy an asset, and everyone can feel like they know what they're getting as they get into these things. And then the third problem with this particular DAO as we saw, and I know it's kind of the first big one like this was the obvious point that these guys were showing the world how much they were about to go bid on this asset. And if you take Speaker 1 (00:13:53): $46,000,000 David Friedberg (00:13:55): and you divide hit by 1.13 or which, you know, remember there's a 13% buyer's premium on this asset. They showed everyone what they're gonna pay, and, of course, they lost at a dollar over -- They Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:04): were the they were the underbidder. I'll say something else. The only fractionalized asset that has ever been proven to appreciate reliably are stocks. every other fractionalized asset where you take something and then you divvy it up generally has been a trash burger. You need to either own the whole thing yourself or if you're gonna own it with a bunch of other people, the only thing that's reliable are equities. Now that's just a historical artifact for how money has been made. So I appreciate, Jason, what you're saying, which is I think actually you care about the structure because I think it has huge implications to people pursuing wealth creation for themselves -- Yes. Speaker 1 (00:14:45): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:45): for people participating in private markets. But I do think that you're overblowing this one example because I don't think this showed any of that. I think that this showed how unreliable and and useless Ethereum is as a transactional layer for these things. You know, the fact that these poor people now have money stuck in a dial that they can't get out of because it would the gas fees would negate their contribution. So that didn't -- These are Jason Calacanis (00:15:10): all the bumps in the road. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:11): One second, please. You gotta hold on. It didn't prove governance because as David said, we had this inflationary outcome where all of a sudden I didn't know the equity that I owned. The transparency worked against them because you're bidding on an asset where you were clear about the threshold max price you could pay so you had no pricing power and you had no opacity in in your bidding strategy. So so I I think that this was a p r lark. And in fact, they said it started out as a joke and it took on ahead of steam and so I think they felt like they had to execute. What I would say is there are going to be some really amazing examples of DAOs this prove none of those things that the that the amazing ones will prove in my opinion. David Friedberg (00:15:52): And this will invite regulatory scrutiny faster than it will keep it away. Right? You will see you know, more of these scenarios where people get screwed out of money like they did in this particular case. And I know a lot of everyone that participated in this doubt, I know that there's altruistic reasons. Who do Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:06): they sue? Who do they sue? The people who do they sue? Who do they go after now that they lost the $200 that they contributed? David Friedberg (00:16:12): Yeah. The I mean, there's there's there's no structure, and I think that's part of the regulatory You know? How how do they Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:17): get the money back? Jason Calacanis (00:16:19): I can respond. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:20): Who's the person that's who's the person that like, you know what? Honestly, if Jason Calacanis (00:16:23): that dog -- So show Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:25): if that Dow had called me, I could have actually bid for them and actually won that fucking thing for half the price. You know what I mean? SaaS, you Jason Calacanis (00:16:33): got anything? You wanna chime in? David Sacks (00:16:37): No. I mean, well, I don't know. Jason Calacanis (00:16:38): I would like to give a closing argument. David Sacks (00:16:39): Why why don't you go for it to you? Jason Calacanis (00:16:41): Alright. Number 1, you're all speaking like a bunch of rich accredited investors. We need to think about people who do not get to participate And what I see in my day job is people go to an equity crowdfunding site. It's too arduous to allow nonaccredited investors to invest. It takes months, and it's tons of paperwork. So then what happens is the best deal flow, which goes to the people who are on this podcast, who are already rich, we get to sweep up all the best deals. because people who are founders and who have opportunities in corporations do not bother doing Equity Crowdfunding because the SEC in their wisdom to try to protect people and they have good intent to your point, Friedberg, has made it so arduous and painful for people that they then don't do it, the founders I'm talking about. This then keeps people down. And when we were all poor, we got to spend our money gambling, or doing whatever we want with it, but we all would have wanted to have when we were nonaccredited the ability to place a bet on a start up. and y'all are forgetting that and what's gonna happen here. Or what you're saying all of what you're saying, Shamak, in terms of the problems here are absolutely accurate and valid. And those are what you need. You need to identify through projects like this, the gas fees are a problem so people can move this to Solana. You need to find out that they don't know how to do bidding, and maybe they shouldn't say how much has been raised so that they can come in and bid more intelligently. And maybe they do need to pick a better target. But this is $200 per person. They're you guys are acting like these people are gonna lose their shots. David Friedberg (00:18:09): We agree with you. I agree with you. Jason Calacanis (00:18:11): I agree with me. David Friedberg (00:18:12): I agree a 1000%. I'm a free market scot. I would love for there to be no regulation, and everyone will come in. And the problem is society won't let happened, and that's the point I'm trying to make. It's not Jason Calacanis (00:18:21): the same opinion. Have other societies do it. If you're in the UK, if you're in Australia, you can go gamble, and you can go bet on startups. There are different accreditation laws. We have antiquated ones that you get to allow. David Friedberg (00:18:32): The United States regulatory regime will be invoked because people will lose money, and individuals will raise their hand and say, I put money into a DAO that I lost my ass on, and enough thousands of people do that And then Elizabeth Warren and AOC will get on their you know, their son of Orson, they'll say, let's let's fix this problem. Bernie Sanders will say this is unfair. The billionaires are taking the money from people. And so I agree with you. We should let people take risks. We should let people lose money. We should drop all the regulatory burden. My point is really that I think structurally what's gonna happen is there are gonna be more of these things that are gonna show up that will rip people off, and that will heighten regulatory interest and people will come along and they'll start to clamp down on this stuff. And that's that's my point. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:12): Okay. I also think this example has nothing to do with what you're talking about. I think what you're talking about JCal is laudable And we should all want that because I think that the broader number of people that get to participate in the wealth creation in tech, the better. But there are different ways of doing that. I don't think we have to run full force and embrace the DAO as the only way that that happens. And I think that structurally the the the democratic norms inside of a DAO in many ways make it much harder to govern inside a regulatory framework and it does set up a very binary decision by the SEC and US regulators which unfortunately they're not going to go and be supportive of because the binary decision to support them would effectively negate their oversight. David Friedberg (00:19:58): That's right. Yeah. They got jobs to keep too. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:01): They have jobs to keep and Jason Calacanis (00:20:03): why you Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:03): just gotta pay. Jason Calacanis (00:20:04): I think it's a cynical and accurate prediction that they will fight it. But what you may not be aware of is that there is in the start up act from years ago, they did allow Equity crowdfunding. They put a lot of throttling it. And now they're going to let you get accredited through taking a course or, like, kind of having a driver's license or a gun permit. So it is conceivable that the next time a Dow happens and they're trying to buy and Speaker 1 (00:20:27): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:27): Can you, like, can you stop conflating these things together? You can either we've had iterations in the crowdfunding rules you're just trying to tag this with a DAO. Can you just separate it? Can wait. Hold on a second. Can I just ask you a question? Can you please just describe and acknowledge that the crowdfunding rules had iteratively evolved in the absence of jazz. Jason Calacanis (00:20:47): Yes. Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:48): So just separate the Speaker 1 (00:20:49): 2. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:49): They're not the same thing. Jason Calacanis (00:20:51): they are two sides of the same coin because the DAOs allow a global participation in this, and the capital can be formed instantly. This was done in days that's what's so powerful about it. It it cost tens of 1000 to 100,000 to do an equity crowdfunding. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:06): This cost nothing because it was for a an an ethereal superficial asset with a name that people recognize. Let me hold on a second. Now let me replace the US constitution with I don't know, Jason. You just sent a deal a day ago. What was the name of it? Let's just call it acme.com. Sure. Now what are people supposed to do? It's not a known asset. They are not known founders. There may be turbulent issues inside the company that are still being hammered out, what are these people supposed to do? How are they intelligent? Place a small bet. Jason Calacanis (00:21:39): Place a small bet. Do some research. Vote on it. Do collective research in it Discord. you're looking you have a bunch of researchers working for you. You defended the Chiyami. You have a team. Your team does research and their smart people, and they get paid very well. You were praising the coverage that Wall Street Betts did on GME on this podcast 40 episodes ago. You were saying how incredible the research was Chamath Palihapitiya (00:22:03): because they were analyzing public companies who were governed by securities law. Speaker 6 (00:22:07): They can't Jason Calacanis (00:22:08): do that with a private company? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:22:10): Yes. Because there are no rules that govern disclosure. GameStop had very strict disclosure rules because they were public. That was what allowed Wall Street Bets to understand what was going on under the hood of GameStop. It was the disclosure of the funds that the SCCs force you to make that allowed people to understand the long and the short book that was building against it. If if that was in the private markets, that data is not obligated to be provided in the in the wild, Wall Street bets would have had no idea. So I I think you're actually proving the opposite of what you intend, which is It's the regulatory framework that allowed the retail GME position to happen. Jason Calacanis (00:22:49): Go ahead, David. And then -- Yeah. David Sacks (00:22:51): Can I translate with Jay Hall is saying I think what Jake Howell is saying is that we need to create some space here for innovation so that entrepreneurs can work out the kinks of these DAOs so that one day, Jay Cal can run a syndicate on a blockchain and fundraise that way. Isn't that what you're saying, Jay Cal? Jason Calacanis (00:23:07): Or anybody. I mean, here's what I'll say. You know, when we do a syndicate amongst accredited investors -- -- your David Sacks (00:23:11): book here in a weird way. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:12): No. No. But but I understand this way. Speaker 1 (00:23:14): -- Jason Calacanis (00:23:14): mention the syndicate I didn't mention the syndicate dot com once except for Speaker 6 (00:23:17): the sign. Speaker 1 (00:23:17): -- David Sacks (00:23:17): as competitors. to to your syndicates, but now you're all on the Deltrain. Jason Calacanis (00:23:22): ICOs, I I thought were too big I think you could solve this problem by looking at the bet size that people are allowed to make. So you can just say, hey. The upper limit is 5k. So now you've basically taken the individual cratering Well, because if you wanted to create a regulatory environment well, because it it would get rid of the restaurants. So you create a de minimis exception. So that's David Sacks (00:23:40): so that David Friedberg (00:23:43): first be a 100% of someone's worth and 1% of another's. Jason Calacanis (00:23:47): Okay. So make it a percent of net worth. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:49): No. The first think principle portfolio construction is you need to be concentrated in the things you know and you need to stay away from the things you don't. If you cap the upside on the amount you can invest What are people supposed to do? Peanut butter around 50 bets. And you know what'll happen, Jason? Most of those will be losers because the mortality rate in startups is super high. and they'll end up with basically nothing. Jason Calacanis (00:24:08): How do they do in Vegas? How do they do betting scores? Speaker 1 (00:24:11): -- David Sacks (00:24:11): about how to invest. I mean, I think what we're saying is that is that I mean, this is where I actually agree, is that the regulators should carve out enough room so that innovation could continue around this concept of DAOs because Who knows what they could become one day? And we shouldn't we shouldn't kill this thing Speaker 1 (00:24:27): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:27): Hold on. We we we we haven't killed anything because nothing exists, and there are no rules about the regulators haven't said anything. I think we all agree that crowdfunding rules should get much more expansive. That makes sense. And with that, private companies should disclose more. That makes sense. Right? We all agree with that so that you can have more disclosure and public available data. So Jason, to your point, communities can get into a scored like today, if you said, hey, guys. Let's go and analyze a late stage investment in Stripe. What do you do? Blather on about it and just talk at each other. Jason Calacanis (00:24:59): Peripheral stage. There are no disclosures. No. Hold on. Start answer Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:02): this question. So now -- Yeah. So now are you supposed to are you supposed to enter Carta or some other third party platform and buy it at a 120,000,000,000. How do you underwrite that? Jason Calacanis (00:25:11): Very simple. Very simple. In the startup DAO concept we're talking about here, would do exactly what Angel investors do, which is say, hey, okay, we had let's say this constitution now was to invest in start ups. Okay. 20,000 people put 200 in each. We have a $40,000,000 pool. Okay. We're all going to submit ideas, and then we're gonna ask and invite those founders to come pitch the Dow on a Zoom, and we'll all vote on which ones we like best. And instead of, you know, a venture capital firm getting access to this, now those 20,000 people could say, you know what? We're gonna make 20, half $1,000,000 bets, and then we're gonna pour the 30,000,000 into the winners of that. And that is just what I do for a living or any other angel investor or early stage investor does. You invite come and pitch you and you place an intelligent bet just like people bet on the nicks or sadly on the jets and lose their money all the time. And it I like David's idea of saying, hey. Maybe for the next 2 years, we'll have a DAO exception where you can raise, you know, from a 1000 up to 5000 people up to $10,000,000. and you just have to file that you're not a felon. And we have some basic framework to experiment with this because you could buy a building that was gonna be torn down like some movie theater for a community. You could do nonprofit stuff. There's all kinds of beautiful things you could do with this instant capital formation and government structure that is programmable. Okay. Well, you look here. -- relate to capital formation in the startup ecosystem. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:33): Here's what I'll say. You made a great point about Uber And Lyft pushing the boundaries and forcing the regulators to react. Yes. You know why that happened? It's because Uber And Lyft worked Yes. And it was successful. And this thing -- -- value. Speaker 1 (00:26:48): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:49): was not successful. And so maybe if it is, There's an on ramp, but I would say that the energy is better served in not focusing on a p r lark, and probably just focusing on trying to improve the crowdfunding laws writ large, which are already on the books and can be iterated upon versus an entire new body of regulation where nobody even has any idea what a starting point should be. David Sacks (00:27:13): I think it's we I think it'd be very hard to get get those crowdfunding laws expanded and with the under the current regime. It's sort of a minor miracle that they even got what they got several years ago. Right? Wasn't that but where Jason Calacanis (00:27:23): Well, happened under Obama when -- With the Jobs Act? -- 2008 yes. The Jobs Act, because in 2008 when the market crash, we said nobody's starting companies, we're screwed here. We need to get the economy going again. So we're just gonna allow more capital formation. And so the 99 rule for LLCs went to 250. It may just kind of loosen things a little bit. And now they're the mandate is the SEC has to have a certification test. for people to do private market investing. And also people who work at VC Firms. Right? We have people who work for us who are not accredited. They don't get to participate, but they get an exception if they work at a venture firm, etcetera. So it's just kinda all -- It's David Sacks (00:28:00): probably simultaneously true that this thing was massively overhyped while also being the case that it's a worthwhile experiment that may lead to, you know, useful innovation in the future. Jason Calacanis (00:28:13): What what I always look I see new technologies doing something is. I just imagine if a 10 x and what that would look like and if it worked. And then I just 10 x it one more time. what we're gonna see I predict is this $40,000,000 DAO will turn into a 400,000,001 in the next 2 years and then a 4,000,000,000 in the next ten. people are gonna do something extraordinary. They're gonna do something so otherworldly changing. What if a million people or ten million people around the globe decided they were gonna put money in to do a solar farm or something that would help society. David Friedberg (00:28:43): Can already do that, Jake? I mean, that's, like like, a manager can Speaker 1 (00:28:46): -- Jason Calacanis (00:28:47): Friction -- -- got David Friedberg (00:28:47): a someone's gotta manage it. David Sacks (00:28:49): Jake, I was fantasizing about how big it's gonna Jason Calacanis (00:28:52): Yeah. It is -- My syndicate my syndicate is too my syndicate is too large right now. I can't accommodate everybody. So and it's also because the lock David Friedberg (00:28:59): can get bigger. You could -- Right? Jason Calacanis (00:29:00): Well, no. The problem is you only have 250 people in it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:03): That's the problem. We've counted this down to death. Yeah. David Sacks (00:29:05): Come on. Jason Calacanis (00:29:06): Yeah. We beat it to death. Okay. Anyway, I'm obsessed with it. Clearly. Fentanyl debts in the US are reaching a crisis this point up. Federal deaths. David Friedberg (00:29:12): Is that really what we're talking about? I mean, we talked about Jason Calacanis (00:29:15): it in the Chamath. David Sacks (00:29:16): Are you literally trying to, like, avoid the biggest news today of the the biggest tranche. David Friedberg (00:29:20): That was just a that was Jason Calacanis (00:29:21): just a David Friedberg (00:29:21): I get it. We're gonna that's just a weird curve. I'm just going straight Jason Calacanis (00:29:24): down through the docket, but if you wanna jump the fence, Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:27): Well, I'm Jason Calacanis (00:29:27): not from David Sacks (00:29:27): him too, but Jason Calacanis (00:29:28): I -- -- not guilty of all charges. Speaker 1 (00:29:30): -- David Sacks (00:29:30): like, it happened within half an hour of us beginning to record David Friedberg (00:29:33): this us. David Sacks (00:29:33): I don't know how to I'm Jason Calacanis (00:29:34): trying to keep the Friedberg ratio up. We had a nice strong emotional moment from Freightberg. He obviously is gonna have something to say about fentanyl and science. But, okay, he's gonna walk off the show now to talk you start talking politics? I'm not David Friedberg (00:29:43): gonna I'm not gonna walk up the show. Jason Calacanis (00:29:45): You did last week. You walked off. You walked off. And when you got a beverage you left for, like, 5 minutes. I had to David Friedberg (00:29:49): go I had to go pee. Jason Calacanis (00:29:51): Alright. Fine. I mean, come on. -- to be during politics. Kyle Rittenhouse was found David Friedberg (00:29:54): out -- -- usually when I take my break. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:29:56): Exactly. Then then a third of the audience. Kyle written outbound, not guilty of all charges. A twelve person jury in the Kyle written out trial reached the decision after over 26 hours of deliberation. He shot 3 people, he killed 2 of them and he was found not guilty. He was seventeen at the time of the shooting, he was charged with killing 2 men and a third during the protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August of Speaker 1 (00:30:22): 2020. Jason Calacanis (00:30:24): This was during the protests over the police shooting of Jacob Blake. He claims he traveled from Illinois with an a r 15 style rifle to help protect businesses. and provide first aid. He he didn't. David Sacks (00:30:36): He did not cross state lines with the rifle. That's one of the many inaccuracies that have been reported by the media over and over again. Jason Calacanis (00:30:44): because his dad lived there, I guess. David Sacks (00:30:46): He was in His dad lived in Kenosha. I think he went to school in Kenosha. He in Kenosha. You gotta understand, like, this is they're a few minutes apart where from his mother's house and the guy and he never he never carried the gun across state lines. The gun was bought from by a friend who was 18, who could possess it, and it was kept at his house, which is in Kenosha. Jason Calacanis (00:31:05): Got it. David Sacks (00:31:05): He was apparently in Kenosha earlier that day, you know, cleaning up graffiti at the school and checking out the downtown. And then, you know, obviously, when he went out that night, then he got the gun, but he didn't transport it across state lines. So that would that's I think one of the multiple inaccuracies. Jason Calacanis (00:31:23): What is your most important insight into this case and what it represents for American society and the justice system? sex? David Sacks (00:31:32): Well, I think that the cases become a little bit of a rorschach test of how you see America. I mean, there's clearly a a a group of people in the I'd say the may dominated the mainstream media announced percolated down to celebrities and figures from LeBron James to to I'm I'm spacing, but there's a lot of, like, celebrities who've who've come out putting forward this view that America that this trial somehow is that that that Calibert now has a white supremacist in that. This not guilty verdict is an example of white supremacy in America. somehow that became the narrative. And so that I think it's become I I think there's, like, couple levels to it. One is the troll itself and what you think about the legal case. I don't think that is that complicated or interesting. You have here that the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. that Rittenhouse did not act reasonably in self defense when 3 violent attackers came charging towards him. that was, I think, a pretty tough case to make given that you saw -- -- gun poll too. Jason Calacanis (00:32:35): I mean, this was -- Right. David Sacks (00:32:35): And so all of them had long criminal histories. The first one who attacked him was daring him to what Taltz said that he was gonna kill Rittenhouse. The second one was bashing him over the head with a skateboard, the third one. was rushing towards him, when Rittenhouse was on the ground, had a gun trained on him, looked like he was gonna bring it to his head kind of execution style. I mean, all these, I think, cases, if you saw the video from, I mean, from the first time, it seemed pretty clear that he had a strong claim of self defense. So I don't think the case itself was that legally interesting. The question is why it got blown up into being this, like, huge thing. And it's really because the media wanted this so badly to be to feed into this narrative of somehow that this is you know, a white supremacist violent attacker who was a vigilante who crossed 8 lines with this AR 15 to go seek out trouble to confront people at the protest. And, you know, that case that that narrative just completely fell apart at the trial. you know, it it's he didn't cross state lines for you know, in that way. He didn't you know, with the gun, when he went to this protest, he went there. It's interesting. I mean, he was a cadet, and he Cadad. He was kind of in this, like, junior firefighter program. I'm not saying that he showed good judgment. I think it was poor judgment for him to try and insert himself into that situation. But I don't think he went there to kill anyone or to get into a confrontation. He bought a first aid kit for you know, for better or worse, he thought he was gonna help people. And so any event that the the story really is about the media constructing this narrative that fell apart so quickly as soon as all the facts came out. Jason Calacanis (00:34:21): Friedberg, Jamal? Yeah. I think Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:23): the I read that there was an analysis of the media and how they tried to portray this. And that I think I'll build on what David said, which is was really concerning, like, the there was they really wanted this to be a white kid who killed black people. during a BLM protest which was as it turned out the furthest from the truth. I'll just tell you my experience. When I first saw it, that's what I thought I had read. And I'll be really honest with you. Initially, I was incredibly biased and my I had a violent reaction inside me of anger towards this kid because my thought was my god this white kid showed up at a black lives matter rally and killed you know Speaker 1 (00:35:08): 3 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:09): of my brothers. You know, like, literally, that's how I'm feeling. I was so angry because they didn't really give the facts. There was an example where in Germany, it got so out of hand that the articles were written that Kyle Rittenhouse had actually killed 3 black men or 2 black men and and And I think that that's very dangerous because we need to have the truth and the fact so we can really figure out what's going on so that we can address what's broken. We can hold people accountable, and then we can move forward together and heal it. But this like is the opposite of healing. It just froths people up to make a lot of judgments with misinformation. And I think that that's very unfair. I didn't, to be honest with you, after I saw the facts, I stopped paying attention to this case because I literally exhaled. I would have been much more hurt and I would have probably paid more attention if this wasn't white on white violence quite honestly. David Sacks (00:36:10): Right. Right. And then then I think people I think we've heard from a lot of people over when written house's testimony kinda went viral and started getting reported on, there were a lot of people out there who were surprised to learn that all the victims were white. That this was an example of white on white violence because it had been portrayed by the media as some sort of racial episode. And and it wasn't. And it it shows how the media is fueling this polarization and rage in our society by concocting these narratives, which aren't true. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:41): It's really that that I think is the dangerous thing. I don't I didn't follow the case to know whether this kid was right or wrong. But I do think if the media uses these opportunities to not just tell the facts and then race baits people on both of the left and the right and gets them froth up. They're doing a real disservice to America because I think it takes good people and it puts them in a state like me for a while at the beginning where I'm I was really angry and I didn't know how I felt and that's and I'm a lucid person you know, 99.999 percent of the time. Jason Calacanis (00:37:16): So -- Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:17): And so it just goes to show you how dangerous this stuff is when they can take a narrative and run with it, and then there's no accountability for it. And we really have to stop and and check ourselves. It just speaks to this ongoing fact pattern where the media is is at a point where they are at a very much a low point in their trustworthiness. Their ability to fact check, their ability to stick to the truth, I think it's been undone. Just this past week, you know, I think Elon even tweeted out, like, you know, he in exasperation, he said, where can I find like, thoughtful news. Right? It was asking Twitter, like, what what websites and and the the the question wasn't that bad But if you read the answers, it was really sad. Nobody had a good answer. You know, one person was like, oh, there's a browser extension that will show you how, you know, how much lying is happening inside the article. And I thought to myself, my god. Like, there are browser extensions like a lyometer, you know, like this is insanity that that in Speaker 1 (00:38:20): 2021 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:21): that's what we are faced with which is very smart people, all of us. everybody listening, normal people just you know out on the street, we can all come to the right conclusion when given the facts and we're not given the facts anymore. David Sacks (00:38:35): Jacob, do you think we're missing something here? Because you you I know you you thought that the solve the rent house thing was crazy. Right? Which it was, but Are we missing some interview? Jason Calacanis (00:38:48): I think first off, violent protests and violence is immoral. And all of these protests, whether it's BLM on the left, on the right, they should all be nonviolent. There's a reason why Martin Luther King and Gandhi said, that's the rules. If you wanna come to the protest, you have to be nonviolent. And then I think the rhetoric that was created during the Trump era and that he exacerbated and that he caused from a lot of his policies in the way he spoke as the leader of the free world in our country, then polarized things. I blame him for a lot of that. And if you put a bunch of people who are on the far extremes into a situation like this. And then you insert guns and you insert young people who have not developed their frontal lobes. who do not have long term thinking, which is seventeen year old, does not. Your long term Friedberg will back me up on this in terms of science. Long term thinking is something that develops in humans, into their early twenties. And so young people with guns in a violent situation, with Trump on TV during this time both good people on both sides, whatever, you know, the borders, all that stuff that he was stirring the pot on, all of that eventually resolves to somebody's gonna get killed. whether it's on January 6th or it's a BLM protest. And that is why he had such a failure of leadership while he was so disgusting and horrible and lowsome. because he was taking all of this heat and rhetoric up, up, up, and the person who winds up suffering in this are these stupid kids and they're really dumb parents and mother who allow them to go to a protest, and she could have stopped them with a gun. Somebody needs to stop these kids from going to a protest with a gun. And I think there's a very difficult question here that can be asked. And it probably is true I think that it was an open and shut case, David, that I mean, I saw the video as well, Chomov. The guy puts a gun on him. What are you gonna do? Jason Calacanis (00:40:35): You've got a gun. This guy's pointing a gun at you. Whoever fires first survives, it is self defense. And that's kind of undeniable, I think. But if you Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:44): had I would hope that the number of people that really focus on this case Look at the innumerable number of cases of black and brown people that have been killed. The Ahmaud Arbery trial is going on right now. Yes. I'm sorry, but I've seen one article and ahmaud Arbery for every fifty a buck Kyle Rittenhouse. Yeah. I just really hope ahmaud Arbery gets his fair trial. Jason Calacanis (00:41:02): Brianna Taylor? Speaker 1 (00:41:03): -- Jason Calacanis (00:41:03): straight up. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:03): I'm sorry. And let me say again. Brianna Taylor? not a single thing has still been done. Okay? So I'm not that sympathetic to all of this talk right now because there are a lot of black and brown men and women who have been killed in this country -- Yes. -- where none of you guys care as much. Jason Calacanis (00:41:20): Oh, I care. And that was exactly where I was about to get to. The question I was about to ask you, Jamal, is if Powell Rittenhouse had been a black man and he had shot those 3 people, what would the outcome of his trial have been? Would it have been the same justice system? And I I don't think that anybody can answer that question and say it would have been fair justice. I don't think it would have been. I think the chance would be very low. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:39): It it makes me in Jason Calacanis (00:41:40): this situation would have been just the same. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:42): Just you saying it makes me wanna cry. Okay? It would not Well, I Jason Calacanis (00:41:45): didn't say for that reason, but I it is the truth. And I I think that's what you know, we in this country, race is something that is our biggest weak point, and we need to get Speaker 1 (00:41:55): -- David Sacks (00:41:55): Well, I mean, leadership to work on this. Speaker 1 (00:41:57): -- David Sacks (00:41:57): hypothetical injustice. We don't know because that's a high the ethical that we can't know the answer to right now. And you're ignoring the justice the injustice that's right in front of your face, which is that this was a political prosecution from the beginning. fueled by a media narrative that was completely bogus. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:12): This is why I think David is right, and we have to go to this root cause issue that we can all fix. Yeah. You know, we can't we we shouldn't debate these hypotheticals because they're hurtful. Like, even now, like, you've seen me have emotional, I can't think straight. So let's get the hypothetical off the table because David, you're right. It's a I David Sacks (00:42:26): mean, this case probably should never this case should never have been broad. I mean, as soon as you see the video, if you look up the definition of self defense, okay, You you just have to have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger, and then you're allowed to use force. And, you know, Rittenhouse was running away. These guys were attacking him. They were chasing after him. They had a gun train on him. They were bashing him on the end of the skateboard. don't know how any prosecutor looks at this and says, we need to prosecute this. So the case should never have been brought. And then the media fuels this thing. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:56): But this is what I'm saying. That's the thing that we can all change, which is our reaction to that media portrayal, the media can be held accountable for how they lied. David Sacks (00:43:04): But how? Jason Calacanis (00:43:06): Well, people are don't trust them, and they're tuning them and they're going and finding their own apps. David Friedberg (00:43:09): But, I mean, this has been my point. Like, I think we all get tuned up to what the media, quote, unquote, is and it's insane. I think that's, like, yesteryear's news. I mean, those those guys have lost credibility. You can see it in all the peer research and all the Gallup research. that what used to be called and it's still by a lot of people called the mainstream media, it's no longer mainstream and it's become kind of outskirt and where people are finding their their sources of information is direct from the source from people that they know to be reliable, trustworthy, speakers of the truth, and speakers of facts and they're getting them direct through social media platforms and other systems of self publication. And that the idea of having centralized media systems that get to have their own editorial and narrative over whatever facts, quote, they may be kinda gathering and presenting to us. That's an old school way of doing things, and I don't think we have to worry about it too much anymore. whether or not individuals will resolve to truth seeking or motion seeking is the big question for the 21st century Because as we've seen in the media, the the the things that we do click on are the things that we already believe and that confirm our bias and that create an emotional incentive versus the things that may be not what we believe and not what we wanna hear, but may actually be factual. And that's the big kinda challenging question here. I think it's less about these evil media people, and it's more about where individuals gonna make choices. David Sacks (00:44:30): Yeah. I mean, I'd say alternative media voices have never been more important and, you know, you can get a lot of them on substack. People like Glenn Greenwald, Matt TV, Antonio Garcia Martinez. David Friedberg (00:44:41): Call in to call in app. David Sacks (00:44:42): There are all three of the stuff we have call in. But the other bill through Sullivan, Barry Weiss. I mean, they all Our Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:48): podcast our podcast. David Sacks (00:44:49): They all have very good coverage of this. By the way, I couldn't help notice that the same week that this Rittenhouse narrative collapsed, the whole steel dossier narrative collapse Jason Calacanis (00:44:59): Okay. David Sacks (00:44:59): You had and I don't wanna get too political and drag it back to the Trump thing, but you had, you know, John Durham, who's a special prosecutor unraveling This whole phony fake steel dossier with multiple indictments, and you now have retractions by the Washington Post and other major publications and that whole narrative that fueled like an entire year of media coverage is completely collapsing. And it's just another example of you know, the media running with these narratives that turn out to be completely I hate to use word fake. But, I mean, it is. I mean, it's David Friedberg (00:45:31): things in the dossier were fake, but poor Manafort's conviction. Again, I I I would encourage everyone to stop using the term the media or even the term mainstream media and just recognize that there are specific outlets that are on their way down. They're dying. Yeah. These are content companies that need ratings. They used to be the monopoly, and they're no longer. And, you know, they're, like, yesteryear's news, and it's just you know, it's like complaining about, you know, whatever. Pick any industry that's been disrupted, but they are and will be further disrupt did by kind of direct to source fact gathering. The big ultimate question is what are consumers gonna choose? And that's the thing that scares me the most, to be honest. Jason Calacanis (00:46:05): I think there's -- I think it's David Friedberg (00:46:06): a good thing to go either way. You can either find better crude seeking or you can find better emotion more emotion seeking, and that that's gonna cause more polarization and more ugly shit. David Sacks (00:46:15): Well, look, it's it's happening right now. You're right that the the let's call it the corporate media, the big media corporations. They're -- prestige and esteem and the Eyes American people have and their credibility has never been lower as Jason Calacanis (00:46:27): God. David Sacks (00:46:27): New York Times and CNN are crumbling. God. And and people should be rushing them and stop listening to them, and you have to diversify your information diet. And you gotta be subscribed to some alternative journalists on places like Sub Stack. But here's the thing that concerns me. you know, you've got the media narrative being dictated by MSNBC, and then it trickles down to LeBron James and Chelsea Handler. Sorry. That was the name that I forgot earlier. who were they were perpetuating this white supremacist narrative around Cal Rittenhouse. By the way, there was they looked at his phone, his text messages, everything There is no connection. There's no proof whatsoever of a connection between him and White Supremacy was completely made up by the media, and yet these major figures in our culture who have this outsized impact, we're tweeting about this. And so the problem is, you know, like, people like us diversify our information diet, but there are large parts of the country that are just receiving this information, and it gets basically passed down from the media to Hollywood to the culture. Yeah. And it's From Tucker Jason Calacanis (00:47:25): from Tucker Carlson to Scott Bayonne to the Pillow guy. David Sacks (00:47:28): It is fueling it is fueling tremendous device and a polarization in our culture. And I would say that, you know, JC brought Trump, and he was a polarizing figure. But I don't think he's the root cause of this polarization. I think he is a reaction to it. I think David Friedberg (00:47:42): he is a manifestation of it. David Sacks (00:47:43): He is a manifestation of it, and, ultimately, the root cause is the complete deterioration and collapse of journalistic standards in the media, in the major mainstream corporate media. David Friedberg (00:47:54): I'll disagree with you. I think Trump's responsible for his own business. I've made this point in the past, which is, Saks, I I don't know if it you you make it sound and other people make it sound like in a directed editorial initiative to take things in a direction. And I think that the reaction process is really about what do consumers wanna consume what they choose to consume is what they sell more of and what they produce more of, and that's the cycle that's driving this. And, you know, that doesn't mean that these folks are not complicit not making good kind of ethical decisions, that could actually be argued either way. But at the end of the day, there are businesses that are selling content. And if consumers want content of one form, they're gonna choose that form. David Sacks (00:48:31): Okay. Look. I I think you have a point that once a publication goes in a certain direction, sourcing subscribers, there's some positive reinforcement there that has keep pushing in that direction. That being said, I don't think this is commercial in nature primarily. I think what's going on is fundamentally ideological you saw For example, The New York Times, they ran out Barry Weiss. David Friedberg (00:48:51): I've seen it. -- multiple avenues. No. Jason Calacanis (00:48:52): No. You're wrong on that. They they did this because they wanted subscriptions. No. No. You were wrong, Saks. When the New York Times did this, they realized Fox picked a side. MSNBC picked a side, and they they benefited from that by picking a side in the Trump era. the New York Times picked a side. They went MSNBC side. And they got rid of the right because the right people drove away the anti Trump subscription. So I think Freeport's right on this one. I will say another thing to build on what you were saying before, Saks, about the media's responsibility here. We also have to think about the the cable news, media's responsibility, when they put these protests on wall to wall and they send people there, That then inspires people to go there. And, you know, when you do this wall to wall coverage across 5 networks and you obsess over something, people are gonna obsess over it. And they see people out there riding, and people model other people's behavior. And I think they need to think, like, how much coverage do we exactly have to give Speaker 1 (00:49:48): -- David Sacks (00:49:48): Right. Well, even now even now they're bringing out the National Guard in anticipation of possibly riots and protests in Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:54): reaction to Speaker 1 (00:49:55): -- -- Jason Calacanis (00:49:55): induce it. David Sacks (00:49:56): Well, in reaction no. I don't know if it's gonna induce it, but but but but in in reaction to this verdict in the Rittenhouse trial, they're bringing out the troops to basically quell any, you know, riot before it gets started. But why would that riot even happen? Because the people have been fed this narrative that is completely bogus. And in that sense, the media's been incredibly irresponsible, and they're playing with fire. David Friedberg (00:50:18): They really are. I I'll say Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:19): it again, and we've fallen into the same trap Look how much time we've just been talking about Cloud written out. I mentioned the mod arbery, and we've just glossed over it. Jason Calacanis (00:50:27): Is his trial being Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:29): it's happening right Speaker 6 (00:50:30): No. Jason Calacanis (00:50:30): No. But is it on video? because that that is another major issue here is when the trials are on video -- These David Sacks (00:50:35): trials is they should never do TV again on these trials. Just never again. I mean -- It really does. -- in the courtroom, but do not put it on TV. Jason Calacanis (00:50:42): Like, Veranos is not allowing video in the courtroom. And it's not getting covered to this extent. And I think the video Speaker 6 (00:50:49): on the Jason Calacanis (00:50:49): courtroom does drive this. David Sacks (00:50:50): That makes it a circus. Jason Calacanis (00:50:52): Breaking news, Citadel CEO, Ken Griffin, outbid a group of crypto investors for a copy of the US constitution according to The Wall Street Journal saying, David Sacks (00:51:00): Lee, we knew somebody was trolling crypto. before this. But now Oh my god. order flow. David Friedberg (00:51:06): Exactly. David Sacks (00:51:06): I mean, he was the central villain basically in that whole Robinhood fiasco for payment for order flow, and now he outbid The crypto crowd. He is gonna be enemy number Speaker 1 (00:51:15): 1. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:16): Basically, there is no more sophisticated market participant than Kevin Griffin. And on a silver platter, this group of people, unfortunately, showed showed them their strategy and showed them exactly how become the under Jason Calacanis (00:51:28): the hood. He did the price is right. He put $1 on top of their bid. David Friedberg (00:51:32): What Ken Griffin knows? Ken Griffin knows that now this is an objective interest that people are based willing to pay anything for. Bingo. He's gonna buy it now, and in 1 year, he'll sell it for twice as much. It's a valuable asset. Jason Calacanis (00:51:42): But, by the David Friedberg (00:51:43): way, I wanna make a point on this. I disagree, by the way. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:45): He's a he's a buyer. He is not a seller. David Friedberg (00:51:47): He's gonna hold. Okay. But, look, markets don't work with this much transparency. it's only work when people have different information than other people that are participating in the market. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. If everyone needs everything that everyone else was gonna do, same data, giving you with everyone else Speaker 1 (00:52:04): -- David Friedberg (00:52:04): Different opinions. But if everyone knew everyone else's opinion on what something is worth, the market doesn't work. And that's the problem that you'd be there. Yeah. So here's what I value an asset at. And now if you know that, you know how to play against me in the market. And I'm pointing -- That's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:17): what I said. David Friedberg (00:52:17): Yeah. Exactly. And one thing one thing I'll take note of that I that I kind of realized yesterday when I was thinking about this, which is this, like, transparency in markets leads to this inflationary problem. Why do you think everything that the government buys inflates? Because everyone already knows what the government is going to spend on that thing. When the government enters into a market like health care or education or defense, the amount that they're gonna spend is published in a bill And then congress says, here's your authorized budget. Here's how much you're gonna spend. So there is no natural market force that says a bid and an ask, what are you willing to pay? And is there a walk away price? there is no walk away price when the government is is told to go spend some amount of money. And as a result, the price of everything inflates to that walk away to that price, to that budget, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:04): Can I build on that? It's Jason Calacanis (00:53:05): it's and David Friedberg (00:53:06): by the way, that that's that's the in my opinion, based on everything I've looked at, the primary reason for the increase in education costs because the government funds all the student loans. the increase in health care, the increase in defense, all of it is because the government is the customer and they tell the person that's servicing them upfront they tell the market what they're willing to pay. And so the market just inflates to to that amount. And it's it's it's really the reason why the way that we budget things and the government as opposed to saying, look. This is the ROI metric or this is the IRR metric you need to be shooting for with this government spending. It's all based on a fixed dollar amount of a budget that sits here. much as she goes back. So -- Look. It it's it's as Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:42): I said, it's it's actually worse than that because then the procurement process is is not is furthis thing from a free market where you essentially have these licensed people that are allowed to provide services. And so if you actually have the key critical input, to making something possible. You have to get bundled in through contractors and subcontractors and general contractors who each take their 5 10%, and then that that's what you that's when you have, like, you know David Friedberg (00:54:07): And and their hourly costs all balloon just a little bit just a little bit just a little bit. And suddenly, the balloon cost of everything is exactly the budget. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:13): So the perfect example of this is the space program. David Friedberg (00:54:16): There was a there was Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:17): a there was a rant by Bernie Sanders yesterday, basically saying How could we have allowed Jeff Bezos, Mister Bezos, and Mister Musk to basically take over our national space program we need Jason Calacanis (00:54:29): to test by program. We need Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:31): to take it back. And then somebody hold on. And then somebody and then somebody thought -- I'll just back it out. Give me the transcript. Somebody thoughtfully went back and actually looked because, again, as David said, everything is transparently published, they went back and they actually counted how much money NASA spent in, like, the last 7 or 8 years and the number was 360 odd Speaker 1 (00:54:53): $1,000,000,000 David Friedberg (00:54:55): Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:55): And then they counted how much money SpaceX had spent, and it was you know, if you counted revenue between 7 and Speaker 1 (00:55:02): 11,000,000,000. Jason Calacanis (00:55:03): Totally. totally. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:04): And so you have this incredible disparity which speaks to this discussion Speaker 6 (00:55:08): seen out. Speaker 1 (00:55:09): -- David Sacks (00:55:09): space shuttle after the space shuttle was retired, NASA team have a way to to space until SpaceX had the rockets. I Jason Calacanis (00:55:15): mean -- And to think about how many people died on the space. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:17): Guys, what Bernie is saying, which is what's I think scary to me is if you take the difference between Speaker 1 (00:55:22): $360,000,000,000 7. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:24): So Speaker 1 (00:55:24): $350,000,000,000 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:27): and divided by the number of people in the United States, you're basically talking about a Speaker 1 (00:55:31): 1000 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:32): per $1000 a person. Would you and I sit around a table and give Bernie Sanders a $1000 out of our own pocket Speaker 1 (00:55:40): -- David Sacks (00:55:40): I don't know. Speaker 1 (00:55:41): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:41): to go and basically implement a half ass based program? No. I'd rather I'd rather give Elon Musk 10¢, which or 1¢, which is the the equivalent alternative Jason Calacanis (00:55:52): or a penny. Speaker 1 (00:55:52): -- David Sacks (00:55:52): raises a really serious issue, which is who is the better capital allocator of, Speaker 6 (00:55:56): you know, David Sacks (00:55:57): research society, private markets or the government? And let me give you an example. So today, the house is voting out that reconciliation bill. They've got a they're spending Speaker 1 (00:56:05): 2,100,000,000,000. David Sacks (00:56:06): This is one example. Just one example that caught my eye is they've got $2,500,000,000 going to tree equity, whatever that is. Jason Calacanis (00:56:16): I'm sorry. Tree and quality? Speaker 1 (00:56:17): -- David Sacks (00:56:17): tree equity. tree equity. This is like Speaker 1 (00:56:19): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:19): Tree equity. David Sacks (00:56:21): I I think it might mean that, like, some communities have more trees on it. I think it means that some some communities have more trees than others. They gotta rectify that. I don't know. I mean, this is, like, the jump the shark moment for the word equity because I think now everything is equity. But but, you know, what what struck me about this $2,500,000,000 number okay, is that, like, Craft Ventures, which I've been doing for the last 4 years, we've raised and will be deploying a total of about 2,000,000,000 over, call it, 5 years into hundreds of start ups that, you know, will pave the way for the next generation of the economy. So 2,000,000,000 versus 2 and a half 1000000000 as one line item, That's just a footnote that's an asterisk in this bill. I mean, what is the better capital allocation decision and what people have to understand is you know, all this money that gets spent gets sucked out of the private economy somehow. It either, you know, comes from taxes August added to the the national debt. But either way, it comes out of the private economy and resources that could be allocated to the next generation of of innovative companies. Jason Calacanis (00:57:23): Alright. Let's play the quest. Speaker 1 (00:57:24): -- David Sacks (00:57:24): squandering the money like that on all these programs that no one even knows what they do when we're almost Speaker 1 (00:57:32): 30,000,000,000,000 David Sacks (00:57:33): in debt is just unbelievable. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:35): Okay. The Speaker 1 (00:57:35): 1% Jason Calacanis (00:57:37): are going to be going space and taking away the moon from the other Speaker 1 (00:57:40): 99%. Jason Calacanis (00:57:42): Here, roll the clip. Speaker 7 (00:57:43): Unbelievably, this bill would provide and authorize some $10,000,000,000 in taxpayer money to Jeff Bezos, the 2nd wealthiest person in America, for his space race with Elon Musk, the wealthiest person in America. This is beyond laughable, and I will be introducing an amendment to strike this division. Frankly, it is not a acceptable. It's not an issue that we have discussed terribly much, but it is not acceptable. But the 2 wealthiest people in this country, Mister Musk and Mister Bezos, take control of our space efforts to return to the moon, and maybe even the extraordinary accomplishment of getting to the moon. This is not something for 2 billionaires to be directing. This is something for the American people to be determining. David Sacks (00:58:39): Yeah. All the people have to be able to go to the moon before two people can go to the moon. Is that the idea? David Friedberg (00:58:43): Yeah. If there was a go to the moon Dow, it would get more frustrated. Speaker 6 (00:58:47): You could call back. Look at you in the callback for a Jason Calacanis (00:58:49): regular learning how to entertain the audience. Speaker 1 (00:58:51): -- David Friedberg (00:58:51): people would just plow money into a go to the Moonau and give it all to Elon Musk. Jason Calacanis (00:58:55): It'd be So Speaker 1 (00:58:55): -- David Friedberg (00:58:55): More people would do that than would vote to support the Senate bill. Jason Calacanis (00:58:59): Additionally, I would like to report that Starlink does not work at my lake house. and Amazon Prime takes 3 to 4 days at my beach house on the Cape, and that these two companies are oppressing the 3% of the top 3% which I am not part of the Speaker 1 (00:59:13): 1%. David Sacks (00:59:13): And and some people don't have enough trees. Jason Calacanis (00:59:17): And They need trees. In my community, There's only small trees, and we want the Redwoods from San Francisco. Why do they or the hippies get the Redwoods that are much taller? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:27): Do you guys remember one of our very earliest pods I made a statement, which is equity is this danger word the progressive left uses to steal power -- Yes. Speaker 1 (00:59:37): -- Jason Calacanis (00:59:38): that we should -- I feel unsafe. Speaker 1 (00:59:39): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:39): we should always want equality but not equity because equity is 0 sum. Right? You know what cap table. Once you give somebody else equity, it's dilutive to everybody else, but equality is infinite. You can have unbounded equality. Jason Calacanis (00:59:52): Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:53): And when I hear these guys talk about this stuff, it's so scary. The second thing is I'm a little confused by what Bernie's saying because on the one hand, he wants to cancel the American government's effective, you know, support of these programs. On the other hand, he wants us to take back the responsibility for it, but I think he must realize that it would cost fifty times more or Jason Calacanis (01:00:15): a 100 times more. He's he's the David Friedberg (01:00:19): he's not he's not spending sensitive in case you ever notice. Jason Calacanis (01:00:22): I also think this is, like, virtru signaling. Like, he was attacking Bezos about, like, minimum wage. And then Bezos came over the top and, like, doubled it and then gave people college education. That was Bernie Sanders' platform for president. It was, like, give people free college and give people, like, a better $15 minimum wage. Bezos has done more for Bernie's platform than anybody. He should be thanking He should be telling people, all companies should be asking like Amazon. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:46): No. No. No. But also, actually, to your point, can I build on that? Amazon is now doing more to actually unwind duopolies and monopolies in markets than the government and the FTC is. You know? Absolutely. this thing that Amazon is now doing in the UK with Visa where they basically shut Visa off, and people are speculating now that it's a step in this direction of Amazon, you know, in Amazon domestically in the United States. They just did this big deal with a firm And so they are looking at and they there's a rumor that they may switch the Amazon credit card off of Visa rails and put them on Mastercard rails. But if this is another example, Jason, to your point of, like, you know, Bernie and the left, progressive left would probably rail against the duopoly practices of of Visa and Mastercard, they can't get anything done. Jeff Bezos has actually done Speaker 6 (01:01:34): more now. Jason Calacanis (01:01:34): Presses a button. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:35): Presses a button and has done more now, Doug. Jason Calacanis (01:01:37): Here's another one to build on yours. Who's doing I mean, Bernie Sanders cares about global warming. It's, like, one of his key issues. Who still needed more to to global warming than than Chavezos. Nobody -- Nobody. -- who's doing a 100,000 electric vehicles for his delivery fleet. Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos took Bernie Sanders platform that he failed to get into office on, and he made it Amazon's platform. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:58): Here's a third example. Nick, you tweeted this out, Nick, or you can find this thing that I tweeted out, but it was a little mean. And it was a it was it was basically Toby Maguire and Kristen Dunst. Right? There's a meme -- Famous Jason Calacanis (01:02:10): upside down quick quick. Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:11): No. They're looking at each other. And, basically, the joke is, like, you know, every time you protested at you know, to shut down a nuclear plant, the resulting effect 40 years later was another 100 megatons of c 02 was put into the air. And it just goes to yet again another example of we virtue signal, nuclear reactors, and nuclear power We go and we get them all shut down. It turned out that we ingested or we we put out as a result an enormous amount of more CO 2 than had to be put. And then and now who's helping to step in and solve it in other private citizen book aids? David Sacks (01:02:43): Look, everyone, for these private companies, we couldn't even get astronauts base anymore. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:47): Impossible. David Sacks (01:02:47): I mean, like, the government has actually lost the capacity to do that. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:51): Impossible. It would it would have been impossible. Jason Calacanis (01:02:53): And who are we up against for space. I mean, China? No. It's just China. Just just China. David Sacks (01:03:00): because this is like economy. It's such a dichotomy between and this is like a recurring theme of the show between what the private sector and specifically and and and not like the Fortune 500, not those old stodgy companies that are in the process of being disrupted. But what the sort of entrepreneurial economy is able to accomplish versus, like, how stultified and calcified and incompetent the governments become. Jason Calacanis (01:03:26): I mean, to your point, Friedberg, I think Sam Altman led this the fusion energy start appealing, like, $500,000,000 round? I mean, by the time these nitwits, you know, in these political office, figure these things out. We're gonna have fusion reactors, aren't we? Is that real science? Is that coming close? What do you think, Robert? David Friedberg (01:03:49): I mean, Bill Gates just did this what is it called? Terra Power announcement this week. He's got a company that he's been funding for years and they're building a 500 Megawatt Fusion plant in Wyoming, I think. Yeah. In Wyoming. Yes. In Wyoming. And he got 2,000,000,000 from the government and 2,000,000,000 that was funded by the company and shareholders, which I think is majority owned by Bill Gates. But it certainly feels and seems to me I mean, look, this one, like we've said, a lot of these infrastructure deals, these infrastructure deals for things like power and next gen manufacturing and whatnot, you know, could use the could benefit from the boost of you know, government subsidies or, you know, government shared costs to get these things off the ground. Over time, as you get scale and reproducibility of them, the cost per unit comes way, way, way, way down. And so, you know, it seems to be the case that there are enough of these programs. I think I know of at least half a dozen nuclear power companies that are you know, in advanced stages of doing, you know, 1st installation design right now. And so it seems like this is gonna be a reality. I think it it would be an incredible boom to to clean energy in the United States and globally if we can get more of these built. I mean, what was the staff China's building a 150 nuclear power plants? I did commission a 115 nuclear power points. I mean, it's a no brainer that that's what we need in the 21st century. It's the best renewable source Very small footprint, very reliable. It can run Speaker 1 (01:05:19): 247. David Friedberg (01:05:21): It doesn't depend on some, you know, sun or wind or what have you. You can plug it into a grid. Jason Calacanis (01:05:25): And so the government literally does not need to get involved in this. Aside from writing a check and chopping it up 5050, split the pot with It David Friedberg (01:05:32): is an important role that the government can and should play here, which is, you know, if we wanna talk about what infrastructure this country needs, I've said it on the last couple of shows. We don't need yesteryear's infrastructure. We don't need last century's infrastructure. New bridges and, you know, toll bridges or whatever nonsense is, you know, gonna get inflated as a result of this recent infrastructure. What we need is next gen infrastructure and not charging stations because the free market's already there doing that. And, you know, not Internet because the free market's already there giving everyone Internet. We thousand examples of that. What we need is the stuff that the free market cannot afford to fund and stand up like next gen nuclear power stations like biomanufacturing, like large scale on demand 3 d printing systems. These are the sorts of infrastructure programs that the United States and our workforce could benefit from government subsidies to help private force. The the private markets get stood up. And as these things get stood up and the flywheel gets going and cash starts getting generated, They can self fund and they can grow and they can install more of these and the costs come down for the next one. The things where the government is the only customer or the only person buying the cost will only go up on over time. Whereas the things that the private market is building, the cost will go down over time. And in some of these cases where there's a big kind of hurdle to get over the first build, or the 1st build cycle, you know, the the government has an important role to play, I think. And so, you know, look, I mean, it clearly not gonna happen with this current infrastructure build. There's a few nuggets in there that might be useful and helpful. But generally speaking, you're right. I mean, over time, we want the cost of things to come down, not go up. And so we need the private market to play a critical role in being the majority driver you know, of these kind of systems. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:05): Alright. Seems like a good place to end. Pete Davidson is now dating Kim Kardashian. David Friedberg (01:07:11): How jealous are you, Jamov? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:13): I'm not jealous, but Speaker 1 (01:07:15): -- -- Jason Calacanis (01:07:15): a great one. A great Speaker 1 (01:07:16): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:16): I am I am shocked that Pete Davidson has dated some of the most incredible, the famous popular women Speaker 1 (01:07:23): -- Jason Calacanis (01:07:23): Oh, so you are jealous. Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:25): Well, I'm a little curious. -- jealous. Speaker 6 (01:07:27): I gotta say I'm a little curious. I mean, if you put a picture of p d Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:30): I mean, there's gotta be something happening there. Let's just put it out there. David Sacks (01:07:32): He's got the Kevorka. David Friedberg (01:07:33): I'm gonna send you a David Sacks (01:07:34): link to an article. David Friedberg (01:07:36): know what a protocol is. I'm Google You David Sacks (01:07:37): remember that from Seinfeld where Kramer was, like, you know, dating all these beautiful women, and it's because he explained he had the Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:43): He's got a better finishing move. Yeah. David Friedberg (01:07:45): This is an article that went viral this week. Emily Rata Kalsky, how do you pronounce her name? Yeah. breaks down breaks down why women find Pete Davidson so attractive. And so this was, like you know, I saw it all over Twitter this week, but it was all about you know, the -- And what is the answer? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:00): Just give me the headlines. David Friedberg (01:08:02): I don't know. It's some he's got super charming. He's vulnerable. He's lovely. He's fingernail polish is awesome. He looks good. He has a good relationship with his mom. I mean, I just think he comes across as a good guy might be the appeal. Also, they wanna take care of Jason Calacanis (01:08:19): him, I think, because he's got, like, his Speaker 6 (01:08:21): dad died. Speaker 1 (01:08:21): -- Jason Calacanis (01:08:21): missing a more subtle non obvious Well, I Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:25): don't know what you're Jason Calacanis (01:08:25): talking about, Sean. Could you do explain. Maybe you could expand -- I'm just guessing a David Friedberg (01:08:32): family show, Shamab. It's a family show. Oh my Jason Calacanis (01:08:34): god. Yeah. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:35): I mean, it's good Jason Calacanis (01:08:36): for a pair of them. That's what I heard David Friedberg (01:08:37): from -- Good for Pete Davidson. Speaker 1 (01:08:39): -- Jason Calacanis (01:08:39): said they wanna, like, work on him Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:40): and take Jason Calacanis (01:08:41): care of him. David Friedberg (01:08:42): Right. Jason Calacanis (01:08:42): Yeah. I mean, also Kim Kardashian, I I think, you know, she just got the Gen Z. I think she was probably go in the way of Paris Hilton, like, maybe aging out of her, you know, celebrity. And now she went Kanye kinda gen x. Right? And now she's going down to gen z. She's got a whole new I mean, I hate to be cynical about it, but I David Friedberg (01:09:03): am no. I also, you know, I'm gonna take so Jason Calacanis (01:09:05): much -- -- to me. Speaker 1 (01:09:06): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:06): I'm gonna take so much flack for saying this, but I was a little short donda, but I've listened to donda now a couple times and my god. Is it good? That's pretty fucking good. I mean, Kanye West is one of legitimately one of the most incredible artists of of all time. I mean, the way his mind grows, the music, the beats, it's outrageous. I think if you give Don to, like, 2 or 3 shots, It's really interesting. Jason Calacanis (01:09:33): Registration college dropout and 808 and heartbreaks. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:36): I Amazing. My dark twisted fantasy was probably one of the best albums ever created. Jason Calacanis (01:09:40): Well, see, that's the thing. Speaker 1 (01:09:41): -- Jason Calacanis (01:09:41): ridiculous. With his later work, like, I didn't get into my beautiful doctors of Fantasy until I had listened to ten times. Then I was like, okay. I get it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:48): Amazing. Yeah. And I feel like Speaker 1 (01:09:49): -- -- Jason Calacanis (01:09:50): so accessible. Like, draw out registration. David Friedberg (01:09:52): But Don doesn't seem perfect. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:53): I mean, it's -- Right Jason Calacanis (01:09:54): now, David Saxon is like, what are you guys talking about? David Friedberg (01:09:56): I haven't Jason Calacanis (01:09:56): listened to any of this. David, Do you know Speaker 1 (01:09:59): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:59): He's like is that, like, Paul Anka? Jason Calacanis (01:10:02): Dad, it's like, yeah. Wow. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:04): Saks, do you listen to music? Actually, this is a great question. Jason Calacanis (01:10:06): What's your favorite artist? What's your favorite delegate? Like, if we found Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:09): like, if we listen to, like, your, like, your workout tracks, so, like, on your, like, on on on Speaker 1 (01:10:14): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:14): Barry Manolo? Like, I Apple. Like, what are you listening to? Like, Spotify. Like, what are you Tucker Carlson? No music wise. I don't David Sacks (01:10:21): listen music when I work out. The only thing I listen when I listen the only time I really listen to music is when I'm, like, in a car on a plane or whatever. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:29): But do you have music, for example, like, downloaded on your phone? Like, if he said, pull out your phone. David Sacks (01:10:34): Yeah. I do. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:35): You should just give a couple names here. Yeah. Top 3. Yeah. David Sacks (01:10:37): Honestly, it's gonna be recent hits because I just download what my kids told me to download. David Friedberg (01:10:42): I understand. But just Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:43): give me a couple albums David Friedberg (01:10:45): that you've downloaded. Okay. So hold on. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:45): Where's recently added? Okay. David Sacks (01:10:50): So it looks to me like I recently added Khalid? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:55): Yes. Good. Well Speaker 1 (01:10:56): -- David Sacks (01:10:57): Good. There's a Gaga song, Kidlarroy and Miley Cyrus. Okay. Okay. Kidlarroy and Justin Bieber -- Great. -- doja cap. like, his luck Speaker 1 (01:11:07): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:07): She's great. She's great. TikTok win. David Sacks (01:11:10): Yeah. See, my kids keep me current. You know? You think I'm like Speaker 1 (01:11:12): -- Jason Calacanis (01:11:12): She's great. here's what I'm doing for my kids. This is my new parenting strategy. I was they love listening to the eighties playlist on Spotify, but now I was like, what it who are, like, great Seminal artist. So I have them doing Tom Petty, David Bowie, Hawking Heads and Bob Marley. And I get the whole greatest hits album, and I explain to them every song. And they're like totally getting into it because it's Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:33): a big issue. Jason Calacanis (01:11:34): You actually know what great music is. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:35): You're being self indulgent. You're focused on yourself, and you're trying to make them a loser. Jason Calacanis (01:11:40): No. I'm trying to get them to understand what actually David Friedberg (01:11:42): you're using. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:43): You want your kids to walk into school. And when somebody else like, hey. Do you like Doja Cat? They're like, no. But have you listened to Tom Petty and the heartbreakers? David Friedberg (01:11:49): I've been been doing that. I've been playing my kids my favorite artist, and they and he's become their favorite artist, Apex twin. You guys don't know who he is. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:56): way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. David Friedberg (01:11:57): Apex twin that's -- What about Orbit? -- problem called the Speaker 1 (01:12:00): -- -- David Friedberg (01:12:00): dramaturgy James Album. Richard D James Album is is probably one of the best albums of all time. And I play it and my kids go frigging nuts for it now, and they ask for it nonstop. And I'm like, oh my god. I love you. You're my kids. It's the best. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:11): Look at that. David Sacks (01:12:11): I was trying to get my kids into the my favorite movies. And that's just too hard because movies Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:17): were -- Everybody. David Sacks (01:12:18): They were so too slow about this. David Friedberg (01:12:19): It's so deplete. Yeah. The episode is just to watch movies. It's hard. They wanna David Sacks (01:12:22): watch it. Yeah. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:12:24): No. They can't watch movies. They're too slow. They can't watch movies. They only watch a Marvel movie. They can't even watch the original Star Wars or Raiders of Lost Art. Totally. David Friedberg (01:12:31): Anything where the scene doesn't cut every one and a half seconds. They can't watch. It's crazy. Jason Calacanis (01:12:34): Rangers of Lost Ark. You're gonna love this. So, like, this is so boring. I'm like, Raiders of the Lost Ark are terrible. This is terrible. Well, then I I remember watching David Sacks (01:12:43): like character development. They they wanna cut the first act. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:46): How do you guys watch that? David Sacks (01:12:48): even watched jaws would be, like, unwatchable. David Friedberg (01:12:49): But remember, like, his watch it too. Speaker 6 (01:12:51): He kept Jason Calacanis (01:12:51): showing he loved it. David Friedberg (01:12:53): Did you guys ever watch, like AMC and you watch the old school movies of the thirties and forties, they are impossible to watch. Like, they are so special. It's like watching a play David Sacks (01:13:01): And David Friedberg (01:13:01): that was it. You know, it's, like, gotten more and more kind of short form as we've kind of aged, but, you know, that's like, oh, no. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:08): What happened? Aki Speaker 1 (01:13:11): -- Speaker 6 (01:13:12): Aky. -- a biscuit, and Aky just came and took it froggy. Jason Calacanis (01:13:15): You're not the good, Aky. You don't take it a biscuit. hockey. You eat a dog food. You don't eat it a biscuit? Bad hocky. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:22): You know those biscuits are cashmere. They're really expensive. Alright. David Friedberg (01:13:25): I'm gonna I'm gonna go get my Chout to see you guys later. Jason Calacanis (01:13:27): Alright, everybody. This has been another exciting, amazing episode of the all in podcast 4. We're gonna get through to your cookies. Speaker 1 (01:13:35): 4. Jason Calacanis (01:13:37): The dictator. David Friedberg (01:13:38): Hi, Nat. Jason Calacanis (01:13:38): Chamalpa I have a tia and the Sultan of Science, David Friedberg. We'll see you all next time. Saksipoo have a wonderful time Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:46): with Suarez. He came by last night. David Sacks (01:13:47): I'm I'm hosting Miami Mayer, Francis Suarez tonight. grew doing a cocktail reception fundraiser for him. Jason Calacanis (01:13:53): Come now with the left. David Sacks (01:13:54): And we got huge turnout. I mean, I tweeted to this thing, and we're gonna have I think at least sixty people at the reception, at least twenty people for dinner. Yeah. It's Speaker 1 (01:14:03): 30. Jason Calacanis (01:14:04): You were letting Randos in your house from Twitter. Speaker 1 (01:14:06): -- David Friedberg (01:14:06): up security. Oh, they have to pay 5 dimes. David Sacks (01:14:09): Yeah. They're yeah. They have to pay. But also, like, we we kinda check everybody out. David Friedberg (01:14:13): One of your enemies one of your enemies will pay 5 dimes just to get in your Jason Calacanis (01:14:16): I think, basically, like, BuzzFeed pay to get in there, I'd be careful. David Sacks (01:14:19): We have to do we have to do who they are. We vet them. Jason Calacanis (01:14:21): Macron check. David Sacks (01:14:21): There's a lot of people I mean, look. If we went to let everybody in, there were at least a hundred people who replied to my tweet saying, I can't DM you, but I wanna go and Speaker 1 (01:14:31): -- Jason Calacanis (01:14:31): Open your dams for a day. David Sacks (01:14:33): Oh, you can do that? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:34): Yeah. Francis came by yesterday with his team. He was in top form. He looks great. He's in excited about the next turn. Jason Calacanis (01:14:41): Alright. We'll see you all next time. Bye bye. Speaker 6 (01:14:44): We'll let your winners ride. Raymond David Sachs. And it said -- We open source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy lately. besties are gone. Oh, man. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge ordeal because they're all just business. It's like this, like, sexual friendship that we just need to release somehow. David Friedberg (01:15:23): You're a beep beep. Jason Calacanis (01:15:27): What? What? Where did you get Mercies all in.