OpenAI's Identity Crisis, Datacenter Wars, Market Up on Iran News, Mamdani's First Tax, Swalwell Out

All right, everybody. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world.

We've got the core four here and dare I say, the king of Adams. The king of Adams. Yes. Captain Travis

Kalanick is here. How you doing, brother?

I'm pretty good. Pretty good. I'm uh

sitting here doing the podcast just next door to David.

Ah, yes. There you go.

Don't reveal our locations.

Please don't dock.

I didn't put my address out there, dude.

No, that's true. Don't worry, Mandami did. He's outside your houses right now

did. He's outside your houses right now asking them to foresee trying to collect 3.9% or so.

Yeah, he's he they he decided there's rich people left in New York. So, he's

looking for other is it 3.9% a year. Is it per year or is it I don't know if the percentage has been released yet, but the speculation I've seen is 3.9% but I don't think that's final.

But yeah, it's a pia ter tax. So, if you have a second home Yeah. every year.

Wow. And by the way, it's for any home over 5 million. There's no homes under 5 million in Manhattan. This is not a rich person tax. This is within

person tax. This is within 15 miles of Midtown Manhattan, you're paying an extra tax. Uh I don't but only but Jal only if it's a pat. So

what it means is that the most second homes.

Well, yeah, but the most elastic part of the market is what they're targeting for this tax. So in other words, people who

this tax. So in other words, people who don't live in New York, who just have it as a second or third home, who could buy that property anywhere, yeah, are now being taxed the most. So what do

you think that's going to do? It's going

to have a massive impact on demand for second homes in New York, which will crash the whole market.

Yes, congratulations, Mummy.

But in a weird way, that'll be good for housing affordability in New York.

Well, that that's sort of the the claim, but I don't think it'll be good for it because there'll be no incentive to build more.

Yeah, all units matter. Every time you add units, people upgrade. And it's not like these are going to be lowincome housing. Like penthouse on 57th Street

housing. Like penthouse on 57th Street or, you know, in Grammarcy. That's not

lowincome housing. You'd have to break it into seven units. Makes no sense. But

by the way, I don't know if you guys saw the video, not to get too serious, but he's doxing a certain billionaire who owns a certain place and he's literally pointing at his home.

No, I said that to you, Jason. He's not

doxing because everybody's known for years that Ken Griffin bought that place. Everybody knows that address.

place. Everybody knows that address.

Everybody knows that unit. We all knew it. It was marketed widely. I don't

it. It was marketed widely. I don't

think that's really doxing. He doesn't

live there and everybody knew he owned it. It would be very different if it was

it. It would be very different if it was a place where somebody was keeping their primary residence and you didn't know and they stood in front of the house.

That I would agree with you. I think

this one is a little bit more tenuous.

Okay, fair enough. But what I will tell you is it's a dog whistle. crazy people

and this thing's been seen by 30, 40, 50 million people. Now,

million people. Now, it's a dog whistle to say that's the next United Healthcare CEO and in the week that a fire a Molotov cocktail and a bullet gets shot into Sam Alman's

house, it's deadly serious. And if you reverse it, I always reverse it. What if

a Republican sat outside of Bernie Sanders second or third home and said, "We should, this is his piano, this is his summer home. We should add, you know, taxes to And I'm sure you can

look up Bernie Sanders home pretty easily. So it just before you point at

easily. So it just before you point at people's homes and say this is the villain, be careful folks because then if something does happen to that person like you know what happened to Sam Wman

this week and you feel however you want about him, but nobody deserves to have their house fire bombed or shot at.

Period. Full stop.

I just think that it's going to kill the demand for, you know, maybe people who already have a home in New York like Ken Griffin, they probably are just going to suck it up and pay the tax and keep

whatever they have. But if you were a person who is thinking about buying a pat in New York, there's no way you would do it now.

Yeah.

Because you don't know what the tax rate is going to be and it's going to keep going up.

After a decade with interest and inflation, you've effectively almost doubled the price of your unit. So, if

you're going to buy a $10 million unit, you're probably then looking at a $20 million purchase price just to break even after about 10 or 11 years. That's

crazy. The math doesn't work anymore.

What is the downstream effect of these individuals not coming to New York, going to a Knicks game, going to a restaurant? No, they spend money. They

restaurant? No, they spend money. They

spend money in New York.

They have their birthday party. They do

all kinds of things.

I'm not a big fan of the piet culture. I

I own one house. I don't like this whole multiple houses you flitter flattering everywhere. It ruined London because

everywhere. It ruined London because when when you look at London where do you vacation Shimoth? Where do

you vacation?

I go to a hotel.

Okay.

So my point is this that I think the way that it works is it's not just pedair.

If you if you own a home that you fully rent out but that is not the primary residence of the person who is renting it,

it's also a problem. So, this is any even like a like a, you know, you had a two-e rental or a oneweek rental or a 30-day rental or even a 5-year rental

and it was somebody else's second home, the owner still gets gets hit. So, the

rental the sort of rentals of like folks who want to come to that city or who don't want to own in that city. Uh, but

it's a second place. The second place thing goes away. So, maybe this is just good for hotels. I think it's good for hotels, but if you look at London, it's probably the best example where there was a lot of people who used London as a

place to store assets. Real estate

became the primary way in which they would do that. It hollowed out parts of London where it's not as if it was unlivable. It's just that it was

unlivable. It's just that it was unlived.

Nobody was there. You drive around Chelsea, you drive around certain parts of London and it was like a ghost town on like a Thursday night or a Friday night. that is an issue is the land

night. that is an issue is the land banking. It's like your bitcoin is

banking. It's like your bitcoin is hollowing out a neighborhood and and there is something there. But you know what the whole uh housing thing is complete cap and utter [ __ ] because

if you move to a place like Austin where you are in Nevada or Florida, you see what happens when you allow people to build units in Austin three years in a

row rents and housing prices have gone down while net migration has gone up.

But that's been good for Austin, you guys would say. Isn't that good?

Incredible.

Yeah. Amazing.

Austin has like roughly doubles as the city over the past decade. And yet the rent for, you know, whatever a one or two bedroom apartments gone down.

That's incredible.

So, in other words, if you let people build to satisfy the demand, you won't have this problem.

And then who's stopping the building?

It's Democratic cities. It's nimi

people. And then in a Republican town, they're actually building units for an affordability. So you have one group

affordability. So you have one group saying they care about affordability and they're doing nothing about it and they're stopping it. And in another place, they're like, "We're just going to let you build because it's your right to build because it's your land." That's

the approach in Texas. It's your land.

You have the right to develop it. Go.

By the way, the high end of the market in London has basically turned over and collapsed Sachs. to your point, like

collapsed Sachs. to your point, like they introduced the stamp tax, which I think is equivalent to this tax that the New York City mayor is proposing. And if

you look at London as a guide, the real estate market just bid it at the high end. And

end. And I don't think that's going to be good for that city or even the UK as a whole.

There's a handful of cities where people do what you say, which is kind of park money there. The reason why they do that

money there. The reason why they do that is because they believe that that city a has the rule of law and b is a unique worldass city that's going to keep appreciating. And if you have new

appreciating. And if you have new management that doesn't really believe in the rule of law that basically keeps imposing all these arbitrary taxes. That

money is going to flee and find other kinds of investments. People aren't

going to park their money there. That

has to be a bad thing for the city. It's

like, you know, who cares if the top floor of that building where Ken Griffin lives is owned by one guy who isn't there that much? It's not going to affect the city that much, but having all these billionaires from all over the

world decide to park money in that American city has to be good for the US, just like it's good for the UK. And if

you give that up, then again, the money will just go somewhere else.

Well, to your point, the only thing is they're already paying taxes on the property. And because

they're not there very often, they're not using city services. So they're

paying taxes on the property. They're

not using city services.

They're profitable to the city. Yeah.

Think about a developer who's underwriting some new project. You know,

the fact that a whale like Ken Griffin is willing to overpay in the sense of price per foot for that top floor might make that whole project pencil. And this

is what contributes to the vitality of New York is there's constantly development going on. There's constantly

cranes. And so you take out that part of the market that in effect was price insensitive and was subsidizing all these projects and I think development

is going to dry up to a large degree.

Mhm. He's paying he must be paying three or four million in taxes every year and getting no services to your point Travis good point like all profit for the London also did something else which is that they essentially crippled what's

called non-dom status which is the big tax orb if you moving or parking assets in London and to your point Sax what did all the rich people do they just redirected themselves to Zurich to

Lugano to Milan and they they took advantage of more hospitable tax policy in other places now what the people Britain would tell you, I actually met

with the UK government yesterday.

They don't see a meaningfully enough measurable impact yet where they think it's a five alarm fire. So the real question is, is it more of a slow bleed and a slow melt and at some point it's just hollowed out and it's very hard to

reverse because there's not going to be a cataclysmic acute moment where people say, "Oh my god, we need to reverse these policies." It doesn't seem like

these policies." It doesn't seem like that's in the offing. You know, LA did something a little different but similar is they introduced that 5% mansion tax.

This on like all the areas except for like Beverly Hills and San Francisco has that too.

Yeah, San Francisco got that too. I

think it's actually like 6% in San Francisco.

San Francisco. It's 6% over 25 million and it starts at 5 million. So there's a transfer tax, an excess transfer tax above $5 million properties that scales

up above 25 million to an extra 6% on top of your brokerage commission. So

when you sell a house in San Francisco, you're paying 13% now.

Which is why you look at the transaction volume in the LA real estate market and it's just completely dried up. You know,

people aren't doing the house flipping anymore, like that kind of stuff, because the transaction costs are too high. But it just shows I mean again

high. But it just shows I mean again this tax was imposed retroactively. For

example, I had my house in SF and then they just take you know a couple of rooms of it and we talked about this on the show when it happened.

But my my point is just your property is not safe in blue states and wealthy people who have a choice of where to park their money are going to increasingly realize that and they're

not going to buy I think real estate in blue states is dangerous because the political class thinks that they can take a chunk of it and you know the wealthy people are going to react to that and they're going to move their money elsewhere.

All right, let's go to topic number one.

Open AI is apparently suffering from a bit of an identity crisis on Sunday.

Open AI's chief revenue officer Denise Dresser sent a four-page memo to employees. Obviously, it leaked

employees. Obviously, it leaked immediately, probably the point of it, and she called out Enthropic. She said

their $30 billion run rate is cap inflated by 8 billion due to a revenue share and some accounting with AI model providers. Chimati pointed that out in

providers. Chimati pointed that out in the last couple weeks. Also, she said anthropic stories built on quote fear restriction and the idea that a small group of elites should control AI.

Obviously, she's a fan of the pod. She

also laid out OpenAI's pivoting and she said they are going hard after business customers and they want to win the agent platform layer. If you remember, they

platform layer. If you remember, they hired the architect of the open source project openclaw. They didn't acquire

project openclaw. They didn't acquire openclaw. So Peter uh Steinberger is

openclaw. So Peter uh Steinberger is working at Open AI. Cynical people said, "Hey, maybe they want his next set of innovations to go inside of OpenAI's products as opposed to the open source one." I kind of agree with that

one." I kind of agree with that directionally.

There's obviously Perplexity Computer is doing really well. They quadrupled their revenue. And uh I was over at XAI

revenue. And uh I was over at XAI earlier this week with Elon and I can tell you he's got some very cool stuff coming. And this new model, Spud, is

coming. And this new model, Spud, is coming uh from Open AI. Here's your poly market. 75% chance Spud is released next

market. 75% chance Spud is released next week.

Additionally, and we'll go to the panel in just a second. On Tuesday, 2 days after this memo came out, obviously people write these memos to go directly to the press. So, they're obviously trying to undercut Anthropics valuation

and they feel that's a threat. That's my

take. The FT cited anonymous OpenAI investors who are frustrated with the company's lack of focus. Here's the

anonymous quote. quote, "You have chat GPT a 1 billion user business growing 50 to 100% a year. What are you doing talking about enterprise and code? It's

a deeply unfocused company and uh we talked about this chat GPT's market share is going down as the number of users is going up because Gemini and Claude gaining significantly and Medage

just last week released their first proprietary model and Apple doesn't have a product in market yet, but they do have a lot of users. So here's your Gen

AI website traffic.

Let's start uh Chimath with you. Your

thoughts on OpenAI. Should they be pivoting straight

OpenAI. Should they be pivoting straight into business developers and getting focused on that or should they stay focused on the consumer where they are the verb? as it relates to complex long

the verb? as it relates to complex long horizon coding tasks. What I can tell you from my team at 8090 is codeex is better

generally than anthropic. And so what happens is for the more day-to-day work, I think it's more reliable to use the clawed ensemble of models, but when

you're dealing with something that's very tricky and very complicated and a little bit more long horizon, codeex is really functional and really good. So I think if you're looking at it

good. So I think if you're looking at it through the lens of open AI, what they're probably saying is, hey, hold on a second. If we allocate more resources

a second. If we allocate more resources and just double down and crush consumer, that's probably three or four trillion of enterprise value.

And then if we slowly refocus the company with the rest of the resources and double down on codeex and do something meaningful in enterprise, we can probably capture two or three trillion there. And now all of a sudden

trillion there. And now all of a sudden you can paint a picture for a seven eight n trillion dollar market cap in the fullness of time. Not tomorrow

obviously, but Codeex is really good.

and there's a business to be had in both. You have to separate the two

both. You have to separate the two businesses. You can't have a lot of

businesses. You can't have a lot of overlap because there's too much context switching. You got to let the consumer

switching. You got to let the consumer team run and then you got to isolate the enterprise team and let them do what they think is right.

Travis, uh there's a big debate going on amongst the investors. The FTPS also questioned the $850 billion valuation of OpenAI. Secondary markets have now

OpenAI. Secondary markets have now priced Anthropic higher than OpenAI for the first time. This is the flipping that people predicted. One investor said OpenAI would need to IPO at a valuation

of 1.2 trillion for the last round to make any sense, but there's no buyers currently at the $850 billion valuation

that OpenAI just closed. According to

Bloomberg, Travis, how do you uh handicap this race between these two leading frontier models?

Growth is king right now in this in this world uh in this segment. Growth is the whole damn thing. And if Anthropic is growing faster than OpenAI by a

significant clip, the investors right now are going to play it forward. And

they're it, you know, you start to get network effects around compute, network effects around the number of tokens you're pushing out for various customers, enterprise or consumer. And

ultimately, you know, it's not great today, but how that plays into reinforcement learning and the things getting smarter over time. There's so

many there's so much upside to volume and scale that if they are growing faster at the same size, even if OpenAI is still growing, but if

they are half the growth rate, a third the growth rate, a fifth the growth rate, I would be I'd be worried.

And you saw this at Uber specifically when you accelerated away from the competitors like Lyft and Door Dash.

Yeah.

Yeah. you had to network effects was the whole thing at the end of the day and network effects was based on scale. So

yes, I'm I'm sort of like coming from my very specific experience. But if you believe there's network effects with the scale of data that you have and the scale of customers and the revenue that

this is cash that's coming in that you redeploy into compute and so say there's network effects of large compute I'd be very worried uh if I'm open AI

and seeing somebody growing faster at the same size. So Freeberg, when you look at this race between these two giants, maybe your thoughts on the flywheel as it relates, as Travis is

pointing out to advantages in compute, reinforcement, learning, and then also the ability to fund raise. One of the great things that Travis and the team did was as they were pulling away, they

just sucked all the oxygen out of the room by using capital as a weapon. Uh,

so your thoughts, Dave, on this high stakes game because there's also a point at which, and I'll just end on this.

There's a point at which you could run off the cliff. You raise

so much money and you deploy it so fast and the revenue doesn't catch up to it and then you go public and the markets don't believe the story. So, your thoughts, Free Bird I don't know the financials of the two companies well enough. Obviously, Sam

has no problem raising money. The guy,

didn't he just close like $150 billion round or something?

122 billion.

122 billion. largest round ever raised in any market I think private or public.

Yeah, probably. Yeah, I mean that's crazy.

That doesn't seem to be an issue. What

I've noticed is just the the pace of uh innovation at Anthropic is from my experience unprecedented. I mean,

experience unprecedented. I mean, they're release cadence is extraordinary. They've basically

extraordinary. They've basically supplanted Open Claw already with this release they did a few days ago and then today the new Opus model got dropped. So

there's something about the momentum, not in necessarily just in user growth, but in how they're operating this business that just seems to be head and shoulders above everyone else in the

cadence of of upgrades. If I look back 6 months ago, I think we were pretty heavy on Cursor and Gemini. And now I think we're probably 90% anthropic in just the

last 6 months at my my organization.

There's something very powerful about the flywheel they have going on.

Yeah. Oh, here's where I'd go just real quick Dave is mad respect on a$1 120 or $130 billion raise. I mean,

this is obviously next level, but you can use capital and investment to acquire scale and network effects associated with it. But if somebody is

getting that scale with revenue and let's call it contribution margin, contribution profit, efficiency will outstrip subsidy and it

will you can't just keep raising hundred billion dollar things forever. That's

where the train will stop. And if

Anthropic is funding theirs through revenue and other folks are funding it through investment, there's like a shortterm that's a short-term solve, but

it the long run is whoever is scaling their actual usage and system and ultimately with contribution profit that then soaks up the need for investment.

That's a that's a that's a very scary machine if you're competing against it, which is exactly sachs what the um legacy Mac7 are doing. you have massive

profits from uh Meta's core business, Google's core business that are being redeployed into infrastructure and even uh Tesla which has a lot of profits and

SpaceX which has a lot of cash on hand and they're building out Colossus and other assets including uh Elon is working on building a fab as folks have

been talking about. So, Sax, is there a chance for the legacy companies, the MAG7s to compete in this, or are we looking at OpenAI and Anthropic are one

and two and then everybody else can uh fight for third place and and the and the and the bronze as it were?

Well, I think Google's clearly in the mix. I mean, Deep Mind has an

mix. I mean, Deep Mind has an outstanding team and I think Elon's still in the mix with XAI and then you've got Meta also has the resources and they're seem to be further behind,

but they're going to compete. Look, let

me just go back to the central premise here. I agree that there's some valid

here. I agree that there's some valid criticism that OpenAI has been unfocused and should be, you know, moving forward

more focused in what they do. I have no idea, for example, what they're doing buying a podcast that's not us. So, I

don't know what what that was about. Um,

if you were gonna buy a tech podcast for a few hundred million dollars, I mean, um, we were here.

We're here.

We're here for Dario, reach out. Small

potatoes for you guys though. Small

potatoes. They can afford you. They

can't afford you guys.

Yeah. They thought we were too expensive.

Little did they know we would have sold out. But, um,

out. But, um, punch the ticket, Daria. Yeah,

but look, this other part of the criticism of Open AI that they shouldn't do enterprise is totally misguided. One

of the reasons why they should have been more focused is to do more enterprise and get enterprise more correct. Now,

why do I say that? To Travis's point about growth rates, it's true that OpenAI and Anthropic as of the beginning of Q2, so let's say two weeks ago, they

were both around 30 billion of revenue.

And that memo from that open AAI employee was right that if you compare them on an applesto apples basis that anthropic is about 20% less because they are including revenue made by their

channel partners. But that doesn't

channel partners. But that doesn't matter. What matters is the growth rate.

matter. What matters is the growth rate.

You know again to Travis's point and let me just put some numbers around this.

The open AI growth rates been around 3 to 4x a year. The anthropic growth rate has been around 10x a year. So they went from let's call it 1 to 10 billion of

ARR last year and by the end of Q1 this year they were already at 30 billion of again let's call it their revenue and they're on their way you know like Brad Gerson was saying on our podcast I think

in the last couple weeks they're going to end this year at 80 to 100 billion at least on the current trajectory and so you can plot their revenue on a logarithmic graph I mean again no one's

ever seen anything like before where every unit on the y- axis is another expon is 10x and it's a straight line now it's crazy it's crazy right so if it's taking

anthropic let's say one year to 10x and it's taking open AAI 2 years to achieve a 10x then it's obvious which one's going to win now what is the reason for

this is because anthropic was very focused on enterprise specifically coding and what you're seeing is that businesses are willing to pay for coding code tokens

on a meter basis, let's call it like electricity. The more they use, the more

electricity. The more they use, the more they're willing to pay and their usage just continues to scale and scale.

Consumer is completely different. I

mean, consumer is a thing that OpenAI prioritized. Consumers have a lower

prioritized. Consumers have a lower willingness to pay. Maybe only 3 or 4% of them are willing to convert to premium in the first place. And what

they want is a $20 a month all you can eat subscription. So, the revenue simply

eat subscription. So, the revenue simply doesn't scale the same way that enterprise does. And so if you want to

enterprise does. And so if you want to tap into the scalable revenue source in the market right now, you have to go after enterprise. So you know again

after enterprise. So you know again where I would agree with the criticism of OpenAI is maybe they should have been more focused but they need to be more

focused specifically to pursue coding and enterprise and if they don't catch up soon to Travis's point then you could see Anthropic taking a lead here that let's say over the next one or two years

could be insurmountable. Just by the way, let me just say say one thing is even though anthropics revenue has followed this graph, this exponential graph very predictably, it can't do that

forever, right? Like let's say it does

forever, right? Like let's say it does get to 80 to 100 billion this year. Can it

really get to a trillion dollars in revenue the year after that seems hard to believe, right? And and and the reason is because as you hit new levels of scale, you encounter new problems. I

mean, you're simply going to run out of compute or electricity, data centers, you know, infrastructure. There are

physical limits or there's limits in the physical world that you're going to hit.

And there's already some evidence that Anthropic is hitting some of those limits. Users were complaining, for

limits. Users were complaining, for example, that Claude was thinking less.

Did you guys see this? That

that, you know, a typical Claude prompt, they they seem to have cut down on the thinking time by about 2/3. Now, I saw someone tweeting today that they just released Opus 4.7, replacing Opus 4.6,

and the thinking is back, but you know, maybe they're charging more for that.

Hard to say, but they're going to hit some sort of physical limits. And I do wonder if over the next year Anthropic will reconsider whether it's support for

all this like doomer nimiism was the right call because it kind of made sense for them from a business standpoint when their competitors were building data centers and they were just getting

compute from the hyperscalers. But now

that they're I think going to have to move into the game of building their own data centers, they might regret salting the earth for data centers all over the country. And I wonder if that'll be the

country. And I wonder if that'll be the natural limit of their growth is they'll be hoisted on their own petard of doomer nimism.

And they're also using the uh coding platform to build anthropic itself better. So that in and of itself is a

better. So that in and of itself is a reason to nail coding. You get the double whammy. You can make a better

double whammy. You can make a better product and you can get paid for it.

Yes and no. Hold on. Because if you look on Twitter, people are panning cloud desktop and what they said is this is all a bunch of vibecoded slop. I think

we have to remember if you keep these agents on task and they're guard railed properly, this stuff is a force multiplier. The problem is nobody knows

multiplier. The problem is nobody knows how to do this really well yet. Nobody

has built real products of scale largely using agents yet. Nobody knows how to give an example of how an org structure should be redefined. Nobody knows how to

budget properly. We had the CTO of Uber

budget properly. We had the CTO of Uber say, "I give up. I've hit my token budget." The problems I see it are

budget." The problems I see it are twofold.

The first is just to build on Sax's point. All of these frontier labs have a

point. All of these frontier labs have a very serious issue which is both open AAI and Anthropic are growing so fast that they're at a point now where they need their own infrastructure. It's kind

of like when you first start building any kind of company, you're just much easier renting capacity from the hyperscalers and it's a dependency. Yeah.

But then it becomes a dependency.

Exactly. And now when you're so big, it's actually strategically a huge mistake to not have your own comput.

Why? Because if you look at who's leading, the frontier labs are leading.

And Sax, to your point, you mentioned this on X. You're like, there was all this doomerism, but maybe it was tied to compute capacity because when Bedrock opened up more capacity for anthropic, all the doomerism went away. You're left

wondering like, is it really tied to just the fact that they were just trying to throttle usage? So if you're a frontier lab, you don't want to have to go through Amazon and GCP and Azure and Tin Cup for access and capacity. What

you'd much rather have is go straight to your customer. On the other side, if

your customer. On the other side, if you're Gemini or Microsoft or Meta and you have all this compute, because I saw a stat this week,

the hyperscalers control 60% of all the compute. So the game theory there is if

compute. So the game theory there is if you kneecap the Frontier Labs, it'll give you some chance to catch up and it gives you time to catch up because no matter what the demand is on the upside, you remember you guys remember like in

social networking when Fster was the cat's meow.

Yeah.

Cat's meow.

Remember what the biggest problem at Fster was?

Cats meow.

Fster was slow as a dog.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

And what happened? Then MySpace came in and took all the share. Then we came and Facebook and we took all their share. So

there is a way where you can handicap and kneecap these companies by throttling compute access to them. So a

they are forced to now go and get in the game which is weird because look open AAI has tried to displace some of the Stargate spend. I don't see any path

Stargate spend. I don't see any path except they're going to have to do it themselves and anthropic will have to do it themselves. But then separately, the

it themselves. But then separately, the other problem is when you change the subscription model in enterprise and you say, "Hey, we're not going to subsidize any more tokens."

What's going to happen is all these token budgets are going to go crazy. And

what Freebrook said is going to happen where he's like, "Hey guys, why are you spending all this money? What are you making?" And you inspect the code and

making?" And you inspect the code and you're like, "What is this slop?"

And you're not going to add 30 40 50% opex to produce nothing. So I think that that's an open question and that question will become more amplified over

the next year as they push the cost off of them. So as Travis said, no more

of them. So as Travis said, no more subsidy from the capital.

You have to grow into it, but you're not going to support negative gross margins.

So you're going to pass through the token costs. I So I think it's a very

token costs. I So I think it's a very dynamic moment right now for these. If

you look at the ranking of these clusters and who has the most right now, uh people have forgotten about Colossus, which Elon's been building, he's

expanding to 555,000 GPUs across three buildings, 18 billion in investment. He then if you look at

in investment. He then if you look at Prometheus Meta's planned 2026, that's 150,000 GPUs. So this is uh

150,000 GPUs. So this is uh well Elon just announced a deal. He

announced a deal this morning with Kurser. So Elon's Elon's renting a bunch

Kurser. So Elon's Elon's renting a bunch of capacity. So he's now getting

of capacity. So he's now getting effectively into the data center business. He's going to be a hypers

business. He's going to be a hypers skill.

So he's he's going to use as much as he can for XAI and whatever is left over he'll give to well in this case he's giving to cursor to train their model.

He could what you're saying is you might as well overbuild capacity because that way your own models would be in a privileged position and you can sell the rest to to your competitors. But to Jamath, to your

your competitors. But to Jamath, to your point about the thing I was saying on X, I actually I think I was retweeting Mark Andre who pointed out that one of the reasons why Anthropic might have wanted

to hold back Mythos is they simply didn't have the compute to serve it. The

model was huge and very expensive to serve something like maybe even 10 or 20 times the token cost of of say Opus.

They knew Opus 4.7 was coming out, right? So they hold it back knowing that

right? So they hold it back knowing that they don't have the compute to serve it anyway and they save their compute for the next iteration of Opus. And then by holding it back they create this

impression of scarcity and altruism and it turns into this gigantic marketing event for their product because everyone in the government's like, "Oh wow, they're holding it back because it's so

amazing." Now look, I think it may have

amazing." Now look, I think it may have been genuinely altruistic as well in the sense that Mythos does reveal coding vulnerabilities that people didn't know

about before. And you know, it does make

about before. And you know, it does make sense to give time to companies with large code bases to patch these dormant bugs and vulnerabilities, but it's looking more and more like Anthropic

could not have offered that model commercially anyway because it was just too big and expensive and they need to create space for Opus 4.7. So, it's an interesting theory on what actually

happened there.

All right, guys. Uh before we go to our next story, some breaking news here. Uh

here's your poly market, gentlemen. And

I don't this is I don't know if you're placing some insider bets here uh Freeberg but looks like the All-In podcast uh anthropic now 37% chance of buying the All-In podcast. This is live by what time? By

poly market. Yeah, this is by the end of the year.

By end of the year. Okay, got

by end of the year. So it's

this isn't real, is it?

Yeah, absolutely. They've been People have been trading on this. This is

heavily traded.

It can't be. It says $92 million of volume.

Yeah, this is the number three largest market. There's no way this is real,

market. There's no way this is real, dude. There's no way.

dude. There's no way.

It's breaking news, guys. I don't I don't control the news flow.

This is Jake slump.

This is no way this is real.

Anybody can write a prediction market, I guess. Hey, what's the what's the uh

guess. Hey, what's the what's the uh volume of that thing?

92 million.

It's not real.

Is there $2 behind it?

There's no way that's real, guys. Come

on, guys. It's all good upgrade,

guys. It's all good upgrade, guys. Time to upgrade the planes. I just

guys. Time to upgrade the planes. I just

Hey, guys. Just I don't need the PC24.

I'll take somebody's G650. Whoever's got

a G650, go up to the 800. It's going to be trickle down to JCAL. Let's do it.

I'm I'm giving up my United Platinum status.

Trickle down economics.

Trickle down avionics. All right,

listen. Story number two.

Triple triple down.

That's good. This is pretty good. Okay,

number two. All birds, speaking of data centers, all birds just pivoted from ugly sneakers to scratiad to AI and the stock has ripped. talking about peak

bubble behavior podcast getting bought by Frontier models and sneaker companies uh pivoting to data centers. All birds

as you know is the ugliest sneakers on the planet and uh this became a massive delusion in our industry that this company was worth billions of dollars.

They went public in 2021. This might be one of the peak zer moments. Raised $350

million in their IPO. Sax, were you an investor in this thing?

All birds.

All birds back in. No,

no, no, no. You're thinking about the scooter company.

That's right.

Don't Don't remind me of the the investments that didn't work.

But no, Bird was crazy.

This reminds me of the late 90s where all you had to do was change your name to whatever.com.

to whatever.com.

Yeah. Yes.

And you get a huge pop in your valuation and you could spit it out. Barnes &

Noble.com became then Barnes & Noble.

And so the stock crashed and never looked back. There's your Stark chart.

looked back. There's your Stark chart.

Um they sold off all their brand assets for 39 million, about 10% of what they raised in the IPO. Congratulations to

whoever owns those ugly ass sneakers.

Why were they worth 4 billion? They sold

collective delusion. Collective

delusion. People in Silicon Valley liked them and they just thought it was the next Nike.

Tulips.

It was tulips. Well, I think I think that was an era in Silicon Valley where people rewarded rapid growth without really looking at gross margins or cost of goods sold. People didn't really make

the distinction between software and everything else, right? Software, you

never really had to worry about COGS or gross margin because the incremental cost of serving a customer with software is like almost zero. So people in Silicon Valley weren't really trained to

look at gross margin and there was this rash of physical world companies that all of a sudden started getting crazy valuations. Travis, quite frankly, you

valuations. Travis, quite frankly, you might have the success of Uber might have ushered in this era of, you know, these physical world companies that started getting valued like software companies even though obviously they didn't deserve it.

David, thank you so much for that shout out. I really appreciate it.

out. I really appreciate it.

You and Airbnb your fault. Anyway, let's

get back to No, no, no, no. Hold on, hold on. The

era of 21 is super interesting though guys. I don't believe it was a physical

guys. I don't believe it was a physical versus digital thing. I believe it was a moment in time in the COVID zer massive

money going in. We hadn't seen inflation yet. It was all of that happening and

yet. It was all of that happening and the investor class was basically deciding we're going to look two and three years forward on your current growth.

And it wasn't one year forward. It was

like two or three years forward. And

that's where these crazy valuations got weird. So if you went from 0 to, you

weird. So if you went from 0 to, you know, if you went from a hundred to $300 million in the last year, they'll play that two, three years forward and go, "Oh yeah, you're totally 20 times

bigger. We'll pay you for that now."

bigger. We'll pay you for that now."

Yeah, that's where it got weird.

It got weird. Hey, Bird Scooters was valued at two or three billion. They

were doing micromobility.

You're just trolling them, Jay. I'm No,

we're giving everybody their flowers for incredible investments and even even the mighty sachs could trip up. Did you sell IPO?

Yeah.

No. No, we don't do that.

Uh it was a series A we did. I mean,

look, we we got it right in the sense that it was a total phenomenon, but then the cities just cracked down on it and killed it. Look, if the cities had leaned into it Yeah. Look, if the cities had reacted differently, if they

had leaned into it, if they had created, let's say, a scooter or like a small EV lane, they could have transformed cities. I mean, it would have been a lot

cities. I mean, it would have been a lot easier to get around. But instead, they banned it. They limited it. They didn't

banned it. They limited it. They didn't

create designated areas for it. And then

the the cuda grass was basically when they would take a city where Bird already had like 80% dominant market share and then they would say that well we're going to choose four operators and

give them each 25% of say a thousand scooter allocation. That just killed the

scooter allocation. That just killed the economics for everybody.

Yeah. There's no market anymore.

There's no market. Yeah.

Yeah.

There's no marketplace network effect, right? When when they're basically just

right? When when they're basically just picking the winners and deciding the market.

Yeah. You can't you can't compete and splitting it even. So then

yeah, there's no there's no competition.

You can't drive value.

Regulatory capture at its worst, guys. Like we should watch for this in

guys. Like we should watch for this in the in the autonomous car space too.

Cities may get cute and start doing things like that. And and what they did on scooters, they could do on cars.

That's a really good point. Yeah, you're

right. Instead of just letting the market play out, they say, "Well, we're only going to have x number a thousand autonomous cars.

New York is literally doing this right now.

New York and Boston and then the prices prices go up. The

innovation doesn't get realized.

Consumers don't benefit. No one

benefits. Basically, you've deleted the market.

Yes. And anyway, just to wrap up this story on the the shoe company, they're now Newird AI. They bought eight H100s, I think,

AI. They bought eight H100s, I think, with $50 million in a convertible note.

And the stock has gone up.

Not eight. Stop. Eight. Really? No, it's

not.

No, it's a joke. Obviously, the stock's now at $14 a share. It's up 450% in the last week. Shout out to Wall Street Bets

last week. Shout out to Wall Street Bets for staying Can I say something more than the shorts can stay solvent.

Can I say something serious?

Yes, please.

There are a handful of transactions that have happened in the last few days that if you look far away are head scratchers. So, this is one. I don't

scratchers. So, this is one. I don't

know if you guys saw recently, but Jane Street did a a billion dollar investment in essentially a neo neocaler and then also did a $6 billion compute deal with

them. That was like a little

them. That was like a little interesting. So what would I like to say

interesting. So what would I like to say about this? I think the thing that the

about this? I think the thing that the capital markets are getting right is that we are massively compute constrained. Massively.

constrained. Massively.

And those are two problems. One is the power. So if you look at companies like

power. So if you look at companies like Bloom Energy, it has gone absolutely straight up vertical nuclear. And the

reason is because Bloom has a solution that allows you to useNAT gas that allows you to do something on site and critically allows you to get your clean

air permits very quickly because it has very very little emissions and it's been proven as such. And so instead of waiting for years to get on the grid, if you wanted to build a data center, you

can now use their services. The other

part that's going absolutely nuclear is the actual land and the shell because it's turning out it's impossible to get these approvals. Now, why is that? And I

these approvals. Now, why is that? And I

sent Nick an image. The reason is because underneath at the core of it all is there's a tide that is shifting on AI. the American population is

AI. the American population is incrementally getting more and more negative on the whole subject matter rit large

and it's not clear exactly why they're doing that. Maybe it's the doomerism

doing that. Maybe it's the doomerism which we talked about last week. Maybe

it's the fear of the job loss that Jason has been talking about. Maybe it's just this idea of yet another wave of innovation that's only going to benefit a few in an extreme way. minting

trillionaires all over the place while everybody else stands still. I don't

exactly know what's causing it, but the sentiment is shifting. And as the sentiment shifts, the most scaled action that they can take, they're taking, which is then they are going and voting

down data centers. Here's an example which was insane. A town approves a $6 billion data center build and then half the the the board gets ousted. just

voted out overnight so that they could put in new people to undo the decision.

So if you look at this all around the country, the answer is not, oh, we're only going to build in Texas. That

doesn't work. There's not enough power.

There's not enough grid capacity.

There's not enough net gas that allows that to happen. Maine just passed a bill that bans all data center buildings. So

I think the reason why all birds went crazy is a very very small canary in a very important coal mine which is we are absolutely compute constrained.

I think if you play this out the real problem again goes back to anthropic and open AI. If I were them it is a five

open AI. If I were them it is a five alarm fire for them. They more than anybody else needs to get their hands on compute. They need to have land power

compute. They need to have land power shell, but otherwise that revenue could either slow down or hit a wall and it will not be because of product quality and adoption. It will entirely be

and adoption. It will entirely be because of the Fster effect. You just

couldn't keep the site up and I think that that that would be a huge huge problem for everybody.

Saxs, final thoughts on data centers and the buildout.

Well, I think I think Jimoth is right that the the data centers become very unpopular. probably in 30 states they're

unpopular. probably in 30 states they're just going to ban them outright and then it's very hard to get projects approved.

Look, I think there's a few reasons for this. One is that there are a lot of

this. One is that there are a lot of let's call them real estate developers who are kind of wildcatterers who are out there trying to get entitlements and they did bring a lot of projects up for

local permits where they didn't have a a power solution. And there's no question

power solution. And there's no question that local communities do not want the data centers drawing off the grid, thereby increasing residential prices if

that data center is not bringing its own power generation. And the administration

power generation. And the administration agrees with this. This is why the president did the rateayer protection pledge where we got all the major users of the data centers, you know, all all

the hyperscalers to agree that they would not build new data centers without bringing their own power. So again, it was designed to be power neutral to the grid or in fact it would increase the

amount of energy available to the grid because these data centers would give back when they're not at peak usage. So

that's sort of like category number one is there's this fear of electrical rates going up. But there's a couple other

going up. But there's a couple other categories I think of groups. The second

one was future of life and a lot of these like doomer groups saw that data centers were a way to stop AI progress and there are interviews with some of

these doomer folks who say things like we have to meet people where they are meaning that they've been unable to convince people that AI is going to lead to the terminator but they can convince them that AI data centers are going to

use up their water for example which isn't true and so a lot of the nimism has been kind of astrourfed by a lot of the doomer groups which have a lot of

money thanks to contributions from a few tech billionaires like we've talked about in the past. So that's category number two. Category number three

number two. Category number three ironically again is anthropic itself. It

has allied itself politically with a lot of the doomer groups, a lot of the nimi groups. It didn't seem to matter in the

groups. It didn't seem to matter in the first couple of years because Anthropic had made the strategic decision not to build its own data centers. So they

probably thought that they were just throwing sand in the gears of OpenAI or XAI, their competitors, and they would just rely on hyperscalers to get their

compute. And I think that that strategy

compute. And I think that that strategy has now backfired in the sense that they apparently have reached the limits of the compute that's available to them by buying it from a third party and they need to build their own data centers.

It's going to be very interesting to see how they adapt to that and how the message around data centers changes over the next year as let's call it the effective altruists decide that all of a

sudden data centers or certain kinds of data centers might be a good thing because they serve their mission. So I

think that's going to be a very interesting thing to watch. I'll tell

you the one thing I think you're missing, which is that most people in America really are starting to really hate rich people. And there's no

physical space that better represents the wealth in America, the wealth creation that's happened that a lot of people feel left behind from than the data center. What other physical space

data center. What other physical space is there to go to? It is the temple of the wealthy. It is the mechanism, the

the wealthy. It is the mechanism, the tool, the machinery of the wealthy. It

is the way that the rich elite tech kind of political connected billionaires that we're obviously all attached to are

taking from the poor, getting themselves ahead, shooting themselves to space, leaving everyone else behind. And the

data center, I think, is the representation of their progress. And it

is a representation of the progress that others don't feel. So that's why I think it is physically like the manifestation that people want to attack and destroy.

Uh there's very little rationale about oh let's stop AI robots from killing us.

I think people just don't see the value in AI. The average person doesn't see

in AI. The average person doesn't see the value in AI today yet. Like we just talked about so much of the value of AI is showing up in the enterprise and in the rebuilding of enterprises. But for a consumer's life to actually be altered

in a meaningfully positive way, most people don't feel that yet. the best

thing they see is some medical advice they're getting on chat GPT or something and that's kind of the end of it for them. So I think there's a lot of this

them. So I think there's a lot of this populism that's swollen and that's taken over not just the US but probably a good chunk of the west and and the the data center is the target. It is the pier

deter of this space in a way. This is

their attack vector.

To David's point, they'll probably ban data centers in 30 states. Data centers

can output and input at the speed of light. So they can be anywhere. I mean,

light. So they can be anywhere. I mean,

you know, the reason you put data centers in different states is cheap power, low latency. So maybe you get a couple milliseconds of latency. So the

data centers can go anywhere. So as soon as all the states start banning the data centers, the data centers will just go to space to Iceland to Texas to Florida and then and then the data center and

then everyone will be forced to move on Travis. They'll basically find the next

Travis. They'll basically find the next target for populism which will be something else. The peerto- tear, the

something else. The peerto- tear, the data center, what's next? You know, this is this is part of what's going on right now where we've got this kind of level of debt from the I always bring it back to

this because I do think this is at the root cause of populism is the fact that the government promised so much is so inefficient and as a result it's destroyed the value of the dollar not given anyone anything that they thought they were getting.

And we do have the rateayer pledge sachs to address the energy issue that was a big win I think and you worked on that I believe.

Yeah.

But hold on. Can I just say something? I

think that rate payer pledge is important. It doesn't change the

important. It doesn't change the business model of the utility. Meaning

what the utility is allowed to do is every year build a budget. And the way that they decide how to charge you is that they are allowed to make

investments, right? And then they're

investments, right? And then they're allowed to earn 10% roughly on the amount of investment that they make.

What do you think their incentive is?

their incentive is to find ways to keep investing and upgrading the infrastructure. So I suspect what you'll

infrastructure. So I suspect what you'll see is independent of what the data centers do on site, which I think is smart and good, and I'm glad you guys did that. It doesn't slow down the

did that. It doesn't slow down the actual fundamental business model of the utility because those are local monopoly licenses that are granted at the state and county level. And so when you go

inside and you look at those utilities, what they're allowed to do is say, "Well, I'm going to bury the lines underground because there's a wildfire threat that's going to cost 10 billion."

And they present that. The PUC has to say yes. And they're allowed to make 10%

say yes. And they're allowed to make 10% on 10 billion. So the business model of the utility has to be looked at because it is independent of all of these other things. And they have an incentive like

things. And they have an incentive like insurance companies to just walk prices up over time.

It's true.

That's why I think behind the meter is so so important there for sure. But

look, I mean, this idea that that data centers don't create jobs is just wrong.

I mean, it's been a huge boon for bluecollar jobs and the construction industry. I mean,

industry. I mean, while they're building the data center.

Yeah. But that that construction could be a wave that goes on for a decade or two decades. I mean, the capex is not

two decades. I mean, the capex is not going down. It's increasing. Listen to,

going down. It's increasing. Listen to,

for example, what Jensen says about his projections. I mean, it's not like the

projections. I mean, it's not like the capex is a one-year thing. We're seeing

tens of thousands of new construction jobs being created and 25 to 30% higher wages for electricians, carpenters, the guys who hang drywall or pour concrete,

create roads, install equipment. I mean,

these are blue collar jobs and it's creating again not just new jobs, but also wage increases. It's a good thing.

It's not a bad thing. I think the issue is it's not a bad thing, but it's not the same as a fab where the jobs are permanent and they're there. Uh we can debate it all we want but you can there's about a hundred data centers

right now that are being contested. The

data is for every hundred that are contested about 40 get cancelled. That

number is increasing for this year. It's

more than doubled already from what the number was last year. And the total economic value of those 100 data centers right now is about $162 billion.

Jason, the the thing is is that there are permanent jobs because what where's the energy that's powering that? Where's

the semiconductors that's powering that?

You know, there's a lot of we we actually had um Chase from Crusoe and Michael from Cororeweave on the All-In interview show and they said they're bringing energy with them.

That's their big thing. Bring BYO, bring your own energy to the space. They're

bringing in Knackas. They're bringing in diesel fuel. They're bringing in solar.

diesel fuel. They're bringing in solar.

BYOE is the model. Well, c can I also say listen if if you were of the opinion that you didn't want more data centers in America because it was using up say scarce energy resources or something

like that but you weren't just anti-progress altogether then what you would want to do is at least see more data center construction among US allies

right energyrich US allies well a year ago that's one of the things I worked on was allowing the Gulf states to build data centers with American technology for American companies and remember the

controversy that caused. Everyone

accused us that somehow this was like serving China. Well, those data centers

serving China. Well, those data centers are getting bombed and I don't think they'd be getting bombed right now by Iran if they were serving China. These

were they're very strategic. Yeah.

The IRGC has put these data centers on a list of assets that they've threatened to destroy because they're American assets or they're assets of our Gulf

State partners in partnership with America and American companies. This

whole idea that somehow this was a threat to American national security was a total hoax just like the data center uses too much water. And what I'm saying is that a lot of the same forces were

behind this hoax as are behind these data center hoaxes. Now Freeberg is right about the resentments, but those resentments get whipped up and marshaled by people who have an agenda and that

agenda is wellunded and strategic. And I

can tell you then the case of the GCC data centers, Anthropic was adamantly opposed to that and they were lobbying against it and they were again salting the earth against those projects. I

think the whole issue is kind of moot now anyway because I think the data centers have been blown up but uh or they've been threatened to but it just shows how ridiculous and and what a scop some of the

opposition to these ideas are. and it's

a cell phone in many ways. If you think about who are the top two spokespersons for our industry and what they're communicating to Americans versus say

how the Chinese view AI, which is incredibly positive, we've got Daario who says it's the end of days.

Everything's going to be hacked. All

your files are going to be hacked. All

your accounts are going to be hacked.

And then on the other and everybody's losing their job. That's our top spokesperson in Dario at Anthropic. The

other top spokesperson just had a 70,000word piece written about him where Ronan Farah said, "I had a dozen people tell me unprompted, Sam Wolman's a

sociopath." Those are the top two

sociopath." Those are the top two spokespeople. Those people cannot be the

spokespeople. Those people cannot be the spokespeople for this industry. And this

industry's got to get focused on fixing the big three. Healthcare is going to be dramatically improved by AI. Housing

could be dramatically improved. I'm not

sure who's working on that. And

obviously education and the cost of education. We need somebody out there, a

education. We need somebody out there, a Michael Dell, you know, Jensen, Elon, just explaining how world positive this could be because right now AI is as

popular as is less popular than ICE, the Democrats, and the government of Iran.

Joe Leand at Alpha School. On the

education side, I think you just have to look at Alpha School. It's it's working.

All right. So, that's your story, uh, Chimath. That's the story of all birds,

Chimath. That's the story of all birds, the most overvalued startup. But uh

we're going to play a little uh cue the music here. We're going to play a little

music here. We're going to play a little game show for everybody. This is the price uh David Saxs is wrong. Yes, this

is the price is wrong. The price of the startup Travis is wrong.

And this is the game show where we guess which overvalued disaster are we talking about. First up, hell from Austin,

about. First up, hell from Austin, Texas, an enforcer in the PayPal mafia.

It's Mr. David Saxs. Welcome to the program, David Saxs. Are you ready to play the price?

I'm ready to play. Let's do it.

You're ready to play? Okay.

All right.

Here we go. The price is wrong. This

startup was once valued at over $13 billion. Their main business model

billion. Their main business model selling JPEGs for fake internet money.

People lost their minds and started spending millions of dollars on monkey images. Play the thinking music, please.

images. Play the thinking music, please.

David Sachs, can you name that start at one? Billion. 13 billion for is that is

one? Billion. 13 billion for is that is that like the board apes thing?

Okay, you're closing in. Remember, form

it in the name of a question.

I know. I know. I know.

It's selling JPEGs for fake internet money.

Me, me, me. Pick me. Pick me. Pick me.

People, you'll get your chance. Chim.

Oh, I think I know what you're talking about.

I can't remember.

They're spending millions of dollars.

Can I say Can I say it's your turn to steal the steel?

Open.

Correct. 100 points for Chimoth Polyhapatia.

Okay. An amazing steal. An amazing

steal. And next up, okay, here we go. He puts the dick in dictator hailing from Palo Alto, California. It's your favorite Door

California. It's your favorite Door Dasher Jamal Poly Hot. How long you been door dashing there, Jamal?

Nine years.

Nine years. You like that? What do you like about that? Is it the interaction with the people? Is it the tips? Is it

stealing a couple of French fries? What

do you like about being a door dasher there?

I typically take four fries. I lick the burrito.

Okay. Licking burritos. Did he just say licking burritos?

This is why we need robot delivery.

Robot delivery drivers. I mean, it's just coming.

It's coming. Okay.

We don't want our French fries being licked.

Let's get the music going here. This

startup once valued at 4 billion.

Allowed you to talk to other people on your mobile device during co and you could listen to mid VC.

Yes. Yes. I got it. I got it. It's

called generic startup device. Can you name that overvalued startup?

Oh my god. It's called Clubhouse.

Oh my god. He's on a heater. That's 200

points for Chim Polyatilla. Hey, that's

a lot of Door Dashes. He's going to do very well here in the final round.

That's an amazing memory. How How soon we forget? I can't I couldn't replace

we forget? I can't I couldn't replace any of these names.

Okay, finally streaming in from a potato field at an undisclosed location in Idaho. It's It's Dr. David

Idaho. It's It's Dr. David Freriededberg. Uh you're you're in the

Freriededberg. Uh you're you're in the potato sciences, correct, Mr. Freeberg? That's right. Potato.

Mr. Freeberg? That's right. Potato.

Okay. You like the potatoes? You have a favorite potato dish? Is it the scallops? What do you like to do with

scallops? What do you like to do with your potatoes?

What is your name, Mr. What is the host's name? What is your name, host?

host's name? What is your name, host?

It is me, Jocular Jal. Let's go. Here we

go. It's Jocular Jal here at the helm.

You like a certain type of potatoes there?

It's calacanis. And what do you like there on the potatoes? What's your

favorite there? You like a creamy mashen? Little little little little

mashen? Little little little little cheesy.

You're liking You like the cheese? Okay,

very good. Okay, David, this startup was once valued at $270 million. This is

your favorite. I understand you're a vegan. They sold juice. These juice

vegan. They sold juice. These juice

packages went into a juice machine. I

know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I

know. I know. I know. Branded as the next iPhone. The iPhone of juice. Can

next iPhone. The iPhone of juice. Can

you name Oh, I know it.

I know it.

I know it. I know it. Pick me.

You'll have a chance to zero. Juice.

That's 100 points.

Wait, are you searching? It looks like he's searching.

Did he? Oh my god. Are you on your device?

He looked like he was on his device.

Internet free. Internet free here.

All right, folks. There you have it. A

clear winner. Chamal Poly Hapatia. Tell

him what he's won. He's won a trip to Temptations 2 in Cabo. You're going

directly to Temptations to an adult resort. Uh that's for you and two of

resort. Uh that's for you and two of your friends. Okay. Enjoy Temptations 2.

your friends. Okay. Enjoy Temptations 2.

Shalom. Polyapatia.

Two of your friends. What a fun game this is.

You can bring your throppple.

I think this is going to need to become a regular feature of the pod.

Okay, landed. Everyone Everyone forgets the unicorns that don't work. They just

like disappear into the ether.

All right. All right. There you go. You

won a pier tear on a uh on a tax bill in New York.

You got a pier tear available to you as your first place winner. Chimoth Poly

Hapia Door Dasher for Ela Pear. All

right. Listen. Uh there's been a lot of shenanigans going down in DC, the most boring city in the world, where apparently everybody's uh getting a little frisky after hours. TMZ launched

a news bureau.

Eric Slaw is out of the governor's race.

There's a lot of dark stuff that's been released. He is innocent until proven

released. He is innocent until proven guilty, but it's not looking good.

He also resigned from Congress, Jal.

And he resigned from Congress as well.

And Freedberg are investigative journalist now working as a stringer for TMZ Freeberg. What

have you learned? What's in Freeberg's anything? I my um

anything? I my um Okay, you have an analysis then? Maybe

my anecdote on this is back in December when it was first rumored that Swallwell was going to run for governor. I started

making some calls to various folks to be like, "Hey, you know, what do we think of this guy? Is he going to be a good candidate?" You know, obviously I and a

candidate?" You know, obviously I and a lot of other people before they evacuate the state care a lot about the future of California. So, I started checking

California. So, I started checking around. I spoke to several people who

around. I spoke to several people who independently told me that there's knowledge about this guy sending, you know, pics to employees and that this

guy has a bunch of stuff that's going to come out about him. So, I heard all of this not from one person, but from several different sources. This was back

in December going into January. And I

largely kind of dismissed it cuz I was like, if this is true, this would have all come out already. I'm like, there's no way this is true. If it was true, like people would have talked about it.

They would have made a thing about it.

If multiple people are telling me about this, then I've got to assume that it's a rumor that's being used to block him from running for governor versus it being a real thing because multiple

people have this knowledge and this information. So, this was December,

information. So, this was December, January where I had these conversations and at that point, nothing had come out.

So, I was like, "Okay, it doesn't seem like this is real." And then everything that I had been told started to come out in the last week. So the striking aspect of all of this for me was how much

knowledge there was about these various incidents with the guy. How so many people had this knowledge and how no one had actually brought the knowledge to

bear. Which begs the question,

bear. Which begs the question, why did they not do what was right by the victims? Or why did the victims sit

the victims? Or why did the victims sit on the sidelines waiting for the right moment to all come out together? because

this was broad knowledge within a community of people and they made the choice not to bring it forward with that knowledge. And that's what was so

knowledge. And that's what was so striking to me about this whole thing. I

had honestly dismissed the whole thing as just being rumoring to try and bismerch the guy. And it turned out that these were all being held back purposefully and deliberately for a very particular moment in time when they were

all brought forward to be used.

And let me just be clear, these are all allegations. Nothing's been proven in

allegations. Nothing's been proven in court. He does get his day in court.

court. He does get his day in court.

etc. We just want to make sure there's a bunch of alleged here.

Yeah. No matter how bad and all that I'm saying is that people had told me about these supposed claims 5 months ago, four months ago, multiple people, and had chosen not to bring it forward. And that

the victims had not come forward publicly with these claims. And then there was this coordinated effort to bring everything forward at the same moment. And that's what was so striking

moment. And that's what was so striking to me is just how coordinated all of this happened.

Who's controlling it? Who do you think like is there like a meeting? Is there

like a a counseling Nancy Pelosi?

Jesus Christ. It's so

I don't know if that's true.

Well, I don't not just her.

I'll tell you my sense of it. My sense

of it is that there are certain insiders and he's not an insider. And those

insiders are like the Katie Porters of the world. Katie Porter, I think, is who

the world. Katie Porter, I think, is who the Democratic establishment wants to be governor. She's an insider to national

governor. She's an insider to national Democrats. She's an insider to

Democrats. She's an insider to California Democrats. And I think that

California Democrats. And I think that she's the preferred candidate. Tommy

Styer, she's a spousal abuser.

I don't know that Katie Porter is like this ultimate insider, but I think there are, look, there are clearly insiders.

The Democratic Party is a machine that exists to siphon off as much money as possible from the public till the interests that support the party and it's their gravy train. And they're not going to let anyone stop.

The Dems Sachs, I don't know if it's just the Dem.

Hold on a second. They're not going to let that gravy train stop for one second. Now, the Democratic party had a

second. Now, the Democratic party had a huge problem in this California governor's race, which is that the Democratic field was very fragmented.

And so, the two Republican candidates actually were polling the highest. And

so, that just so the viewers have context, California has this weird jungle primary system where the top two go to a runoff. They don't have a Democrat lane and a Republican lane.

They just take the top two jungle primary and then they go to the runoff.

Even today still Hilton and was it Bianca or whatever they are polling at both around like 14 or 15% and if the election were held today you'd have two Republicans in the runoff. So the

Democrats needed to winnow the field down and have fewer candidates. In

addition to that, they must have been concerned that all this oppo on sua would come out once it was him versus say Steve Hilton and they didn't want it

to come out later when they could lose the election. So the powers that be made

the election. So the powers that be made the decision to lance the boil probably there was a conversation with him to tell him to get out of the race. He

didn't listen. And by the way, remember this feels a lot like what happened with Joe Biden when he had to drop out of the presidential race. That sounds

presidential race. That sounds surprisingly like that.

The whole Democratic establishment and all the mainstream media were saying that Biden was sharp as attack. Okay.

And then he had that disaster debate performance with Trump and it became clear. Yeah. And you could just see the

clear. Yeah. And you could just see the text messages were flying during the debate between the Democratic Party insiders. And by the time that debate

insiders. And by the time that debate was over, they had congealed on a new position, which is that Biden had to step aside. And then Nancy Pelosi was

step aside. And then Nancy Pelosi was reported as having gone to the president and said, "We can do things the hard way or the easy way." Imagine that. Like

telling the president of the United States, "We can do things the hard way or the easy way." And then Biden disappeared for a week and magically he stepped aside by tweets. Remember that

he published a statement that appeared to be done by an autopin. People were

speculating whether he was even behind this or whether the staff pushed him to do it. The whole thing was extremely

do it. The whole thing was extremely weird. But he, you know, was clearly

weird. But he, you know, was clearly muscled out of it. Just a few days before he had said, "I'm not leaving the race no matter what." I mean, it was like straight out of that Wolf of Wall Street meme. They're not getting me out

Street meme. They're not getting me out of here. And then a few days later, he's

of here. And then a few days later, he's resigning by tweet. And again, Nancy Pelosi appears to be the figure at the center of both these things. She was

hold on a second. Pelosi is reported as having been Swallwell's mentor. I guess

she found him roughly 20 years ago to run for Congress in the first place when the Republicans wanted to kick Swell off of the intelligence committee, the House Intelligence Committee for allegedly

being involved with that Chinese spy Fangfang. It was Pelosi who protected

Fangfang. It was Pelosi who protected him. So, she's sort of been a central

him. So, she's sort of been a central figure in his career. I'm not saying she approved of anything he did. But

listen, politics is But there's no there's no way that that button gets pushed without going to Pelosi for the sign off, right? I mean,

she's like the boss of this operation.

And I think that the same thing happened to Swallow that happened to Biden is they went to him and said, "We can do things the hard way, the easy way." He

was too dumb to listen and they did things the hard way.

Yeah. Shout out Nancy Pelosi, incredible day trader. And uh shout out to a friend

day trader. And uh shout out to a friend of the pod Ro uh Row who's now beaten Nancy Pelosi. I think his trades this

Nancy Pelosi. I think his trades this year he's uh he's actually even beaten Nancy Pelosi. That was the Roana has

Nancy Pelosi. That was the Roana has traded $600 million of stock.

He trades more frequently than Citadel Securities.

I mean it's incredible. Yeah. Where's

his piter?

I want to get in on it.

The congressman you've been supporting for years is a great stock trader. He's

apparently we should have been talking to him not about taxes. We should have been talking to him about trades.

There were things I liked about Roana. I

mean he he did support freedom of speech with the whole Twitter thing.

You know what it was is that the Overton window shifted so much.

He supported him.

Yeah. When I supported Roana, freedom of speech was a big issue and he was one of the only Democrats to support that. He

was also, I think, the only member of the progressive caucus to support a diplomatic track for Ukraine, which I supported and I gave him credit for that. And yeah, I knew that he was in

that. And yeah, I knew that he was in favor of a wealth tax, but I thought that was just a very unserious proposal that, you know, it wasn't in play in any way. Well, the Overton window shifted so

way. Well, the Overton window shifted so much that now the wealth tax really is a possibility. So, you know, things have

possibility. So, you know, things have changed.

Here it is. Shout out to our boy Ro Kana. Look at this. Right about now,

Kana. Look at this. Right about now, Chimat's thinking about making a managing director offer here. I mean,

Ro, if it doesn't if you get booted out of office, you could become a managing director at Alt Catholic. Statistically, like

even if you had insider information, making that much money is like very hard.

Holy cow. Nancy Pelosi is going to shiver Roana next for not giving her the uh giving her the inside track on whatever he's betting on. What did he bet on?

Well, look, any any, as we all know, any investor can have a good quarter or a year. But to put up the kind of returns

year. But to put up the kind of returns that Nancy Pelosi has done over decades is nothing short of miraculous.

It's generational. It's a generational run. Give her her flowers.

run. Give her her flowers.

She's substantially better than Warren Buffett.

I mean, Warren Buffett, Stan, Dr. Miller, and Nancy Pelosi are three of the most accomplished investors of all time.

Whatever you did to the poor Buffett fans, Chimath, they are incredibly angry at you for desecrating his legacy.

I didn't desecrate his legacy. I pointed

out one unavoidable fact which is his returns are biodally distributed pre and postreg.

When you have to follow the rules of disclosure, everybody's returns got kneecapped. When there was no disclosure

kneecapped. When there was no disclosure rules, his returns were off the charts. That's

just a mathematical truism. Now, what's

interesting to note is the reason why Nancy Pelosy's returns are so consistently good is reggga FD does not apply to people in Congress.

That should be the takeaway. They can

learn things.

We got to stop them.

They can learn things in their committee meetings. In fact, there are situations

meetings. In fact, there are situations where things are disclosed and then they are trading in real time.

Shout out to the skiff. Yeah, get out of the skiff quick and get that trade in.

So, I have enormous respect for Warren Buffett and what he's done. It's it's

he's he's the goat of goats, but the returns postreg are they are just materially worse than they were preregg. And that's

preregg. And that's what's he going to do with that cash position? And Jamat speaking of Buffett

position? And Jamat speaking of Buffett they the market the market 300 billion sitting there the market is in a very complicated moment right now if you look at historical indicators of value so if you

look at Schiller as an indication of value it's peaking if you look at the Buffett index it's peaking so there are things that when

you look at it look like all-time highs and the problem with that is you would say oh man But there's this weird dispersion happening in the market.

Dispersion means literally a few companies are hitting all-time highs. I

think it's like eight or nine and everybody else is not. So, it's a really complicated moment. It's hard to

complicated moment. It's hard to understand what's going on, but he's got a lot of cash. If he's sticking to his knitting, he's looking at the chiller index and he's looking at his own indicator which shows all-time highs and

he's waiting for a correction.

He's not really in charge anymore. Like

Berkshire Hathaway is not Warren Buffett anymore. Even though he's a big owner,

anymore. Even though he's a big owner, he's not really doing it.

But I mean, the fact that they're sitting on that massive pile of cash says something that they're not putting it to work in the market says they don't see an opportunity yet. Saxs, Travis,

I'm curious your takes. Uh either one of you can go in whichever order you want on how is the market crushing it while we're in week seven of a war and we put

a hundred billion dollars or something into this military activity in Iran and the market is pricing it in shrugging it off and we're hitting all-time high sex.

I don't know if you're feel first.

Yeah. I mean, look, I think it's pretty straightforward, which is that in the wake of the meeting in Islamabad that the market is feeling confident and

pricing in that the war is going to get resolved. The president also recently

resolved. The president also recently said that it's very close to being wrapped up. The military objectives are

wrapped up. The military objectives are close to being achieved and he's made it sound like it's going to be resolved.

Yes. a deal was not signed in Islamabad.

I always thought that was an unrealistic expectation that these two countries which are at war with each other and in fact have had hostile relations for almost 50 years are going to resolve all their differences in 24 hours is not

realistic. But the impression that the

realistic. But the impression that the market I think has and clearly is trading on this is that that war is going to be what Donald Trump said which is an excursion and something that is on

its way to being resolved that they've made progress. And Jal, you're right.

made progress. And Jal, you're right.

The whole week has just been in incredibly strong. I think by Tuesday,

incredibly strong. I think by Tuesday, the market had recovered all of its losses since the start of the war. I

think it made a new high yesterday on Wednesday and is making new highs, fresh highs today on Thursday. So, you just have to say that at the present time, the market thinks, and I I would

consider the stock market to be the ultimate prediction market, that this war is on its way to being resolved.

Just to qualify, I'm not speaking as a member of the administration. I'm not

saying that I know something. Okay? I'm

just interpreting what the market is.

No clipping.

I'm not representing anyone and I don't know anything different than what any of you know. I'm just saying that I think

you know. I'm just saying that I think this is what the market is clearly pricing in and I'm paying attention to what the statements are of the president and vice president. And this Travis, you

and I were talking the other day while you were Yeah.

slaughtering me in back gammon when you won our eight-point match. You're almost

caught up about the taco trade, not Trump always chickens out. You have a theory about

chickens out. You have a theory about Trump always cares about optics. Unpack

it for us, Travis.

Yeah. So while I was beating you back Ammon I sort of had a you know there's like the in because Jay Kal asked me and the insight is is like and I think this

maybe is just the more simple view of things which is Trump's weather vein is the stock market like we see VA is up we see the VIX is really high but you know

what the S&P is trading in this band that's actually fairly tight given the crazy [ __ ] that's going down and everybody's nervous nervous, but

actually he he moves in the policy space. He's he's he he does not let the

space. He's he's he he does not let the S&P go down too low. People also get the sort of the panicking thing now, which is like he gets people nervous. He makes

moves and then he comes back to sort of reality and gets things done is practical and and probably the the better parts of what he he might be, you know, what he does well and people are

pricing that in. So there's there's all the things Sax is saying about the nuances and the details, but the sort of super highlevel like I'm in low earth

orbit view is like the stock market is Trump's weather vein and he will go to the place that makes the stock market come up and if he's go and and if it's

up and it's too high, he almost feels like it's too easy. So he makes it hard on himself again and then he brings it back up and the traitors are getting used to it I think.

Yeah. It's like playing Chimoth with Alan Keading. It's just like how is this

Alan Keading. It's just like how is this guy solvent? He's literally playing

guy solvent? He's literally playing every hand of poker. He's losing tons of money and then all of a sudden by the end of the night he hits two big pots and he's got the nuts both times and he

pulls out of the stall. What's your take on the market today?

Yeah, I mean I'll just do it again, but I think the the Schiller PE Nick I sent it to you shows near all-time highs.

Then the second is the Buffett index, which is the sum of all uh US equities divided by GDP is also at all-time highs.

So this would generally mean that you need to be increasingly a little bit more riskoff. But then the opposite side

more riskoff. But then the opposite side of that and I sent you a third one and this is why it's so confounding is you have signals showing everything which is which typically doesn't happen and this

is this dispersion point where when you see this performance and it's up 5% in the first you know half of April typically the market is up almost 32% on

average for the rest of the year and we were already up as Sax said you know 7 and a half% already trying to read this graph this is crazy I don't even know what's going on This is just the this is just a dispersion.

But the the the idea of all of this is I think we're in a moment where you can find a piece of data to underwrite your bias. And I think that's where there's a

bias. And I think that's where there's a lot of danger. I don't know for me personally I'm generally more risk off right now and more importantly I'm waiting for these IPOs so that I can to

be very honest with you delever and get some chips off the table. I think that it is crucial that the SpaceX IPO get done ASAP and then I think it's even

more crucial that one of anthropic and OpenAI frontr run the other one and get out first and the first two charts are the reasons

why I it's fairly obvious to me what's going on here. You you have uh these multiple trends going on at the same time. The reason people and traders are

time. The reason people and traders are valuing this and I think there is some smart money in the market right now is what you're seeing in terms of the earnings potential of these companies as

they deploy AI as they have unlimited intelligence and the top employees at the top companies become 10 or 20 or 30 times more productive that's never been seen before. Microsoft Office may have

seen before. Microsoft Office may have made you 30% more efficient. The

internet may have made you 50% more efficient but none of these things made you 10 times. And you had a really interesting point that you slipped in earlier, Chimoth, which was nobody knows how to harness these things yet, right?

And it's producing slop. The truth is 10% of people do know how to harness it.

20% maybe. And I watch this in my own organizations and I watch it in 600 portfolio companies. The ones that do

portfolio companies. The ones that do deploy it correctly, they are running the table on the ones that are not. So

the efficiency boom that we're going to see at these companies, whether it's Meta or Uber or Airbnb, whoever executes it properly, is going to be phenomenal.

The earnings will be insane.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but it has not translated into a tsunami of more revenue and more profit for me yet.

Maybe I'm the only one and maybe it's everybody else but me, but I haven't seen it.

I see it in a lot of companies. So I

think in private companies we have two companies as just two examples. Micro

one, which is doing data, you know, dark pools of data for these language models.

And they have built technology that allows them to build data and allows them to collect data to help the large language model companies grow. And they

are on a tear by using this to identify and find great people who can then contribute to these corpuses. And then

we have one tax GPT that is making the accountants, I think they have six or 7% of all accountants using their platform.

Jason, you agree? They're just ripping accountants. I hope you can agree with

accountants. I hope you can agree with me with the following statement.

Small companies nibbling at the edges is not where these guys will build a multi- trillion dollar market cap.

I think we're we're both in alignment.

Big companies, dumb companies, slow to implement the technology. Startups. No,

they aren't implementing new technology.

They're always the lagards when it comes to implementing new technology.

The reason that they are slow is not because they are dumb. The reason that they're slow is their business is much more sophisticated and much more complicated than many other businesses.

And what I'm saying is if you can't prove that this works in the big time, prime time, big league use cases, it's a

toy. All right, Saxs, where where do you

toy. All right, Saxs, where where do you stand? Are you in the Jal position? The

stand? Are you in the Jal position? The

startups are showing the way. They're

being massively efficient. They're

growing revenues like we've never seen in the startup community before with less people. Or you in the Chimoth camp,

less people. Or you in the Chimoth camp, hey, big companies are not having a drop to the bottom line and they're smart. Or

both things are true. Where do you stand, Sax? be the uh adjudicator of

stand, Sax? be the uh adjudicator of this case.

I mean, honestly, I'm probably closer to you, Jal. I hate to say that. Um,

you, Jal. I hate to say that. Um,

listen, because look, I think people are still figuring out how to drive business value out of AI and change management is hard and the bigger the company, the harder

it is. So, what's happening right now is

it is. So, what's happening right now is there are a lot of transformation projects at large enterprises that are failing. There's like a big Mackenzie

failing. There's like a big Mackenzie study on that. But if you look at activity from the bottom up, I think it's very interesting and it's becoming more interesting. And over the last

more interesting. And over the last several months, obviously with coding reaching a new level, we're starting to see very interesting things happening there. And obviously the revenue that's

there. And obviously the revenue that's now being generated from these coding models is, you know, again, it's exponential like we've never seen before. So the ROI

before. So the ROI is finally there at the model layer.

Meaning before, you know, people were were saying that it's a bubble because you had all this massive capex at the data center level and there was no ROI coming at the model layer. Now we have

the ROI at the model layer and I guess we're sort of questioning whether the ROI will be there at the application level. But any event, I think things are

level. But any event, I think things are progressing. I mean, look, I

progressing. I mean, look, I fundamentally I'm bullish on this whole thing.

Okay. No, let me be clear. Hold on. Hold

on.

Okay. Obviously, I'm bullish. I'm in

this I'm in the space. I'm doing it.

you're in the arena.

We have seen in every single wave in the mobile wave, we needed consumers to show up at scale. So, we needed consumer experiences. And it was very obvious

experiences. And it was very obvious that there were these consumer businesses that were going to be, if not already incredibly incredibly profitable. Google and Facebook were

profitable. Google and Facebook were profitable within the first few years.

They never looked back. And all I'm trying to point out to you guys is there is not one great example yet. If we

believe enterprise is where all the money is and if we believe that's what's going to underpin these trillion dollar valuations, just please somebody show me a couple of good examples of scaled profits.

Okay, fair enough. Travis, uh, final word here on By the way, can I say one other thing? I

think I think Chimath has a good point about being riskoff right now because if you just look at valuation metrics, they do seem to be quite high and I've seen other uh versions of those metrics as

well. So, look, it's very very hard to

well. So, look, it's very very hard to time the market. I don't try, but I think you could make an argument just based purely on valuation levels, not events, that you want to adopt a more

conservative posture right now. I I

think the bet you're making then, Travis, is are these valuations so high right now on the standards that the

efficiency that AI could bring to these companies is uh not real enough to continue the growth from here. It's not

a catalytic enough technology. And you

know, when you look at No, it's the opposite. No, all all these traditional companies have horrible valuations. They've been crushed. So my

valuations. They've been crushed. So my

point is if AI is real, the upside is also real. All I'm saying is

also real. All I'm saying is the details guys matter. It's very hard to take a very complicated business and all of a sudden quote unquote transform it.

It's not as easy as it sounds. That word

easy to say for sure. Travis, go ahead. Final word.

for sure. Travis, go ahead. Final word.

Final word from Travis. Couple things.

First is when it comes to big companies, I think the big thing about let's call it the the autonomous enterprise is change management. is the big boy. And

change management. is the big boy. And

and change management actually is about all the people that already work there, the middle managers, the technocrats, the bureaucrats, the whatever, the

getting the change management going. The

change management going there is it's a human thing and it's very tricky with very complex processes, many of which are not even documented. And in theory, it's just all going to happen real fast.

But in practice, like that's hard. So

that that's part one. Part two, what I'm seeing with true tech companies, real companies, public, I would say public like hardcore public companies. I

mean like you know founder, you know, folks that are really cranking public companies and tech companies that are sort of upandcomers.

I talked to CEOs across the board and they're like they are fired up about the development the sort of the the productivity and deployment schedule and

like the new features they were able to roll out much much much faster because they've pivoted their culture sort of very pro- AI development. Um, and I'm

getting like almost at this point a consistent feedback from real founder CEOs that like this stuff's real and it's it's it's not just hype. Now, there

are folks pushing, you know, selling their book that are like, "Oh, we're at AGI and all this." Anybody who's worked with these agents and done the AI dev

stuff, there's a lot of good stuff, but they're not they're not that smart yet. They're

just not that smart. Anybody who's done like I got a side quest where I'm just investing. I have agents investing and

investing. I have agents investing and betting on Kali and Paulie and you know these other places and it's silly how dumb the agents are. Even their best

agents to be honest.

Yeah.

The agents are what you you have to be human in the loop with the agent. The

agent has no taste. The agent can do repetitive tasks. the agent is not going

repetitive tasks. the agent is not going to do something novel and they quickly can get lost in the forest.

We had to spend a lot of time we had to spend a lot of time with our investing agents getting them on board with the idea that if you want to make money

investing, you can't be on both sides of the same bet.

Yeah.

You know what I mean?

There it is.

It's just like that. That's where we're at. It's the AGI is not here and it's

at. It's the AGI is not here and it's kind of silly for folks, I think, to sort of suggest it is.

Absolutely. Hey guys, we got a wrap.

Travis, you didn't get to play uh the price is wrong. I have two more. You

guys want to do a bonus round of the Price is Wrong?

Yeah, do it. Do it. See if See if Travis gets it.

Okay, two more. But you guys can steal.

You guys can steal here. Let me get my back. I got to give me the music.

back. I got to give me the music.

Travis, you're going to get to do the bonus round here.

Let's go.

Hello everybody. We got Travis Kalanick.

He's here. He is a professional water sports player from Tallahassee, Florida.

Uh, how is it down there in Tallahass, Florida? I understand you do a little

Florida? I understand you do a little handy work uh to pay the bills, but you spend your most of your time out there on the lakes and the oceans doing water sports. Yeah, you like the water sports.

sports. Yeah, you like the water sports.

I love the water sports. I I doing water ski lessons on the weekends. Anybody's

interested?

All right, I'll be out there uh at Tallahassee, Florida. Okay, now here we

Tallahassee, Florida. Okay, now here we go. It's your job to figure out the

go. It's your job to figure out the price is wrong. The price is wrong.

Here we go.

It's so funny. The

price is wrong here. Here we go. This is

your bonus round.

Yeah.

All right. This startup raised $900 million at a $9 billion valuation. This is a big one.

This is a big one. Before dissolving in 2018 and their famously deep voiced founder CEO is currently serving an 11-year sentence in a federal prison.

Yes.

Can you name that mispriced startup? You

name the mispriced story.

It rhymes withinos.

Okay, you're you're closing in here. Be

careful. You have to formulate a question. You could lose twist the

question. You could lose twist the final answer. Theronos.

final answer. Theronos.

Ferrronos. Okay, very good. 100 points.

You're on the board. And here is your next one. This is your next one.

next one. This is your next one.

Okay, this is the overtime. All three

players get to play this one. Whoever

zooms in first and says it, this is your final.

That's the mispriced startup here. The

price is wrong on this startup. Here we

go.

Come on, you can do this. Come on,

Jimoth.

You got this now. Here we go.

You can do this.

This short form mobile first streaming platform raised 1.7 billion from top investors. Jeffrey has got the the the the uh what is it?

You got to YELL IT OUT. TOP INVESTORS

ACROSS Silicon Valley and shut down in just 6 months.

Quicky quickie quickie. Wrong. David Sax wrong

quickie. Wrong. David Sax wrong company. JEFFREY JACKSONBY

company. JEFFREY JACKSONBY WINS.

YES.

There's your champion everybody. Let's

tell him what he won. He uh apparently he's won a Pier in downtown uh East Austin. A Pier in East Austin by the airport. God knows

what shenanigans are going down there. I

think if you need methamphetamine or a date, you're going to have an easy time there. Chimoth. Okay. Oh, hey, Chimath.

there. Chimoth. Okay. Oh, hey, Chimath.

Um, I'm getting hammered with people who want to come to the soldout liquidity.

500 was the cap you put on it. You've

been [ __ ] around as dictator. Can we

add 50 seats?

I think we can add 50 or 100. I don't

know. Lisa, can we add 100?

Get a Simocast room going. All right,

we'll see you all. Oh, and the All-In Summit tickets are on sale. Go to

allin.com. Uh, and yeah, don't get shut out of the summit, folks, because this happens every time. You guys email me two months out, the tickets have been sold out for four months. So, get your

tickets now uh at allin.com. Another

amazing episode and we'll see you next time. Bye-bye.

time. Bye-bye.

Bye-bye.

We'll let your winners ride.

Rain and we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love

you. Queen of

your besties are gone.

That is my dog taking your driveways.

Oh man, my appetasher will meet me at We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy cuz they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual

just useless. It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

Wet your feet.

We need to get merch.

I'm going all in.