VC 的估值上调机制、俄美乌克兰对峙、Altos Labs 融资 30 亿美元与「Stripe 帮」

Speaker 1 (00:00:00): don't wanna talk about Andrew. I think that guy, Palmer Lucky, is super fascinating, the oculus. Why do David Friedberg (00:00:04): you wanna talk about that company? Jason Calacanis (00:00:05): because I think Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:06): an American company Jason Calacanis (00:00:08): no. I Are you an investor? Parma Lucky hates me. He won't come on this week in startups. He'd literally Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:13): hates me. Parma Lucky? Jason Calacanis (00:00:15): Pomer Lucky, Cosplay Palmer. He's a cost player. I like the fact that he does cosplay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:20): What is that? Jason Calacanis (00:00:21): That's when you dress up his comic book or, like, superhero characters and go to conventions with -- You know David Friedberg (00:00:24): how you dress up in the clothes of old Italian women? He dresses up like a superhero. Speaker 5 (00:00:30): He has a cold open, folks. You're not Chipotle. Jason Calacanis (00:00:34): I I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:35): do dress like a Matrona sometimes. Yeah. Right. Speaker 5 (00:00:37): Oh, I'm a little Chamonte. I'm a Mickey who's an attorney. You are earning a Tony with I'm making for you. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:44): In in in in in in Italy, there's, like, a culture, like, in the in the olden days. Like, it's like you used to have these things called, which bay basically meant, like, All the decisions of the country were made by these people in the living rooms after dinner. And, you know, the the most powerful people in the Salati were these women who were married to these men, and they would be the architects of all these decisions. Speaker 5 (00:01:05): Selini, I don't like him. He never finished past, the hero is a little bit so much on the plate. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:10): And people and people would call them metronas. Yeah. So I'd I'd probably be a metrona. Jason Calacanis (00:01:14): I've always felt you were like the old Italian lady in our group. Let your winners ride. brainman, David Saffens. Speaker 6 (00:01:26): And I said, we open source it to the fans in a Hey, Jason Calacanis (00:01:34): everybody. Welcome to another episode of the All in podcast. Yes? We're still publishing. Yes. We haven't been canceled, but it's early in the show, so you never know. With me, again, the dictator him South Shamab Speaker 5 (00:01:47): to Polyhavatia, the Sultan of Jason Calacanis (00:01:50): Science, David Friedberg, whatever beverage you like. He'll make it for you right now in his replicator. And, of course, yeah, the rain man himself. Yeah. Definitely gonna win the midterms. Yeah. David sucks. Everybody have a great week getting their asses kicked in the market? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:07): I'm pretty good. Jason Calacanis (00:02:09): You're okay? Everybody okay? Nobody David Sacks (00:02:12): Checking even look. I can't look at my portfolio anymore. I just stopped checking Speaker 8 (00:02:15): it. I not Jason Calacanis (00:02:18): a fan of the color red. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:20): I actually I I've been using this period to kinda desensitize myself. I went back and I started to think about, like, all of the sort of errors of commission that I've done in, like, the last decade, and I I was able to look at, like, 4 or 5 specific trading moments where I was like, wow. Why did I do that for? And I came away with 2 things. One was if I confuse an investment with a trade, I'm done for. Meaning, like, there are things that you invest in that you just wanna own forever, and then then there are things that trades that are just speculative. And, you know, at the end of the day, you have a sense that it could be up in the short term. If I confuse those 2, I've made huge mistakes. And then the other one is I would always get really emotional and panic at the lows. And so I was like, you know, in early December or or November, when I wrote that letter on Twitter and we talked about it and I sold a bunch of stuff after Jeff and and Elon were selling, raised some cash. And I was like, okay. Now I have enough buffer here. The whole point from here on out is to basically, like, insulate myself from my own emotional turmoil as stocks go down. And so far so good, and my litmus test, if when I go home at the end of every day, you know, I check-in with Nat, and I'm like, am I an asshole? because if I when I get -- Yes. Jason Calacanis (00:03:41): What does that have to do with investing? When I when I get questioned the market, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:44): I tend to I tend to take it out of my friends and my loved ones. We know because Jason Calacanis (00:03:47): I we're just friends, you know, we come Speaker 5 (00:03:49): to your poker game when your Speaker 9 (00:03:51): socks are down, and you're just like Speaker 1 (00:03:52): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:53): Oh my god. Speaker 1 (00:03:53): -- Speaker 9 (00:03:53): credit once. That's it. I'm popping the blinds up. I can't take it anymore. David Friedberg (00:03:57): Do you remember last year, Timoff, during the the market collapse when at the start of COVID, and you decided you didn't care about having nice jeans anymore. And then you fast forward to December, and you're proclaiming the virtue of a $5000 fresh alpaca sweater or whatever. Speaker 5 (00:04:14): I I David Friedberg (00:04:14): think another another indicator of sentiment in the market for you is your clothing. Jason Calacanis (00:04:19): Oh my gosh. David Friedberg (00:04:20): choice, but this is Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:22): a this is a really nice cashmere rib sweater from Loro Pian. Jason Calacanis (00:04:26): Okay. Well, we're back in the games. It's good to see we're back to normal now. Yeah. Let me ask you then. I'm gonna put a couple of items out there. Is Bitcoin a trade for you or an investment for you? What was it, and is it now? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:38): Well, I invested in Speaker 1 (00:04:39): 2 1011 Jason Calacanis (00:04:40): at $80. Yeah. Yum. Yum. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:43): I wrote an op ed in that same year in Bloomberg, which I hope at some point they take off the paywall. Yeah. And the whole thing was you should have 1% of your net worth in this thing. Jason Calacanis (00:04:54): Yep. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:55): It's remained an investment ever since. Jason Calacanis (00:04:57): So still an investment. Yeah. I've structured it so Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:59): that I don't hold any Bitcoin personally myself because I don't want to have the pressure and the risk of keys and coins and wallets and this and that. But I still really believe in Bitcoin in the long term. David Friedberg (00:05:11): Got it. Jason Calacanis (00:05:11): Sacks, how do you how how do you deal with the emotional turmoil of opening up your stocks, crypto, whatever wallet, and seeing red, and then going to work every day, or he's just curled up in a ball playing chess with Peter Kill at this point. David Sacks (00:05:25): Yeah. I mean, you just gotta try and ignore it. Jason Calacanis (00:05:27): Okay. Try try was a keyword in that sentence. David Sacks (00:05:30): It doesn't really affect me that much. I mean so Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:32): I run the avoidance acceptance function. Jason Calacanis (00:05:34): I have removed my emotions. David Sacks (00:05:37): No. Look. There are there are countervailing benefits. So when exit prices are great entry prices are lousy. And when when entry prices are great, exit prices are lousy. So there's an inverse relationships. In other words, all the the companies that I mean, the the public markets have massively corrected. And though and and now finally, you know, we talked about this few few months ago. those new price levels have trickled their way down into venture markets. And so finally, you know, venture deals are starting to price at more reasonable prices. So In terms of harvesting gains from old investments, obviously, it's not as attractive as it was 3 months ago. But in terms of making new investments is much more attractive. And for a relatively young venture firm, which is what we are, you know, we yes. We do have some investments that are kind of in the harvesting stage. But, you know, we're only a four or five year old firm. We're still the bulk of our activity is making new investments. So you know, it's not it's it's all just kinda part of the game, and I'm not really that worried about Jason Calacanis (00:06:42): it. Said another way, fortunes are made in the down market. They're collected in the upmarket. it. It's the way I always phrase it, but it's true. Things are gonna be on sale right now. We saw Bill Ackman, I think, who I think is a friend of the pod. I think Vincent? Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:57): Super super super smart brilliant guy. Yeah. David Sacks (00:06:59): And I just I just wanna emphasize because I don't want founders to get the wrong idea. It's not like we're trying to pull one over on founders and get some sort of sweetheart deal or something like that. My view of, like, our role as VCs is just to be price taker of whatever prices the market sets. We don't try and negotiate something better than market, really. We just take the market price and we pick the companies we wanna be in. So that's our job is really just to pick, not really to negotiate that much. Jason Calacanis (00:07:27): You're not you're not able to haggle. It's not like you can go David Sacks (00:07:30): to, like, the market Jason Calacanis (00:07:31): is super hard to be like, oh, bananas are a dollar a pound. I'll take them for 50¢. They're like, oh, sir. This is a whole foods. We don't negotiate in Portuguese. David Sacks (00:07:37): So we're we're we're we're a price ticker in in good markets. are bad markets, and it's just that I think that the Speaker 8 (00:07:43): prices now are coming down because David Sacks (00:07:43): what I've heard is that the like Tiger like Cote who are deploying all this money, they've really slowed down now. I think they're all kinda licking their wounds. And so, like, all of this money that was flooding into the venture space is kind of on pause right now. And that's caused price levels to to drop. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:06): The end of last year in q Speaker 1 (00:08:07): 4, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:09): my public portfolio really started to turn over. took a huge amount of losses going into the end of the year. And then I I took an accounting obviously of, like, the entire book and the public portfolio, every single thing that I owned, ultimately basically broke even last year. Somewhere up, I made some early sales, some were way down by theendoftheyear. net net, I kinda broke even. But my private book was up a $1,000,000,000. And I told the team I'm like, no. This is not real. So we have to take those marks because, you know, you have other venture firms that are pricing these deals and we get audited k ones, and so we have to take the up 1,000,000,000, but I'm I told them, you should consider this that we had basically a down you know, so net net our returns were like, you know, we were up, like, 15%, and I said, this is not real. We were at at best breakeven and probably lost money. But you can't you can't not take these marks because, like, you know, you have an entire fund complex that lives on these marks. David Sacks (00:09:08): Yeah. And by the Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:09): way, by the way -- -- compensation at all, but I have to take it. Jason Calacanis (00:09:11): Friedberg, then sex. Speaker 8 (00:09:12): Go ahead, Freeberg. David Friedberg (00:09:12): No. That's a it's a really important point because I think we talked about this 1 or 2 episodes ago, but there's a significant disincentive for venture firms to take markdowns, to raise capital into a private business at a price that's lower than the prior round. Because when they do that, the the the marked value of their portfolio goes down, and then it makes it harder for that venture firm to go out and raise the next fund that they're gonna try and raise from their LPs because it looks like they're not good investors. And the reality is and so in every round, as as everyone on this pod knows, there's always an incentive and a push to see can you get the valuation higher even if the business performance didn't meet the objectives of the prior round. and things have gone sideways a bit, doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad business, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it should always be getting an up round just because it's being kept alive. And there's this artificial pressure in private equity, in venture, to always drive the value up or to run away from the company. Because otherwise, you're gonna have this markdown and you don't wanna be putting money in at a markdown that looks like a loser and so on. And if you look at the public markets, every successful company has had significant downturns in their stock for significant periods of time from Apple to Google. to Facebook, to Amazon, to Netflix. And all of those businesses were sound businesses. It's just that for whatever reason, there were perturbations in markets, perturbations in the business, but the long term value creation was still there. And so I think we need to kinda, you know, be really thoughtful, you know, and and and entrepreneurs should be very thoughtful not to give in to the venture mandate to always drive value up. But to be really thoughtful about getting the right valuation for your business and getting the capital you need with the right partners, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:54): Can I say something about this? It's so important what you said. One of the tactics that I started 3 years ago was I run my own shadow portfolio where I don't take the marks and I just keep them at my cost basis. And I'm not allowed to use that for anything. I don't you know, I can't use that, obviously, I would never use that for compensation with my team or anything else, but I use it in my own head to say, okay, if I invested a dollar, let's not Think about what somebody else may think about what that dollar's worth. Let's just keep it at a dollar unless it's impaired, but I don't take the markups and I look at my portfolio that way. But it's a very difficult thing to do and the reason I do that is because I don't have the pressure to raise incremental funds. But if I did, I wouldn't be able to play that game and I'd be very focus on making sure other VCs marked up my deals. Because to your point, it takes 10, 12 years to drive liquidity literally Jason Calacanis (00:11:47): That's the key here. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:49): And so what are you supposed to do if your venture business in year 3 or 4 except raise money on markups? Paper markups are the They're the they're David Friedberg (00:11:56): the -- That's the lifeblood of of Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:58): a venture. It's the lifeblood of of what the venture is industry going. Speaker 8 (00:12:01): Yeah. Totally. Jason Calacanis (00:12:01): Well, I mean, the the interesting thing for me is I LP'd a couple of these small, like, emerging fund managers, you know, micro funds, 10,000,000 or so, 3,000,000. And they were sending, like, a lot of updates. And so I'm in some top tier venture firms that some of you are in. And they send you an audit every year, and they send you a distribution. Cash on cash, here's where you're And then I was getting, like, quarterly emails as everything was going up. These new fund managers are like, we're at a 100 IRR. We're at 200% IRR. because this crypto investment we did got marked up. And I was just thinking about what Bill Gerley would always say, which I think is Howard Marks, quote, you can't eat IRR. Like, What are we doing here? Like, why why is there such a focus on this is because you wanna raise your next fund. And then the other game people were playing was And I got into this because people were like, oh, you know, you're grossly undervaluing your funds. because Robinhood is trading at $30 a share on the private markets. Calm is trading at this in the private markets. And the second people were using secondary market transactions as their mark. So I'm curious, Saxx. How do you think about if you invested in a company, the series b, was a $100 a share, but then somebody bought it at a 150 a share in the private markets? Where do you like to mark that in your funds, or how do you think about that in getting ahead of your skis in terms of valuing your private funds? David Sacks (00:13:19): Well, to Thomas points, we have accounting rules around this. So we can't, like, subjectively decide, like, what mark to set for each company for, you know, obvious reasons, our LPs want, like, like, a predictable accounting. So the way it generally works is that you the mark is set by the most recent private, you know, financing. This is the way it works. And if people wanna discount it from there, they certainly can. You know? Jason Calacanis (00:13:47): What about a secondary transaction? Is there any David Sacks (00:13:50): more complicated rules around that because it's a different class of stock. So it's some combination of sometimes we use a 409a, sometimes it's the latest preferred round. It's you know, it just there's, like, complicated rules around it. David Friedberg (00:14:04): By the way, I'll I'll just to rehash what was already said and just to say it one more time, Shamak pointed out that it typically takes 12 years to liquidity from the time a startup is initially funded. to the time that you sell it or or go public. Show me one public company that has had 12 years of consistent gain in its stock price. It doesn't exist. And so, again, like this this notion that, you know, every startup is seeing some perpetual, persistent increase in value is an artifice that, you know, doesn't really represent Speaker 1 (00:14:34): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:34): It doesn't it doesn't exist in tech, and that's the that's a feature not a bug. David Friedberg (00:14:38): Right. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:38): Meaning, the things that can go up predictably for 10 to 12 years are not necessarily businesses David Friedberg (00:14:43): that -- They don't take risk. They're not dynamic. No. You don't take risks. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:14:47): Saks, can you define perturbation for the audience? I I heard Friedberg say that a couple times. David Sacks (00:14:53): Perurbation would be -- Perurbation changes. what, like, volatility, basically. Yeah. Rapid change. Jason Calacanis (00:14:58): Anxiety, mental uneasiness? Okay. A cause of anxiety or uneasiness. Okay. I got it. I thought you're saying another word. You don't use the word perturbation? I I thought you said another word. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:10): What word was in your brain? Speaker 5 (00:15:11): I thought I heard masturbate. That was Speaker 1 (00:15:14): -- -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:14): master bid. Wait a second. Speaker 5 (00:15:16): What exactly did he say about the markets? Jason Calacanis (00:15:20): Speaking of markets, we were on a text on our text thread talking about if we're about to have the start of World War 3. And then maybe this is not in the news. Now how do we look at the UK, Russia situation in the Ukraine. Obviously, 100,000 troops are amassing on a border. And what is the goal here? because Biden is saying, hey. Listen. If anything happens, we're gonna go to war. And there's a lot of saber rattling here. I don't exactly understand what Putin's goal or motivation is. And that that's, I think, what I'm not hearing in the news is exactly what is his goal. What what are your thoughts on what's happening in the Ukraine and Russia sex. David Sacks (00:16:10): Okay. Well, I think first of all, we have to kind of level set in historical terms about how unusual and unprecedented it would be for us to send troops to fight, you know, potentially Russia in a border conflict with Ukraine. With and by the way, the Biden put 85100 troops on alert for deployment this week. It's really without historical precedent, during the Cold War, You know, in 1956, Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary to crush rebels there. Eisenhower did nothing. 1968, Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia to crush the Prague spring. LBJ did nothing. 19 81, the Soviets crushed the solidarity movement in in Poland. Rald Reagan did nothing even though he had campaign on getting tough with the Soviets. And then then more recently in Speaker 1 (00:17:00): 2008, David Sacks (00:17:02): when Russia invaded Georgia, Georgia Bush did not intervene militarily. And then 2 1014, when Putin Occupied Crimea, Obama did nothing. And so this idea and and the reason for that, in all those cases, is because America has a vital national interest in avoiding war with a nuclear armed Russia, and we did not have a vital national interest in defending the territorial sovereignty of those nations. That's the bottom line. And so for us to be now beating the drums of war and talking about sending troops into a war zone with Russia. It's just it's unbelievably irresponsible. Jason Calacanis (00:17:46): Friedberg, one might speculate if they were cynical, some sort of wag the dog situation here. Biden's not doing well. He's the lowest popularity ever. midterms are coming up. Is there any political motivation here? Do you think in what Biden's actions are, you know, given the context of what Sachius outlined? David Friedberg (00:18:05): I think that there's this is, like, showing up to the, you know, the last 20 minutes of a 2 hour movie and then saying, oh my gosh. What's this guy doing? He's so crazy. there's a long narrative that precedes the current news cycle on what's happening with Putin and the Ukraine you know, in large part, the United States helped to start the fuel, the expansion of NATO in the nineties. And the intention was to make NATO as a Western allied kind of organization contain Russia, step up right to their borders, get very close, and and ultimately make these kind of you know, areas, free liberal democracies that are aligned with the West and put them right on Russia's border. And and that is obviously antagonistic. If anyone tried to do that to the United States like Russia did with the Cuban Missile Crisis, we would view that as a hostile act and we would react accordingly. And for years, the pressure has been building and and has been mounting as Putin has started to kind of solidify his political power at home and his allies abroad in trying to figure out ways to push back on this wall that has been built around him and his nation. And, you know, to some degree, I think we look at this as, like, his aggressive behavior. But to some extent, it is a defensive behavior over a very longer cycle when when when viewed that way. And, again, like, remember, the US had this Monroe dock which president Monroe put in place in, I don't know, 18 some 1800 something that said, you know, anyone that comes into our territory and tries to influence nations around us to be hostile towards us is is a hostile act in and of itself. Anytime someone tries to influence our politics. it's hostile. And I think Russia viewed our behavior and NATO's behavior this way. And so his primary demand is and has always been that the Ukraine cannot and will not and should not join NATO. David Friedberg (00:20:02): And the US response has and continues to be -- And and the EU. Speaker 1 (00:20:05): -- David Friedberg (00:20:06): and the EU. And we're saying, look, we we believe in the sovereignty of the Ukraine, and we want the Ukraine to make their own decision about where they go and what they do, But the reality is, for us, this is a key part of a very long term strategy to keep Russia contained. Now, meanwhile, there's this beautiful backdrop of what's going on with China And if I'm China, I would love to see the US and Russia in conflict because it will weaken the US. And if I'm Russia, I would love to see the US and China in conflict. because it will weaken the US. The US is in a very precarious situation right now. And for us to actually end up in conflict, it's gonna weaken our position with one of these other 2 emerging, you know, challenging you know, superpowers. And this is a a a really precarious time. I think to Saks's point, it's highly unlikely we're gonna end up sending military But the posturing is such that we need to kind of hold our line until the very last minute. We'll see what happens. I did say, you know, at the end of the year, I do think that we're in this kind of economic state us right now that if there were an opportunity for conflict, we're probably more likely to want to engage in conflict than not because it does create something that we all get behind. It creates, you know, kind of a political unity. It creates economic unity. It creates driving forces. that maybe might help us through what is clearly a very volatile and difficult time at home. So let's see what happens. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:23): I think Obama's already given us the end game. I just think we have to go through the machinations to get there. He said to the Atlantic, I think it was in Speaker 1 (00:21:30): 20 16 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:31): or 17, he said the fact is that Ukraine, which is a non NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia, no matter what we do. And, you know, every time there is this brinkmanship, we effectively blinked and rightfully so because it didn't necessarily make sense to to all of a sudden engage the war machine to go to war in Eastern Europe. The thing that's interesting about what happened here though was that this was a slow moving train wreck that was really visible years years ago. Why is that? Well, if you look at what was really happening, this is really a European issue. And you gotta think, well, why is America being the leading actor here when, you know, where's Europe in all of this? Well, it turns out that you know, the strongest power in Europe, Germany is in a really difficult situation because they rely on Russian energy. 50% of the nat gas that comes in or 50% of the energy, I think, that comes into Germany is from Russia. And they've, in fact, been building an entire pipeline system from Russia that bypasses the Ukraine and goes straight to Germany. And so when all of the saber rattling was happening, Germany basically had to blink because they need Russia's energy. And why did they need Russia's energy? Well, they needed Russia's energy because 20 years ago, the environmentalists in Germany won, and they started to decommission all their nuclear reactors. Sorry, Michael. There was no So at somewhere along the way, nobody took a science class in Germany and figured out that nuclear was both safer and cleaner. Instead, burning fossil fuels is the answer. Jason Calacanis (00:23:05): to not have a dependency. And after the Fukushima, they went turned them all off. They accelerated it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:10): Yeah. It made more sense to burn fossil fuels number Speaker 1 (00:23:13): 1. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:14): And then to to get those fossil fuels from Russia. So, unfortunately, we are in the state of affairs where, you know, Germany has said at at least that's been reported that they would shut down this pipeline Nord Stream 2 if if Russia did something. But the reality is, I think Obama basically told us that you know, it's gonna be very difficult for us to justify an act like this, especially against somebody who is fortified and clever and smart. This is not like invading the Middle East. And so Jason Calacanis (00:23:41): This is a massive effort. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:42): If this happens, the the stock markets will just go absolutely to Speaker 1 (00:23:46): 0. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:47): I mean, if you could have negative stock prices, This may be a good catalyst to such things. Jason Calacanis (00:23:52): Netflix shares, please. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:54): It's unbelievable. It's it's really, really crazy. Jason Calacanis (00:23:57): this is it seems like a situation where we're assured not to get into to mix it up with him. Like, I I don't understand Putin. I don't understand Biden saying that he's absolutely going to react to this because we're not. We can't afford to get into a war right now. David Friedberg (00:24:14): That's okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:14): And if David Friedberg (00:24:15): and and if that is true, then you know, US dominance, the US ability to hold the line starts to decline. And -- Well, I I don't I don't David Sacks (00:24:23): I don't know if I agree with that because Yeah. I think we could diffuse this crisis very easily Speaker 1 (00:24:28): -- David Sacks (00:24:29): Yeah. -- which is Speaker 1 (00:24:29): -- Jason Calacanis (00:24:29): What's the exit ramp? Yeah. Tell us. David Sacks (00:24:31): Well, the the exit ramp here is what is Putin demanding? Putin is demanding that we affirm that Ukraine will not be part of NATO. In my view that in my view, that's giving him the sleeves off our vest. because we should not want security of the United States. We wouldn't get anything out of it, but we would be obligated under article 5 of exactly to defend them. So Admitting Ukraine or Georgia or Moldova could ultimately bring us into a Jason Calacanis (00:25:05): war with Russia. David Sacks (00:25:06): Exactly. So to free to Friedberg point earlier, we have been poking the bear for 2 decades with our expansion of NATO right up to Russia's front porch. And if you go all the way back to 1990 when George Herbert Walkerbuch was president James Baker with Secretary of State, there was an assurance made by James Baker that that, you know, basically, they had gone to to Garbage off and said, we wanna you know, we we for help in reunifying Germany. And the promise made famously that James Baker said is what Gorbachev said is we don't want NATO expansion. And Baker apparently said, not 1 inch eastward was the line. And and we we think back to how well Herbert Walker Bush and James Baker managed the end of the Cold War. How do they do that? They they did that by making assurances to Russia that we would not bring NATO up to their front from porch as well which is what we did. In 2000, we've now added something like 14 countries in Eastern Europe to, you know, to NATO, including in 2004, the the Baltic Countries. And that decision by George W Bush really is the thing that pretty much severed our relationship with with Putin. You have to remember that Putin is He is fairly popular in Russia because he stokes Russian nationalism. And what is the source of that nationalism? It is because a single Tree organization NATO now has this huge contiguous border with Russia. They now feel encircled And if we were to add Ukraine to to that organization, there'd be a Speaker 1 (00:26:39): 1200 David Sacks (00:26:40): mile, again, border, which that Russia would have with with just this one this one alliance. It would be akin to imagine if we were still in the cold war and Canada were added to the Warsaw pact. Right? I mean, we would be incredibly threatened by that. So and so but but, you know, you never hear it's Jacob, you never hear any of this on the news. All you hear is the beating the war drums, and Putin is portrayed as this mad dictator. He has no legitimate concerns. Now look, Putin is an authoritarian, and you could describe him as a bully and a thug, and he has provoked -- There's Jason Calacanis (00:27:15): a dictator. David Sacks (00:27:15): He has provoked the situation certainly. Okay? But You know, we treat him as if he has no valid concerns whatsoever, and I think the simplest thing to do to diffuse this crisis would simply be to say, yes, we have no intention of adding Ukraine to NATO, and then we will find out if Putin is a liar or Jason Calacanis (00:27:34): Well, that would be a great move. Like, it's a that would be like, hey. Let's take a 5 year pause. Okay. You know what? We'll negotiate with you. We'll take 5 years. We won't put them in NATO. Give give a little bit of a concession. Because their country is not doing well. They're GDP trails, China and the United States. They're GDP per, you know, each citizen is incredibly low compared to the West. Like and then we could just work with Germany to get on sustainable, which is what their goal is. and we could economically continue to trounce them because as you point out every week, Shamalff, they're not an important economy. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:06): Here's what Obama said about Putin. Obama said, the truth is actually Putin in all of our meetings is scrupulously polite, very frank. Our meetings are very businesslike. He never keeps me waiting 2 hours like he does a bunch of these other folks. He's constantly interested in being seen as our peer and as working with us because he's not completely stupid. He understands that Russia's overall position in the world is significantly diminished. David Friedberg (00:28:30): Yeah. He's not crazy. He's not dumb. And by the way, nationalism as SAS points out, which is a a a a a primary, you know, drum call for Putin, is not a novel sense. We we are a nationalist country. Nationalism is, you know, pride and and wanting to make sure that your country is treating with treated with respect and had sovereignty And so I don't think that Putin is an irrational actor. His behavior is very rational in response to what's gone on for 30 years, and his requests are that he is feeling threatened and he is trying to avoid. military conflict as much as he can, and we portray him as being an aggressor that's demanding military conflict. And at the end of the day, our behavior over a long period of time as a country has driven us to the Brincare. And I think Saks is right. You know, the the the right decision may very well be to to kind of, you know, leave the region alone and focus on issues that matter more deeply to us and are a higher priority rather than drawing us into this. But Jason Calacanis (00:29:26): a better investment would be in sustainable energy. David Friedberg (00:29:29): I think the economic seed is planted for us to be in some sort of conflict this year. Jason Calacanis (00:29:32): So, you know, we're we're gonna end up Can Speaker 8 (00:29:34): you talk Jason Calacanis (00:29:34): to me about that framework? Economic Seed to be in some sort of conflict? David Friedberg (00:29:38): I think that, you know, generally, if if you're not gonna see homegrown you know, economic productivity gains and you're suffering trade issues like we're gonna suffer this year, given the supply chain problems globally, we're gonna look for some place to manufacture growth. And there's no better way to manufacture growth than through Speaker 1 (00:29:56): -- Jason Calacanis (00:29:56): Like the dog. -- through conflicts. David Sacks (00:29:57): the foreign policy establishment in Washington, you know, the Neocons, the, you know, the so called Washington Blob. I mean, here they are being the drumster war. We haven't been in a war for what 6 months. We just got Afghanistan, and now they want us back in another war. And and the media just keeps -- No, Bonnie. Speaker 1 (00:30:12): -- David Sacks (00:30:12): fueling and fermenting this. And they don't you know, their coverage of it is well, it's exactly what we talked about last week. Jake, out, when I pointed out that your your rhetoric, your humanitarian rhetoric, as nobles the sentiments are. When it gets whipped up into a lather and a frenzy, by the media, it blunders us into a bunch of stupid foreign interventions. Speaker 1 (00:30:32): -- Jason Calacanis (00:30:33): not call it rhetoric Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:34): or call let's call it beliefs. Jason Calacanis (00:30:35): My beliefs are not rhetoric, but I I get your point. Is there anything Speaker 1 (00:30:38): -- -- David Sacks (00:30:38): week later in exactly what said the risk of this is has now materialized it. Speaker 1 (00:30:42): -- Jason Calacanis (00:30:42): clearly, you're blaming my position on human rights on David Sacks (00:30:45): the right to conflict. What I'm saying is that this type of rhetoric is used by the military industrial complex and the washer blob and the neo cons to stampede us into wars that don't make any sense. That's what I predicted a week ago. That's or that was my concern. Speaker 1 (00:30:59): -- Jason Calacanis (00:31:00): death that David Sacks (00:31:00): would occur. -- later and we're in exactly that situation. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:03): It is our most successful export. It is our most successful export. David Friedberg (00:31:07): JCal, really important. There's a difference between there's a difference between belief and how do you act on that belief? And what are your actions based on that belief? Speaker 8 (00:31:14): And David Friedberg (00:31:15): I think that a big part of what's gone on, and this harkens back to a few episodes ago when we all got in trouble. Or there was an attempt of canceling us after we we spoke about this, But but when those beliefs are -- Oh my god. Speaker 1 (00:31:26): -- David Friedberg (00:31:26): as Zach's pointed out, harnessed in a way that is ultimately co opted in a way to to to fuel and to drive you know, conflict, it it obviously goes beyond belief, and it starts to move into an area where there is a very wide spectrum of that action. Yeah. And it's very easy to tip yourself onto the one side of the spectrum. And as a result, cause a lot of harm and a lot of damage. Like, we've done in Afghanistan, like, we've done in Iraq. Jason Calacanis (00:31:51): Here's a great lens. What is the cost of going to war in the Ukraine versus whatever human rights or sovereignty issues they have? 100 of 1000 of troops going to war is gonna result in more human suffering than what's currently happening. David Sacks (00:32:05): for you brain. It's sort of Speaker 1 (00:32:06): -- Jason Calacanis (00:32:07): Exactly. They're gonna they're gonna be in the middle of a the war is gonna happen on their turf. David Sacks (00:32:11): The humanitarian interest isn't diffusing the situation. And Speaker 8 (00:32:15): the and David Sacks (00:32:15): the way the way to do it in a way is to is to, you know, exceed to this one demand that -- Yes. -- Putin has about automating Ukraine to NATO, which just to say something more about why we shouldn't want that. The problem in Ukraine and Georgia and Moldova first of all, these are not North Atlantic Countries. Right? This is Mission Creek by NATO. They're in the Caucasus. And the problem they have is there's sort of these breakaway, you know, Russian republics. But inside of these countries, there's breakaway Provinces, you know, they're they're ethnically Russian areas within these countries that wanna break away from them. So you have a breakaway within the breakaway. And so you've got these powerful Jason Calacanis (00:33:00): forces. -- complicated. David Sacks (00:33:01): It's very complicated. So, for example, in Georgia in 2008 when there was a war there, and Russia did invade Georgia, but it was on behalf of these breakaway Provinces of South, Ocetia, and Abkhazia. And then in in Ukraine, they've got the Donbass and and Kremia, which has now been annexed by Russia, which are these majority ethically Russian areas. you know, and and same same problem in Moldova. So the problem is you've got these, like, incredibly complicated border disputes within these countries based on Ethronationalist tribalism. And, you know Speaker 1 (00:33:42): -- Jason Calacanis (00:33:42): Sounds familiar. Right? Speaker 1 (00:33:43): -- David Sacks (00:33:43): the US does not have a vital national interest in getting involved in those disputes. And by admitting these countries into NATO, they could pull us into those disputes because the key provision article 5 of NATO says an attack on 1 is an attack on all. We're obligated to go to the defense of those nations. How is the security of the United States enhanced by that requirement. They get a lot out of it. We don't get anything out of it. Speaker 5 (00:34:06): This is Jason Calacanis (00:34:06): slightly this is a distinctly different than, say, Taiwan is an issue, but let's put that aside, and and we'll get to that in a If China and Russia and the United States are in this very complicated chessboard, is there a way not only to diffuse the situation But is there a way and I know this sounds like a crazy Hail Mary to deepen the relationship with Putin and make the Russia and the United States, in some way, allies against this relationship with China because the Russia China relationship is also very complex. Is is there some path to having a better relationship. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:41): She's holding a summit. The last person he saw in real life was the leader of Pakistan in 2020 before the pandemic started. Do you know who he's meeting with in 2 weeks before the Olympics started in a week? It's Putin. Yeah. in person. And then the there's gonna be a tri part title alliance conference between China, Russia, and Iran. Great. So I think this idea that that all of a sudden Somebody's gonna found some holier than thou perspective on what the right thing to do is for other people is gonna be challenged. So those guys are gonna think about themselves. And they're creating alliances to basically further advance their own objectives. And so I think we have to as well The thing here, I I think it where what deescalates all of this is economic sanctions and monetary impact because If Nord Stream 2 doesn't get turned on, which is in Germany's control, that has a huge economic impact to Russia. Jason Calacanis (00:35:44): Explain what it is. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:45): Nord Stream 2 is that pipeline that I just talked about, the nat gas pipeline that that basically doubles the amount of nat gas flowing from Russia into Germany. And essentially into all of Europe. Jason Calacanis (00:35:56): But hasn't Jeremy said if they invade the Ukraine Speaker 1 (00:35:58): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:58): They haven't said they haven't said it on the record. They it it is it it is thought that chancellor Scholz that that that it's theoretically on the table, but it hasn't been officially declared. Biden today said that he's talked or somebody in the White House has talked to all the major banks in the US about crippling economic sanctions. So I I I do think the way this gets deescalated is through money. And if you, you know, if you severely impinge Russia's ability to sort of grow their economy, that foments a lot of, you know, anger at home, and I don't think that, you know, that'll probably weaken and destabilize Putin. more than, you know, trying to sort of have a an I don't know, some kind of like get together and hug it out session with him. David Sacks (00:36:46): Yeah. I mean so so, Jason, you you raised a good point with, you know, can we improve our relation with Putin Obama tried. Right? We had the whole reset. And ultimately, it wasn't tremendously successful, but I think a lot of it has to do with the way that the foreign policy established from Washington sort of reacts. And I Obama had some really good quotes about this. I think it was in that Atlantic article where, you know, first, he described that, you know, that Russia has a vital interest in Ukraine in a way we don't because it's right there. It's on their border. They've been attacked. Russia has through the Ukraine, you know, throughout history. So, again, it's just a primary interest of theirs. And so after saying that, Obama then, you know, he he basically got attacked, you know, by you know, in a it was some of it was partisan, but and then he responded to the attacks by saying, if there's someone in this town, Washington, DC, that would claim that we would consider going to war with Russia over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, they should speak up and be very clear about it. the e challenged. And then he said, so so so the ish and no one did. Right? No one was willing to just come right out and say that we should go to war over this. And that's how he defused the attacks on himself. And then Obama continued, he said there's a playbook in Washington that presidents are supposed to to follow and the playbook prescribes responses to different events and these responses tend to be military rise responses. You are judged harshly if you don't follow the playbook even if they're a good reason. So what Obama is saying is that no one would defend a more militarized posture and and going to war against Russia over the Crimea. And yet, he was somehow portrayed as suspect, you know, by not being tough enough on Russia. And So, you know, if you're Putin and you see constantly the foreign policy establishment, you know, reacting in this way, it's it's not a problem that even one resit can just fix overnight. You know Jason Calacanis (00:38:48): what would change this? Is if when we send a 100,000 troops over there, it's a draft. And you know, it's not a all paid military. The fact that these people in Washington who got their kids in Georgetown or Harvard or wherever they are at Stanford don't have to send their kids over there to fight this war, one of the reasons they can write these documents and have these doctrines that, hey. You gotta send all these troops into harm way harm's way. Like, if they had to send their sons and daughters, it would be a much different discussion of, like, where we're gonna start a war, whether it's Afghanistan or the Ukraine. Alright. Let's go to markets. Bill Ackman came over the top. He's buying a ton of Netflix, and Tesla just absolutely flipped to becoming a money printing machine and had a ridiculous quarter. Revenues up 53 to 53,000,000,000, up Speaker 1 (00:39:36): 71% Jason Calacanis (00:39:37): year over year. q 4 revenue, 17,000,000,000, sixty five percent year over year. And they increased their deliveries by Speaker 1 (00:39:44): 71%. Jason Calacanis (00:39:46): And now now you're all of a sudden to start see some you know, income coming into the company, so flipping from money losing to breakeven to now printing a ton of money. Microsoft had an absurd quarter Their revenue hit 51,700,000,000, up 20% in the quarter, Speaker 1 (00:40:04): 20% Jason Calacanis (00:40:05): year over year, Pays for $200,000,000,000 in revenue in 2022, and their net income was also up 20 plus percent at 18,800,000,000. So The money printing machine in these companies is just extraordinary, Chamath. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:19): What are your thoughts? I think you're you're you forgot a couple of key things, which is that the FOMC meeting happened this week, and Powell basically said, look. We're gonna start tightening in March. I think the way that he said it, you know, all of these words tend to be so scrutinized and overanalyzed. But the instead of figuring out what people thought, I think their actions post the FLMC are important, which is that we effectively now started to price in about Speaker 1 (00:40:44): 5 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:45): rate hikes this year. So probably 525 point rate hikes effectively. That's what that's what the That's what the yield curve tells us. If you take a big step back, I just wanna remind people, like, it's really hard to live through volatility. Right? And we're in the phase of it now. But, typically, these big draw downs, so, like, you know, when stocks go down, it actually precedes so it comes before the actual starting of a rate hike cycle. And so if you go back to the you know, from 1950 onwards today, every time the government has started to raise rates or the Federal Reserve has started to raise rates. The stock markets have actually rallied. Now why is that? It's typically that they see through the end of the rate hike cycle And they start to price the business as if these rate hikes are done and to to re base things. And on average, I think the stock markets go up between 7% 8% so call it 7 a half, 8 a half percent. And so what's interesting to me is now we're finally starting the process of these hikes. And the real question is going to be, how data dependent do these guys get? And what I mean by that is so, you know, we talked about this before, but, you know, China cut rates this past weekend actually, Germany decreased their GDP forecast. And so you're starting to see 2 huge countries already say, hey. Wait a minute. We need to be, you know, we need to be more realistic about what long term growth looks like here. It's inconceivable in my mind that those countries are slowing down and we won't. And so I think what happens in these other huge GDP drivers of world GDP will affect us. And so, you know, Saxon and I have said this before, but the marginal risk will be that we overcorrect and actually create a recession that doesn't need to be one. So we slam on the brakes Jason Calacanis (00:42:33): too hard, and another way Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:34): of saying it is So rate Jason Calacanis (00:42:36): hikes are the market is a leading indicator of what's gonna happen post the rate hikes. We David Sacks (00:42:41): had a nice relief rally going on I think some of the works that Powell used was that there was plenty of room Jason Calacanis (00:42:46): for rate hikes. David Sacks (00:42:47): Yeah. Meaning that because unemployment's at 3 a half percent, that, you know, we're at full employment, and that means that the Fed can that, you know, has this dual mission of keeping inflation low and, you know, keeping employment high. So if employment is high, then they've got more room to raise rate. Anyway, it was that language around the plenty of room that freaked markets out, and it triggered a huge sell off. I think to Chipas point, I don't see how you can have this much wealth destroyed so quickly and have it not impact the real economy. There's a lot of people out there who feel a lot poorer because their portfolios have gotten slash in value. I mean, anybody Jason Calacanis (00:43:27): with -- They'll tightening. They'll clench not spend as much money on vacation, not buy a TV or a car. So these wait list for cars might get you know, become sales. David Sacks (00:43:36): The luxury markets of the economy, the optional purchases start to really slow down. And so I think that the risk of recession now is much higher than it was even a month ago. Now, you know, it's gonna be hard to know. So so, basically, I think what we're saying is It's gonna be very hard for the Fed to engineer a soft landing here, where we don't trigger a recession in the process of stopping inflation. And look, we'll we'll judge Powell's performance, you know, at the end of this. You know, we're not gonna know. I think it's But I but I think that he's turned out to be much more hawkish in his statements than markets were expecting. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:16): Again and in 2018, you know, he was probably overly hawkish and he actually created effectively a little mini recession. We we didn't pay attention enough to it because you know, Trump made it impossible to see the signal from the noise. But it did happen, and it was Powell being a little too trigger happy. And so You know, we have to remember that, you know, the Fed has $9,000,000,000,000 of assets on their balance sheet. And so, you know, if they start to take 9 $1,000,000,000,000 of cash out of the system by selling these assets into the market. Right? You're taking the money out, right, because you're getting money back. that's gonna have an enormous, huge impact as well. So if Jason Calacanis (00:44:53): you think about questions about what Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:55): happened One second. Let me just finish one second one second. Let me finish, please. So, you know, so when you have these 2 things happening at the same time, you have a potential rate hike cycle which makes the the cost of a used car more expensive the cost of your credit card Calacanis more expensive. The obligations you have to pay just become naturally more expensive. You feel poorer, so you spend less. And then separately in the financial markets you actually take liquidity out of the system and so people value, you know, liquidity more it becomes it becomes worth more. You be you you value current cash more. I mean, we're putting ourselves in a really delicate position, so he got a a a delicate balancing actor. He is definitely on a tight road bike. So if we pull Speaker 1 (00:45:37): 9,000,000,000,000 Jason Calacanis (00:45:37): out, we've been talking about this deficit. If he starts selling all of those assets. Does that mean on the United States balance sheet that will reduce our national debt? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:47): No. mean -- Where does the money go? We're getting 9,000,000,000,000 of cash. Right? You sell an asset, you get cash for it. Right? David Sacks (00:45:53): And -- So it pulls money out of the economy in the same way Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:56): that it -- -- economy. -- it Speaker 1 (00:45:57): -- David Sacks (00:45:57): Yeah. -- it created liquidity when they were buying assets. Right? When they're buying this debt, it would put month push money out. If they're selling the debt, it pulls money back in. Jason Calacanis (00:46:07): what happens to those dollars is my point. Like, what what is the impact of the dollar staying around in the United States Bank again? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:13): The dollar the dollar stays in the US USA's bank account, but the obligation to note exists in some financial intermediary that holds it. Speaker 8 (00:46:20): Clearly Powell does not wanna be remembered as the Fed chief David Sacks (00:46:25): that let inflation slip the leash. Right? I mean, he he's gotten religion now around the idea that this inflation is not transitory, which was his position for months. I think that now bit him, and the risk is potentially an over correction, but he's not gonna let him Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:41): guilt, then he'll be the 1st fed governor to have caused 2 recessions. David Sacks (00:46:46): I think it's like a a serious risk. And and by the way, these market levels that we're at right now, I mean, look, 60% correction in gross stocks. Okay? But this is with that's still in Speaker 8 (00:46:55): a good economy in David Sacks (00:46:56): peacetime conditions. And now we have a risk of recession and war. Speaker 8 (00:47:01): So, you know, there's still room for, you know, a lot more negative news here is kind of my point. David Sacks (00:47:09): And but look, sentiment's also very negative. So when sentiment is this negative, there's also the potential for markets to quickly recover Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:18): if there's positives. But the sentiment is there for the wrong reasons, I think. I don't think people are thinking recession. I think people are thinking, my gosh, these rate increases, my gosh, I can't own these high growth stocks anymore. And none of those things are true. Those are just perceptions that get amplified by one's emotions when you're getting punched in the face, which is what happens when you wake up every day in your portfolio. Speaker 5 (00:47:37): And by Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:37): the way, 5 or Speaker 1 (00:47:38): 6%. David Friedberg (00:47:39): It generates Speaker 8 (00:47:40): incredible opportunity. The, you know, David Friedberg (00:47:40): the idea that markets bucket, quote unquote, Speaker 8 (00:47:48): growth stocks together, I think kind of obfuscates David Friedberg (00:47:48): an important point, which is that some of the businesses in that category are real businesses that are gonna succeed over the long run, and some of them are speculative and are likely to fail over the short run. And, you know, as you saw Netflix sell off, the Lachman, very smart, came in and bought a bunch of the stock. I don't know if you guys remember this, but in Speaker 1 (00:48:12): 2011, David Friedberg (00:48:13): TCV, which is traditionally a private equity investor at the time, and there wasn't a lot of crossover and public market stuff happening. Jho. they they were a private investor in Speaker 8 (00:48:22): Netflix. Netflix stock tanked from David Friedberg (00:48:22): I think it was around $220 a share down to 70 bucks a share in a couple of months, and TCV did a $200,000,000 pipe into Netflix. And everyone was like, oh my god. What are they doing? It's incredible. And by the way, that was on an adjusted basis that's $10 a share in today's share price. So that that that $200,000,000 investment that Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:43): they made went up 60x. David Friedberg (00:48:48): you know, at the peak of Netflix a few weeks ago. And so, you know, seeing Bill Ackman come in and and underwrite Netflix again and and make a big investment at its current market price. So Jay Hoag, I think it really highlights that there there are just because the market price is down doesn't mean that a business isn't fundamentally valuable and gonna grow and gonna generate significant returns over time as a as an operating business. And that distinction starts to present significant opportunities in a market condition like this. And the businesses, we all talk about generally gross doctor down 60%, but maybe most of them shouldn't have even been public companies in the first Maybe they should have been speculative private investments where more than 2 thirds of them were likely to fail, and they shouldn't be failing as public companies. And the few that are getting damaged and hit with this market sentiment shift can be picked up cheap, and there's a lot of opportunity. And so I wouldn't view the market condition to be necessarily reflective again of the economy or the condition of businesses in general. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:44): Jay Hoag was a partner of TCV. He's a founder of TCV that did that deal, and He's also the one that participated and led the Speaker 1 (00:49:50): $1,000,000,000 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:52): round into Peloton before they whipped earnings. and got and got decapitated. But he's an incredible investor. That trade is probably one of the best trades of all time. Jason Calacanis (00:50:02): So let's look in the good news column. Wages weigh up, earnings weigh up, Speaker 1 (00:50:09): 10,000,000 Jason Calacanis (00:50:10): job openings in the United States, pretty close to record low unemployment and the pandemic ending ending and people having record savings in their bank accounts and personal balance sheets. So how does all that good news? The pandemic hasn't ended. It's ending for people. I think it's over for people. Like -- Jake, Speaker 8 (00:50:27): I'll I'll David Friedberg (00:50:27): tell you the thing I'm most concerned about. There's a reverberation that that persists in supply chains. I don't know how much hardware, lab, biotech, consumer goods businesses you guys in I'm involved in a number of them. Every single one of them are crippled in some way right now by supply chain issues. I mean, I'm talking about, like, businesses that have been operating at steady state for many, many years Speaker 1 (00:50:49): -- Jason Calacanis (00:50:50): When do those get worked out? David Friedberg (00:50:51): We don't know. And everyone's getting surprised and hit upside the head every week with some new supply chain shortage, whether it's some chemical you need for some lab equipment or, you know, the the delivery of some big piece of equipment or even plastic bottles that we use that's to kind of fill up our beverages that we ship. That's a pretty sizable business. We've never had supply chain disruption like we're seeing right now. I'd like to bleep out the name of that company. Speaker 8 (00:51:14): Yeah. Beeps. David Friedberg (00:51:14): But it but it's it's like it's a bleep this out, but it's a significantly sized business that has never had supply chain issues. It's all US based, But some of the suppliers of the suppliers have had complete failure and delivery, and all of a sudden, it's now reverberating through the supply chain. You guys saw that GM didn't deliver a single frigging electric vehicle last quarter because they couldn't actually get the chips that they needed to make cars. So the the real risk to the economy, in my opinion, right now, is when and how we're gonna work our way through these supply chain issues, and it is so complex. And there's a myriad of problems, and it is a global problem that it's really unclear how this is gonna play out over the next 6 months. And what'll happen is this quarter, next quarter, businesses that you didn't realize and didn't expect are gonna get hit with supply chain problems. are suddenly gonna say, guess what? Our revenue is off by 20%, 30% because we couldn't sell this product because and half our shelves are empty. because product didn't show up or or whatever the the narrative might be. Alright. So it's it's a it's a real problem. Speaker 8 (00:52:11): I I David Sacks (00:52:11): think it's a really I think it's a great point because you don't solve these supply chain issues with rate hikes. Right? It's like David Friedberg (00:52:18): Has nothing to do with that. David Sacks (00:52:19): Nothing to do with it. Right. So the rate hike slow the economy. David Friedberg (00:52:22): That's why I'm I'm way more worried about this than rate hikes. Jason Calacanis (00:52:25): Right. What does clean it up is capitalism, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:28): the end of the pandemic. time -- I'm I'm less worried. Yeah. And the reason I'm less worried is when you actually talk to the companies that that are spending enormous amounts of money on CapEx, they've actually guided to the fact that by the end of this year and the beginning of next year, most of these things will be worked out. Yeah. It's into Josh. So I think I think we're I think we're dealing with a, you know, 6 to 9 month issue of having turned things off and now are now rapidly trying to turn things back on. And we can't necessarily get that timing right. But I do think it'll work itself out faster than people expect personally. That's what I think. Because the cost of Apple and Tesla specifically guiding to that is too enormous. You're talking about, you know, collectively almost 4,000,000,000,000,000 of market cap, so they're not gonna get something like this wrong. And they were pretty clear in the last few days that that this will be done by 2023. Early Speaker 1 (00:53:15): 2022. Jason Calacanis (00:53:16): Saks or Shamoff, I just listed all the good news to counter you know, the the the slog and the and the bad news. How do you account for record low unemployment, record number of jobs, record wages going up? massive cash on people's personal balance sheet, massive amounts of sideline cash, massive amounts of venture funds being raised that have to be deployed in the next 5 years, all that good news, where does that on this balance sheet of good versus bad, you know, work out for you, Sex? David Sacks (00:53:45): Well, the the negatives are that, yes, the unemployment rate is very low, but a lot of people have dropped out of the labor force. So the labor participation rate is still quite low. Jason Calacanis (00:53:55): So -- Because of, David Sacks (00:53:56): Well, because I think a lot of people dropped out because of COVID. You know? Yep. Everyone wants to vote. And I think, you know, they got these STEMI checks, and I think a lot of people got used to not working. You know? And maybe maybe you had a household with 2 people used to work and now only one of them is working. You know, maybe they moved to a cheaper part of the country. So, I mean, maybe it's a good thing. Right? But a lot of people dropped out of the the labor force, and they haven't come back And so that's the negative. And then, you know, the fact that wages are going up is good, but we don't know how much that's inflation. Right? So You know, those would be the the negatives. But there was a report that inventory levels did rise in q 4. And so the supply chain issues do seem to be ameliorating to Jason Calacanis (00:54:43): some degree. I was looking at cars and now a lot of the people who had you know, there's no way to get this car. Now they're like, hey. We got a couple of these cars available if you want them. And then if you look at the housing inventory, It does seem that maybe that's taking a plus too, and people couldn't find houses. And now maybe even though it's still a housing crisis, maybe there's more available or they're staying on the market a little bit longer. David Sacks (00:55:05): I mean, it's I think it's pretty clear that economic activity is slowing. And, again, things like rate increases, they it increases the the cost of a mortgage. Right? So that could affect house prices. Jason Calacanis (00:55:18): I think there's an interesting startup story. There's a private company that's doing essentially life. extension that a bunch of rich people put $3,000,000,000 into. You wanna tell us, Friedberg, in your science segment? What is this gonna make us live longer or not? David Friedberg (00:55:34): Well, I think I mentioned this company a few episodes ago But I think they just announced their Speaker 1 (00:55:44): $3,000,000,000 David Friedberg (00:55:46): investment. And and again, this goes back to the the point I made on the prediction show. So last week, Altos Labs announced that they've landed Speaker 1 (00:55:56): $3,000,000,000 David Friedberg (00:55:57): in funding, and this has been a an ongoing funding that's been going on for quite a while into this business. But this business was set up to commercialize yamanaka factor based cellular reprogramming for a Reversal. And there was a paper published just yesterday. I'll put a link in the show notes that if people are interested in reading a scientific paper, they can take a look. incredible results, scientists took mice, gave those mice short bursts of these yamanaka factors. and then measured all the biomarkers, all of the chemical signatures in the blood of those mice to determine their age because there are known ways that we can measure the age of an organism looking in their blood at measuring certain biomarkers. And with just a few short births for about a week of these drugs, these these yamanaka factors, the mice, all of their age signals reversed to making it look like they were very young again. And it did not do what the challenge has been with Yaminaka factors in the is if you put too much of it in in a body and an organism, the cells rejuvenate to becoming stem cells, which is kind of like what what a fetus might have, and starts to grow a lot of tumors. They were able to avoid having tumors show up in the mice, and the mice, in fact, all looked extremely young from a biomarker basis. So an incredible result, an incredible paper, whether or not it gets repeated and shown by others. But I think this speaks to the quality of the science that's underlying the $3,000,000,000 investment that was just made in Altos Labs, which is probably one of the biggest seed investments ever. No. And and clearly, it's Jason Calacanis (00:57:27): the biggest seed investment ever in a start. Speaker 8 (00:57:29): And David Friedberg (00:57:29): I think it speaks to what I highlighted as what I what what what will be the new frontier in biotech and we'll completely rewrite, like, you know, the course of humanity is if we can take drugs and for a short period of time completely reverse the age of ourselves, and it sounds so crazy and so wacky. But it's being now proven in in a single week, we've now had an amazing paper published, and we've seen the startup announce their $3,000,000,000 of funding to pursue commercialization of this technology this is gonna be the year. I think this will be the front cover of a lot of magazines this this year as people realize that this is real and that it's getting commercialized. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:01): Why why do you think why do you think they have to start with Speaker 1 (00:58:03): $3,000,000,000? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:06): And I'll and I'll tell you why I asked the question. Speaker 8 (00:58:08): Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:08): Whenever I see these grand deals prognostications of future progress and then see these companies raise extraordinary amounts of money, I have never found a single example where it's ever worked ever. In fact, every time I see a company raise an bit an amount of money in a series a. I write it off in my head. David Friedberg (00:58:26): Yeah. Short. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:28): So why why should I not in this case? So Or it's more actually, actually, a better question. Why would somebody listening to this pod go work there and take the series a -- By David Friedberg (00:58:36): the way, I by the way, the same has been done and can be said about Calico, which is alphabet subsidiary that's that's pursuing similar research, where Speaker 1 (00:58:44): 1,000,000,000 David Friedberg (00:58:44): of dollars have gone into that business. And there's a sit a similar sort of research track underway. And I think the general principle, Chemat, is they don't know what the product is. They don't know the way to market. They don't know, you know, what area they need to explore. but the underlying principle is proven. The underlying principle is something that people believe in. This science is proven. This science is real. we don't know the commercial path, and we have to try lots of different things and run lots of different research programs in parallel to figure it out. And each of those research programs is like a Speaker 1 (00:59:14): $100,000,000 David Friedberg (00:59:14): biotech start And so I think that the the principle is let's put a lot of shots on goal all at once in parallel and make sure because if any of these shots on goal work, is gonna be worth many, many 1,000,000,000 of dollars. So I think that's generally the idea. It's almost like having a $3,000,000,000 venture fund, but the venture fund is targeted at one core area of interest that we believe is real. And I think that's the way a lot of these things are being set up. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:37): But I'm I'm asking this question, have you ever seen company try to do 30 different things and it works? Jason Calacanis (00:59:43): No. No. Yeah. I mean, it's not the typical capital allocation milestone based funding scheme, I have a the the area about this. Speaker 1 (00:59:50): -- David Friedberg (00:59:50): product market fit thing. Right? It's it's it's a it's a research program, and it's a series of research programs. But, I mean, look, it you let me reframe it for you, Tamar. Have you ever seen a Speaker 1 (00:59:59): $3,000,000,000 David Friedberg (01:00:00): venture fund that makes a 100 bets with smart people at the helm with smart people working at the individual businesses fail. Right? Like Speaker 1 (01:00:07): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:08): Yes. And in fact, I've never seen a $3,000,000,000 venture fund do much more than return 2 x of money. David Friedberg (01:00:13): Yeah. Well, look. Let's see. I mean, it's a it's a big bet. And, obviously, there's some people making nice management fees and nice carry on this thing. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:19): I'm not trying to be a wet blanket. I'm just curious you know, why do it that way? Meaning, you know, every startup David Friedberg (01:00:25): Let's get Bob Nelson on. He'll talk about it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:27): He'll -- Yes. So -- he can set Speaker 8 (01:00:28): it up. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:28): Yeah. Every startup, I think, is forced in some ways by the market to make an educated guess about where product market it lies and to try to build some minimum viable product. That that tends to be how value is created. I mean, you could have said that, you know, Google could have had 90 different algorithms, but, you know, Larry Page started with background. That's how it started. He had to make an educated guess that -- He Jason Calacanis (01:00:51): had to make decisions, and that's what startups about. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:54): You have to make decisions in your well, you have to make a bet on your on your own in touch with us. David Friedberg (01:00:58): Why why why don't you put all your capital into one company? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:01): Oh, because mostly the companies won't let me. But I would if I could. Oh, interesting. Jason Calacanis (01:01:05): So I I think that what's happening here to Speaker 1 (01:01:07): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:07): I mean, you're your Speaker 1 (01:01:08): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:08): If I could, I would, but they don't let me. David Friedberg (01:01:10): You could buy you could put all your money back into Facebook or back into forget Facebook. I know you got issues, but what about alphabet or Amazon? Just put all your capital in one bet and just, you know, write it out. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:19): Right. But then it comes to what I think where I can generate the best return. Meaning, you know, I think that I could generate much higher returns than what I think Google will give me. Speaker 8 (01:01:28): Yeah. That's Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:28): why I do it. Jason Calacanis (01:01:29): Well, well, here here's what I think's happening here. There are a lot of rich people who are going to die soon and they're counting down like Bezos And they're saying, if why not? If I'm worth a 100,000,000,000, put 1, 2, 3,000,000,000 into this and have them go for it Because I've got nothing to lose because I'm dying in 20 years. This is a fear of death by billionaire bet, which is exactly what I think happened with the Google guys that were just David Friedberg (01:01:54): like -- -- say the the team involved in these projects are not first time founders or people that are great pitchmen. It's people that are repeated, tried, and true entrepreneur success stories that have done this over and over in biotech, and they're the ones that are being grown into working on these projects. And they're saying, look. Because we've got the people that have done it over and over, give them the capital. I mean, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:13): do you David Friedberg (01:02:13): think that's a good argument to us? Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:14): No. I I believe in Yamanaka Factories, and I believe that there will be innovation. My only question is, is the innovation going to come through a small team that raises a small quantum of capital with one very focused idea that gets it right? or this sort of, you know, Monte Carlo simulation approach to product innovation. And all I'm saying is just an observation that historically, it's been very difficult for these Monte Carlo simulations to ever work either to generate product market fit and an innovation and to make money. Now, hopefully, these guys are the exception that proves the rule because I think we'd all want this to work. No. David Friedberg (01:02:50): It's a it's a great point, and I hope you're right. And I hope to start that small project and white supremacists. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:57): Now you're saying the key thing because despite the $3,000,000,000, you're still gonna go after it, which implicitly is your way of saying, I'm short that company and I'm long my own company. And this is this is the point I was trying to get to, which is when when with really, really smart people see these things, They tend to look at it with a grain of salt thinking it's very difficult to build a startup as it is. Yeah. Sometimes it's kind of like growing great wine. You need to have a little pain and suffering along the way. And when you have $3,000,000,000, it's the opposite of pain and suffering. David Friedberg (01:03:27): Totally true. I'll also say what let let me just support your point, which is the people I see get hired to big projects like this, and there are a number of them that get funded, not just it's also in and other kind of deep tech stuff. They hire the tried and true experienced executives who generally have older kids and live in a nice house and have made a bunch of money. and the earnestness, the motivation, the hunger, the fuel, the the creativity because they know what they know, and they're not willing to accept that they don't know what they don't know. those folks generally are less likely to succeed than the folks who are doing this maybe for the first time for that very reason. When you're doing something innovative, I totally support your point, and and I really do hope you're right. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:08): But -- I thought I thought, Jason, when you were talking about talking about startups, I thought we were gonna talk about Bolt and the Stripe Mafia. Fiasco this week. Wow. Speaker 8 (01:04:15): That's a David Friedberg (01:04:15): good story. Jason Calacanis (01:04:16): It's a pretty crazy story. David Friedberg (01:04:18): Where does everyone fall? What side does everyone fall out on that? Jason Calacanis (01:04:21): Great. Did anybody have any equity positions in either company? Let's start there. No. No. Strip holders? No. Sachs? No. Sachs. Are you an LP? in any firms that have a Speaker 1 (01:04:31): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:31): I'm an LP. I'm an LP in funds that have exposure to it. David Sacks (01:04:34): Absolutely. Yeah. For sure. Jason Calacanis (01:04:35): I am an LP and a fund that has exposure Speaker 8 (01:04:37): to it as well. Speaker 1 (01:04:37): -- David Sacks (01:04:37): that sign Speaker 8 (01:04:38): as well. David Friedberg (01:04:38): But it doesn't -- It's David Sacks (01:04:38): minuscule. doesn't affect Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:40): Minuscule. David Friedberg (01:04:40): Doesn't matter. Jason Calacanis (01:04:41): Minuscule for me too. Okay. Here we go. So for people who don't know, Bolt is like 1 collect checkout software. They compete in some ways, which Stripe's payment API. The CEO, Ryan Breslow, did a tweet thread basically saying that YC and Stripe are the mob bosses of Silicon VAN Ali. It was pretty charged. Obviously, Stripe and YC worked together. Stripe is the biggest company to come out of YC ever, I guess, along with Airbnb. He claims that a lot of the top VCs were blocked as a strategy by Stripe, and I think There is some truth to this when you invest in one company, you don't invest in the competitor. I don't know if that happened here as a strategy, but it is viable strides that other people have used where Bold claim Stripe got all the top investors. Therefore, they couldn't raise money. He also was saying they were voting things up and down on y Combinator's Hacker News as if that matters. yada yada yada. It was kind of a weak argument. I in my view, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:43): I'll give you my hot take. Jason Calacanis (01:05:44): Hold on. -- a bunch of VCs dunking on him. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:46): I'll give I'll give you my hot first of all, Bolt is now a $14,000,000,000 company or something. Okay? So the you know, these guy I think this was a very brilliant PR strategy, and it worked. What do I mean by this? This was a company that most people didn't know about until this past week. they went and they punched up, which is a pretty tried and true PR strategy. -- fight up. Jason Calacanis (01:06:07): Always fight. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:08): Always fight up. You pick the big guy who's an incredibly pristine extremely well run company that is sucking up most of the talented, you know, people in Silicon Valley to work for is a, you know, centricorn could be a $1,000,000,000,000 company over some lifetime. So they went and they punched up and what happened? Everybody fell for it. They baited all of these folks, and then all of these folks had to come out on Twitter and land bastion. And, basically, the net result of it is if one person knew about Bolt before, Now hundreds and thousands of people know about both afterwards. Jason Calacanis (01:06:42): So not only do they not know them, they're now they're contemporary. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:45): Just in terms of the practical reality, they are now part of a discussion and in a framework of companies in this space that they were never a part of before. So Speaker 1 (01:06:54): -- Jason Calacanis (01:06:54): This is Steve Jobs is moved with the 1984 Commercial. He said IBM, and then Microsoft, our big brother, we're gonna attack them, join the rebel alliance, be part of Apple. And, of course, Apple and IBM responded. And that was the big mistake. And Mark and Teresa and Sequoia, a bunch of different venture firms responded. Sachs, what's your take on this? I see you're chopping at the bit or maybe you're biting your tongue, which isn't Speaker 8 (01:07:17): it? David Sacks (01:07:18): I I saw I agree with Jamoth that it was kind of a brilliant PR move if if that's what it was. I I do like Sharps punching up, and he took a punch at Stripe, which is the big company in the space. So And then, yeah, Stripe Stripe didn't respond directly. The Colson didn't respond, but their surrogates did. And then that looks like punching down and it draws more attention to it. So I get the p r strategy. I would say that as to the merits of the allegation, I do I I I it's interesting that, you know, he didn't get into y c. because I think that he is a very talented founder. And, you know, we we looked at this company pretty yeah. Pretty early on. It was for, like, sort of a mid stage growth round. And it was like one of the toughest decisions we we I'd say the toughest decisions as a VC are when you actually want to invest. in the company, but the valuation is like 2 x what you think it should be. And that was kind of the situation at the time. When we looked at it is I think we actually would have invested. The system valuation was too high. So -- It Jason Calacanis (01:08:19): would have been a great bet for you. David Sacks (01:08:21): Yeah. He grew into it, and so it would have been a great bet. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:24): So it Jason Calacanis (01:08:24): was a bad decision on your part. David Sacks (01:08:26): Yeah. Clearly, we should have invested. It's just that, you know, at the time you invest, you have to have some basis for valuation. And and that's the sense in which I think, you know, maybe Ryan's accusations don't totally make sense is that he's been able to raise a lot of rounds at really high valuations. And so he he hasn't had a problem, you know, raising a lot of money at, you know, great prices. And it, you know, it almost feels like a slap in the face to his investors where, like, what's the complaint? I didn't get any tier 1 investor Jason Calacanis (01:08:59): Or that it was just hard to meet with investors and that Stripe called the investors and told them not to invest. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:05): That that was the allegation. David Sacks (01:09:07): Yeah. No. I mean yeah. I I I can't I can't really speak to that. But -- Yeah. Speaker 1 (01:09:11): -- David Sacks (01:09:11): he was clearly able to raise great rounds. Speaker 8 (01:09:14): So Speaker 1 (01:09:14): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:14): Can I read to you an email exchange between me and Ryan Breslow? Oh, traumatic reading? From Speaker 1 (01:09:20): 2015. Jason Calacanis (01:09:21): Uh-oh. Here we go. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:23): Chamath hopes all all is well. FYI thinks felt too rushed on our end, so we're toning down our series a discussions for a couple months. And this was this was in July of 2015. I'm I'm reading you my answer because it's so fabulous. Hi, Ryan. After a holy unsuccessful few weeks of attempting to win a world series of poker bracelet, I'm back at home licking my wounds. How about we talking a week or 2? So not only did I have a chance to win a world series of poker bracelet according to this exchange, which I didn't win, obviously. Duh. I had a chance to do the series a in a $14,000,000,000 company and screwed screwed that Jason Calacanis (01:10:00): one up too. Big gummies. Speaker 5 (01:10:02): I mean, the the things we miss are there's, David Friedberg (01:10:04): like, 20 things you Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:05): miss as an investor for everything you hit. So I might I I've interacted with Ryan back in the day, and I just remember him being super, super smart. And I do think that, you know, there's a lot of very smart people now around the table at Bolt, including Joanne Bradford. So I don't think that this was something that wasn't planned, and I just think that they executed it well and it worked. And I think a lot of people know this company that didn't know it before. Now they still have to execute and build a product and scale it and do all of these things. But David Sacks (01:10:33): Yeah. And I think that the response you provoked, I mean, since I was a little bit critical of what he said to me to say that one of the VCs who responded said that the reason they didn't invest was because the numbers weren't good. That was not my experience. When we looked at this company, they had great numbers. It's just the valuation was ahead of those numbers, but the numbers were always Jason Calacanis (01:10:52): I actually responded to that, and that was Sequoia partner, Sean Maguire, who said that. And I responded to him, like, hey, dude. VC code is you don't reveal the numbers on things you learn confidentially. What are you doing? Like and he's like, well, they said some b s about Stripe. I was like, yeah. still doesn't change VC code that if you learn something under NDA, Friedberg, essentially, in a meeting, you're not supposed to weaponize that Again Speaker 1 (01:11:18): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:18): Unless unless you unless you have a $30,000,000,000 position. Jason Calacanis (01:11:21): I still think well, whatever. I still think it's, like, never seen a VC. honestly, it's the first time I've ever seen a VC began. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:28): Jason, come on. I I don't I think it's pretty I think we all knew where he was coming from. He's defending an enormous position of his and supporters. David Friedberg (01:11:35): You've always been Speaker 1 (01:11:36): -- David Friedberg (01:11:36): Never -- There we Jason Calacanis (01:11:39): go. -- never released inside information to David Friedberg (01:11:41): my point. You didn't say the inside information. David Sacks (01:11:43): conflicted out. So why Speaker 8 (01:11:44): would he Speaker 1 (01:11:44): meet with David Friedberg (01:11:44): them? Hey, guys. Nick just Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:51): accident that I had I had I found a way to get off my lazy ass, not be playing poker and do that deal, I would have generated a 222 x on my investor Jason Calacanis (01:12:00): Which would have been 15,000,000 times 222 insane. David Sacks (01:12:03): I think I think the route we looked at when, like, a $400,000,000 valuation something like that or something in that range. And so -- My Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:09): gosh. What would the series a have been? I mean, the series a would have been at, like, 20,000,000 according to pitch book. Jason Calacanis (01:12:15): Oh. Yeah. 63,000,000. You know, Speaker 8 (01:12:17): it it David Sacks (01:12:17): it was one of those meetings we came out of where it's like, that's a super interesting founder. So I Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:21): guess -- Me too. And that's what I remember too from Ryan. Jason Calacanis (01:12:24): Yeah. Super super super super -- Super interesting founder write the check. David Sacks (01:12:27): I said it earlier in the program that, like, our philosophy now is just to be price takers and just to pick the companies. that we wanna be in, and then the market sets Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:34): the price. That's the biggest mistakes I've made as an investor. Jason Calacanis (01:12:37): I'd like to focus on prices. David Sacks (01:12:38): We should've done that with Bolt. This was the decision we faced was, like, a few years ago. And so we just shouldn't have worried about valuation volume. Speaker 1 (01:12:45): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:45): sorry, Jay Kal, as soon as you said it was 63,000,000, you know what? My reptilian brain said, oh, that feels so expensive. Even now, Only the outcome is $14,000,000,000. And so to your point, David, that's a really good lesson for for investors to learn. It's just you're a price taker David Sacks (01:13:00): Totally. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:00): Get behind these really interesting people that are world beaters and just let them do the work. Jason Calacanis (01:13:04): Replace the bat. Yeah. Alright. So there you have it. This has been another amazing episode of the All In podcast. Bye bye. Bye bye. Love you. That's it. We'll let your winners ride. Rainman, David Saffens. I'm going home. And it said Speaker 1 (01:13:20): -- Speaker 6 (01:13:23): We open source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy lately. Jason Calacanis (01:13:32): on air when they're trying. Besty's our best. That is my dog driveway. We should Speaker 10 (01:13:46): all just get a room and just have one be cute, Dorothy, because they're all just useless. It's like this, like, sexual tension that they just need to release her mouth. David Friedberg (01:13:54): What? You're the big bee. What? David Sacks (01:13:56): Pure feet. What? Speaker 8 (01:13:58): I couldn't feel it. Jason Calacanis (01:13:59): Where did you get Murkeys are back?