E26: State of Venture Capital, plus fan questions on longevity, decentralization & quantum computing

View the State of VC deck here: https://rb.gy/wfan6j Follow the besties: https://twitter.com/chamath https://linktr.ee/calacanis https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://twitter.com/MikeSylvan Referenced in the show: Lifespan by David Sinclair: https://rb.gy/etzzmk Prenuvo: https://www.prenuvo.com Gumroad Equity Crowdfunding: https://republic.co/gumroad Backstage Equity Crowdfunding: https://republic.co/backstage Show Notes: 0:00 Bestie intro & poker talk 5:49 Fan question: Longevity & Biohacking, Chamath's health regimen 12:54 Fan question: Decentralization, separation of currency & state, will governments fight back against crypto? 22:48 Fan question: Quantum computing's potential impact, why heavy R&D technologies should are better suited for government funding rather than the private sector 33:33 Chamath's thesis behind deep tech investing 37:25 State of VC & how it's changing in terms of demographics, new access to capital, deal size & more 48:49 Trend of founders caring more about individual investors rather than firms, who is well-positioned & who is left out? 55:00 Why growth-stage firms could become less relevant: undifferentiated capital, routing around dilution, brand matters more in the early-stage; how Pipe & Clearbanc are revolutionizing non-dilutive funding 1:04:00 Summarizing the changing landscape of venture capital, how startups can best position themselves in a full lifecycle, innovations in equity crowdfunding, opportunity for entrepreneurs

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Jason Calacanis?

  Sax, is there something you object to here? The poker one and net worth?

• 0:02David Sacks?

  No, I mean, that's fine. I don't give a shit about longevity or quantum computing, but

• 0:06Jason Calacanis?

  Here's the good news, David. It's not all about you. There's four people on the show.

• 0:12Jason Calacanis?

  You could have two people who like the topic and then you could just ask them a probing question.

• 0:16David Sacks?

  It's fine. It's fine. Just tell them when it's over. I'll do email.

• 0:39Jason Calacanis?

  Hey, everybody. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the All In Podcast. I'm Jason Calacanis and with us today again, the queen of quinoa, David Friedberg, sands his dog in the background. Sorry for those of you who love his dog.

• 0:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  He's on a walk. He'll be back in like 10 minutes.

• 0:58Jason Calacanis?

  He'll be back and he'll be in the seat. And the Rain Man himself, David Sax, ultra focused on SaaS and marketplace startups and involved in some illegal trafficking of red pills straight up from Honduras to Cuba and then through Miami, making the red pills making their way to California. And finally Daddy's back, the SPAC master himself, Bestie C, the dictator is back.

• 1:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Bank account replenished.

• 1:32Jason Calacanis?

  He'll be rebillionized.

• 1:34Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Firing on all cylinders.

• 1:36Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, so, so, you know, live by the SPAC, die by the SPAC. That's what they always say in this business. But you know what? We have been absolutely inundated with, I kid you not, hundreds of questions from you, our loyal audience. And when this thing is over, we are going on world tour. We'll see you in Vegas. We'll see you in, at the Royal Albert Hall in London and Miami. All cities are on the agenda. Let's take our first question from you, the audience. To what extent are you guys interested?

• 2:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Wait, wait. How's everyone doing?

• 2:09Jason Calacanis?

  I thought we were getting to the questions, but I mean, look at this guy. He got his ass kicked and he's back.

• 2:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm doing really, really great. What about the rest of you guys?

• 2:17Jason Calacanis?

  You guys played poker this week?

• 2:19Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We played poker. It was a bloodbath. Well, although, you know, it's so funny because like we played, I played a very big game the week before and then we step into our game, which is like, I think still quite big. But I could not rub two cards together to make a hand and I, uh, I went off like a rocket ship. I just lost it somewhere along the way.

• 2:39Jason Calacanis?

  And just despite that, despite that, every time I, Chamath and I were heads up in a hand, he just smashed. Absolutely smashed me.

• 2:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Smashed.

• 2:48Jason Calacanis?

  And then I was like, you know what? I'm not going to be bullied anymore. And then I stand up to him and he's got the nuts each time. Uh, I was down.

• 2:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I did, Jake Al, I did run you over. I mean, the number of just complete bluffs. I ran on you. Oh.

• 3:00Jason Calacanis?

  That's crazy. And I'm just like, he's totally got my number tonight.

• 3:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  After bluff, after bluff, after bluff. And then I showed him the nuts five times in a row. It was beautiful.

• 3:08Jason Calacanis?

  So I'm stuck a Model Y and I come back and I win a used Prius. I'm just leaving it at that.

• 3:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I lost a mid-sized home in Phoenix, Arizona.

• 3:19Jason Calacanis?

  I think you lost to Bentley. Okay. Don't cancel us. Uh, please, uh, Sax.

• 3:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Sax, did you play?

• 3:25David Sacks?

  I wasn't there in that game, but I played in a LA game a couple of nights ago and, uh,

• 3:30Jason Calacanis?

  Any celebrities?

• 3:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, me, me, Sax and.

• 3:34Jason Calacanis?

  Oh God, you guys don't count as celebrities. You're podcasters.

• 3:36Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, there was one, there was one unnamed celebrity we can't say.

• 3:39Jason Calacanis?

  What, what, an actor?

• 3:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, we can't say, but we all won.

• 3:42Jason Calacanis?

  Well, just give us a genre. I mean, it's politician. An athlete. Okay.

• 3:45David Sacks?

  Yeah, I won in, in that game, but I lost, uh, I lost in a different game this past week and it wasn't pretty. Yeah.

• 3:52Jason Calacanis?

  Wait, Sax, Sax, are you in? What game are you playing?

• 3:54David Sacks?

  Yeah.

• 3:55Jason Calacanis?

  I think he may be playing.

• 3:56David Sacks?

  Actually, I mean, beef that out, would you, Nick?

• 4:00Jason Calacanis?

  Beep it out, but we can all laugh at him for being so precious. Oh, you, I'm sorry. Do you LPs think you're supposed to be in San Francisco investing in startups?

• 4:08David Sacks?

  No, no, they know I go wherever the deals are.

• 4:11Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, really? Miami? What'd you get a deal? Would you get a deal on some croquettes and a Cuban sandwich? Two for one? There's no copies there.

• 4:20David Friedberg?

  When do you think you'll make an investment in a Miami-based company? You think that'll happen anytime?

• 4:24Jason Calacanis?

  It's happened already.

• 4:25David Friedberg?

  Has it happened?

• 4:26Jason Calacanis?

  Are you in the new free, are you in the new?

• 4:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I've, I've invested in a Miami company.

• 4:31Jason Calacanis?

  I've got like six. Yeah.

• 4:33David Sacks?

  I, well, there's some companies that are moving to Miami that I'm already in. You know, Chamath and I are both in pipe, right? And, and part, at least the CEO of the company just moved to Miami.

• 4:43Jason Calacanis?

  So that's two of four, two of four besties in pipe. Thanks.

• 4:46David Sacks?

  Yeah. By the way, how did you miss that, J Cal? They, they advertise on your show and you didn't think to try and invest?

• 4:51Jason Calacanis?

  That the LP beep that we all share wanted everything and he couldn't fit me in. And I was like, how about a slice? And he's like,

• 4:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Is that LP me?

• 5:01Jason Calacanis?

  No, there's another LP that Sax and I share who got their beak significantly doused in that one. But I'm just gonna, I'm gonna get the kid to give me a 25 basis points in advisor shares. So I'm getting, I'm getting a slice no matter what.

• 5:14David Sacks?

  Yeah. Good, good luck with that.

• 5:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Good luck with that. Good luck.

• 5:17David Sacks?

  The train's off the station. The train's off the station, dude.

• 5:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That, that, that company's worth a couple billion dollars in less than two years of its existence. Good luck with that, Jason.

• 5:26Jason Calacanis?

  Okay. Well, it's, we call it a make good. I don't know what you guys are seeing, but my God. Early stage valuations went bonkers. I had one company that raised.

• 5:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, don't front run it. I have all kinds of data for you.

• 5:38Jason Calacanis?

  Okay. Right. So today we're going to do some audience questions and then we're going to do the state of VC. We're running through a deck. We're running through everything that is changing right now in venture capital and early stage investing. And it is changing very quickly. Here's a question from Leonard.

• 5:53Jason Calacanis?

  Omazix. To what extent are you guys interested in longevity? In your opinion, what technologies could help us live longer and healthier lives? Friedberg, that's got your name on it. Why don't we start with you?

• 6:05David Friedberg?

  On this one, I would point folks to read the book Lifespan by David Sinclair, who's a researcher at Harvard, and he's done a lot of kind of leading work on, basically calling aging a disease and life extension. So the book Lifespan highlights, I think, a lot of his research and findings and paths forward for improving longevity. And basically, you know, it comes down to what he defines as kind of an early switch that evolved in evolutionary biology in every cell, in every living organism, where the cell is either in growth mode or repair mode. And the trick is, can you get the gene to switch on that

• 6:45David Friedberg?

  puts the cell into repair mode? And if you do that, the cell fixes itself and you, and the cell lasts longer, the organism lives longer. And so they've identified a number of genes that trigger this and a number of compounds that trigger expression of those genes. And there's a number of things you can do lifestyle-wise to trigger these genes, basically to get yourself to live longer. So fasting is a good one. And then there's a bunch of compounds that you can take that mimic fasting on a cellular level, like metformin and rapamycin.

• 7:14Jason Calacanis?

  I'm on metformin.

• 7:16David Friedberg?

  I think a couple of you guys are on metformin, right?

• 7:17Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 7:17David Friedberg?

  And then, and then the NAD plus supplements, which you can buy on...

• 7:22Jason Calacanis?

  You say NMN supplements?

• 7:23David Friedberg?

  Yeah, NMN, NMN and NAD plus. So there's two, there's two compounds, NMN, like Nancy, Mike, Nancy, and then NR. And those, you can buy a product called True Niagen on Amazon, which, which has those compounds, and you take about 1,000 milligrams a day. And anyway, all of this stuff's laid out in his books, and it supports a lot of the research that's being done. Obviously fasting and exercise also trigger this gene expression and enable kind of measures of longevity to kind of be showing up biologically. But I think, I think it's a, it's an emerging field and there's a lot of deep work going on. And as people have highlighted, the process of aging is a biological process that theoretically we can stop and potentially reverse. And there's a lot of new work that's being done

• 8:08David Friedberg?

  in stem cell therapy that may kind of elicit some new paths forward here. So arguably, someone is alive on planet Earth today that could live past the age of 200. So it's an exciting field and lots of kind of paths forward.

• 8:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'll, uh, I'll tell you for what it's worth, my regimen, um, and

• 8:27Jason Calacanis?

  Oh God, here we go, thirst trap photo coming in.

• 8:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, uh, so, so I, I do, uh, the following, so, um, I take, uh, a statin now, it was 10mg, now I'm at 20mg. Um, I take metformin and all of this I take sort of in a preventative posture, um, because my cholesterol wasn't super high, but it wasn't super low, it was like, sort of like in the 160, 170, 180, but now it's sort of like 120. Um, and then metformin I take preventatively as well, I'm not prediabetic. Um, and then a couple of vitamin D and some other stuff, but then here are these things that I do that I think could be valuable for some folks listening.

• 9:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Uh, there are these places now that exist, they're popping up, one company that you can check out is called PreNuvo, P R E N U V O. Um, they're in Vancouver, they're in LA, they're in, uh, Redwood City, so mid peninsula for those in Silicon Valley. And what you can do is you can get a head to toe, uh, MRI. So, you know, there's no radiation, you know, you could do these things, you know, every other week if you wanted to, it takes about an hour. And what happens is they can basically, uh, look through your entire body, um, your musculature, your organs, um, from the, literally from the tip of your head all the way down to your ankles and

• 9:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  they can spot a lot of stuff that may not otherwise, uh, be seen. And so, you know, every three or four years to get one of these scans, you could see a lesion. Um, you could see the beginnings of a tumor. Um, you know, I did one a few weeks ago, touch wood, it was great, nothing, nothing.

• 10:07Jason Calacanis?

  How much does it cost?

• 10:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Um, there's a range of prices, um, and I think those prices will come down, the range of prices are from like 1500 to 2500 dollars. So it's not expense, it's not cheap, sorry. Um, but here's what they're able to do, they're building a corpus of all these images where they're running, uh, machine learning on it and they're getting better and better at identifying anomalies. And so as a result of that, they're able to actually take the MRI images and they can do fewer and fewer scans to get the equivalent resolution. So two things will happen. One is the scan time will come down, right? So it was an hour and a half. Now it's sort of right under an hour. It can probably be as low as 40 minutes, which is relatively tolerable for most people. And then the cost will come down into the hundreds of dollars because you'll be

• 10:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  able to very rapidly assess. So I do that. And then the second thing is for anybody with heart disease in their family, I really implore you. One of my friends actually is flying down from Toronto. I'm taking him to my cardiologist in LA. And there's a thing called heart flow. And what heart flow is, is a contrast CT, which basically means they inject a dye, and then they put you under a CT and they they map out your heart. And you can literally see the calcium buildup. You can see the state of your arteries. And, you know, what probably people don't know is when you have a calcium score, you know, most of us it's zero, but when it starts to be non-zero, it doubles every year. And by the time it gets into the thousands, you're basically

• 11:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  guaranteed to get some form of cardiac issue. And so it doesn't seem like anything if your cardiac score is 20, except it goes to 40, 80, 160, and all of a sudden, within five, six years, you're really in the red zone for a heart attack or something. I've done it twice now. Every five years I do it. And touch wood, you know, my my calcium score is still zero. But in any event, that's what I do for longevity. I kind of preventively at the cellular level with some drugs and then just trying to catch cancer and heart disease on the front end. Otherwise, eat three balanced meals and exercise and sleep a lot.

• 12:07Jason Calacanis?

  Sax, you obviously don't care about longevity. Any thoughts here? I mean,

• 12:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Sax has looked like he's 1,000 years old since he was seven.

• 12:16Jason Calacanis?

  No, he was when he was in 12th grade, he looked like he was the Vice President of the United States.

• 12:21David Sacks?

  Guys, just, just let, just let me know when this conversation is over. I've been doing my email.

• 12:29Jason Calacanis?

  It's so great. All right.

• 12:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Sacks is like, end my life now. I fucking hate it.

• 12:35David Friedberg?

  He's like, I just lost two years right now.

• 12:38Jason Calacanis?

  Sacks has got an early spot, both on the rocket ship to Mars and he's got an inside VIP to Peter Thiel's Blood Boy project. And so either way, he's getting off the planet or he's going to refresh his blood or both. So he's good. All right. Action Bias asks, please debate decentralization of monetary value, ultimate threat for insiders, power erosion.

• 13:03David Sacks?

  I interpret this as a Bitcoin question. So I think one of the most interesting things happening in the world today is this is what's happening with Bitcoin, right? It's and you're seeing the price go up because a bunch of institutional investors on Wall Street are all getting into it now. It's gone from retail to institutional. And the narrative, basically, it's a really profound narrative, which is it's the separation of money and state. So if you think about like, one of the most important events in human history was the separation of church and state, where we no longer look to the state to determine, you know, what religion everyone was going to be. Well, what crypto is introducing is this idea that the government cannot control the money supply. I think that's

• 13:47David Sacks?

  what he's talking about with the decentralization is that you could have a currency that everybody in the world believes in that no government can control. That's the separation of money and state. Now, this is just really a narrative right now. I mean, and who knows if it will actually come true. But the interesting thing is that if everybody does believe in it, it will come true. And so Bitcoin's been sort of described as the bubble that never ends, because if everyone kind of buys into this bubble, it actually comes true. So I think it's very interesting and you're seeing. Because Bitcoin is kind of perceived as the antidote to inflation and money printing by

• 14:28David Sacks?

  the government, I think you're seeing it take on new urgency now because the government just keeps printing trillions and trillions of dollars of new money.

• 14:36David Friedberg?

  Doesn't this threaten governments? So if government doesn't have control over monitoring financial transactions and have control over the accounts in which the financial assets sit, which is effectively the notion of decentralized anonymized wallets, then how does the government secure taxation, which is requisite for their ability to fund the state, right? And so what happens to the state?

• 14:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, so there's an enormous amount of leakage that happens today in assets that actually get financialized, but in the gray market. And I think the beautiful thing is, on the one hand, you know, we've become less focused on like the M1 and the M2 money supply, like the physical printable distributable money that we can see and touch. And it gets replaced with virtual currencies that are tied to other things. I think what the person who wrote the question is asking really is more about DeFi and what's happening sort of like on the Ethereum, you know, 2.0 ERC 20 contracts, all that stuff, which is sort of much more next gen, I think, than Bitcoin. And I think at some point we should deep dive into it. But what I would say, Friedberg, is all the leakage you have today goes away

• 15:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  in a world of DeFi because you will financialize every single asset possible. You know, you'll financialize your homes, you'll financialize your cars, your watches, your jewelry, your art, you'll financialize every random thing. Maybe even your career. And how people will trade it, absolutely your career. And the thing is, by monetizing it and financializing it, you can borrow against it, you can trade it, you can pull forward value into the future against it, but it'll all be tracked. And so as long as a government then says, listen, we're going to enable it all. But there needs to be an off-ramp to taxation. And that's pretty simple because a physical house exists in the world. You can't hide the existence of a physical house.

• 16:22Jason Calacanis?

  But it's not anonymized, right, Chamath? And so, you know, if you want to track it. I mean, that's the challenge of if, no, I'm saying if it is anonymized, then the government can't track it and the government can't actually.

• 16:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But these are, these are two separate things. Some assets will live anonymously. And those are the assets that don't need to exist in the real world. But I think what this will create is a world where all of these assets that actually really exist in the real world, it'll be fine that it exists and that people get taxed on it, but it'll be much more legitimate. And I think it'll be simpler. And so I think people will trade off incremental taxation for incremental monetizability. I'll give you an example. Um, let's use real estate. There is no reason why every single piece of land everywhere around the world isn't written into a ledger with knowledge of who owns it, such that the person that owns it could trade it,

• 17:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  could borrow against it, um, could sell it.

• 17:18Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, fractionalize it.

• 17:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Fractionalize it.

• 17:21Jason Calacanis?

  Even if you can't fractionalize in the real world because your neighbors won't let you set it up into four lots, you could do that online.

• 17:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Online. And so today, what will happen is that, you know, that person has a level of wealth. And what they do instead, take the United States, is they lobby, lobby, lobby to create all this convoluted real estate tax law to make their life simpler. But if you actually unlocked the ability to focus on revenue versus expenses, you just wouldn't focus as much on the taxation because you'd say, well, I can make so much more money.

• 17:50Jason Calacanis?

  If you judge, just to, you know, sort of answer the question here from the, from the reader, from the listener, I think you can really judge this based upon how much it's being pumped by the people who own it. And they are absolutely dogged, religious about this. It's like talking to, and, you know, a person who's, you know, met Jesus and now everybody has to be a Christian. Um, and you can also look at, uh, the people who are opposing it. I don't know if you saw Yellen, um, and then, um, Christine Lagarde. She came out against it. Yellen's come out against it. India might ban it. And then you have, obviously China's coming out. They're digital ones. So I think it's going to be, there's going to be a dogfight here where governments are not going to easily give up.

• 18:31Jason Calacanis?

  Their control of this and there's many ways they can make a bunch of red tape to slow this down and in countries that are authoritarian, they can outright ban it. Let's take another question here.

• 18:41David Friedberg?

  By the way, there's like three outcomes here, right? I mean, you could either see Bitcoin, for example, you know, being banned and that's going to be ugly. And obviously, there would be significant financial loss at this point. To Sax's point, at some point, there's so much asset value tied up in Bitcoin, it's too big to fail. So David, banned by who? Oh, that's from Chinese government. This is what they're trying to do on some of the states, right? And they're trying to make it illegal for citizens to transfer money in and out of the asset class.

• 19:08David Sacks?

  I think it's a bigger threat to countries that want to impose export or currency controls and export restrictions. But frankly, if you're a country that's not afraid of currency movements, because you're not trying to do something oppressive to your people, I don't think you have that much to fear here. I mean, there are other ways of trying to hide assets or hide money besides Bitcoin. And every transaction, every Bitcoin transaction is written into the ledger. I think you have to be pretty dumb to try and commit a crime with Bitcoin, because there's going to be a permanent record in the blockchain forever of that transfer. And then there's companies that that provide, that do kind of sleuthing and try to unravel.

• 19:47David Friedberg?

  Sax, you think tax evasion in the United States is going to be difficult with Bitcoin? If I accrue a bunch of value in Bitcoin, am I going to be able to evade paying taxes on those gains and convert that Bitcoin into physical assets by purchasing it from another Bitcoin wallet holder?

• 20:03David Sacks?

  I mean.

• 20:04David Friedberg?

  How realistic is tax evasion going to be? And how much would, because that's ultimately what the US government would mostly.

• 20:09David Sacks?

  Well, so you would convert cash into Bitcoin and then you want to sell your Bitcoin at some point, you're going to have to sell it. I mean, there would be a realization of it.

• 20:18David Friedberg?

  Or no, I'm saying transfer it to a seller of an asset, of another asset, that's willing to accept Bitcoin in receipt and so to anonymize wallets.

• 20:25David Sacks?

  I don't know. I mean, that transaction's going to live on the blockchain forever and it's going to live in the books of whoever the seller is. What are they selling you? A car or a house, whatever? I mean, that transit, a watch. I mean, look, if it's a personal item, maybe, but if we're talking about a substantial asset. Like a house or a company or something, they're gonna need to, the other side of the transaction is gonna need to report the realization event. So you're gonna have to have two people collude to engage in tax evasion. Seems like a really stupid thing to do.

• 20:54David Friedberg?

  Legally incorporated businesses are gonna be mandated to do effectively identity verification, much like we have to do under the Patriot Act with all the, the financial law.

• 21:03David Sacks?

  Totally, totally.

• 21:04Jason Calacanis?

  Know your buyer.

• 21:05David Sacks?

  Yeah.

• 21:05David Friedberg?

  Ultimately how the compromise arises, right?

• 21:07David Sacks?

  Yeah, I'm not, I, I, I'm not that worried about, I, I feel like this whole like Silk Road type Bitcoin will be used illegally. Thing is like kind of a old meme about it that I think that the fears are like greatly exaggerated. But the, the thing that jumps out at me about all the critics of Bitcoin, and I'm, I'm not like a pumper or whatever, but I do, I do own some. Is the, the thing that like all these like critics don't seem to understand is the technology. That's the common denominator, whether it's like Howard Marks or Warren Buffett or Charlie Munger, whoever, they're, they're all like great investors or whatever, but they're not technologists.

• 21:41Jason Calacanis?

  It's a blind spot.

• 21:42David Sacks?

  It's a blind spot. And the thing they don't understand about the technology is that Bitcoin is the first digital asset to ever be created. That you can't create infinite copies of, right? So think about like a song or a photo or a video or whatever, anything that's digital. You've always been able to make an infinite number of copies. Isn't that what the word digital means is that it's infinitely copyable? So how do you have digital money that can't just be infinitely copied? Obviously that would destroy the value. And that was the genius of Bitcoin is that every transaction's written into this ledger, the blockchain is decentralized. And nobody over the last decade or so has figured out how to counterfeit Bitcoin, how to make a duplicate, how to double spend Bitcoin.

• 22:25David Sacks?

  As long as that remains true, then Bitcoin can serve as money if everyone believes in it. The day that someone figures out how to counterfeit a Bitcoin, how to double spend it, it's all worthless. But a lot of people have been trying over the last 10 years, they've never figured out how to crack it.

• 22:42David Friedberg?

  By the way, that's a great, it's a great transition to the next question. Sorry, I'm not gonna interrupt here, but.

• 22:46Jason Calacanis?

  No, it's a perfect transition. And next up, Adil says, can one of the besties explain the power of quantum computing? And how it can change industries like medical, pharmaceuticals, any good companies that are leaders in quantum computing?

• 23:00David Friedberg?

  I'll take a cut at this one. So, and the reason I pointed it out is because a lot of people do talk about quantum computing potentially being a path to cracking the hashing functions in Bitcoin mining and potentially overwhelming the network and effectively counterfeiting the Bitcoin ledger. And so technically, a quantum computer is a computer that uses qubits, which is a storage of a quantum state versus a storage of a binary state, which is a binary digit, which is called a bit in traditional computing, classical computing.

• 23:39Jason Calacanis?

  A 1 and a 0.

• 23:41David Friedberg?

  A 1 and a 0. And a quantum, or qubit, a quantum state can be a much more dynamic function. And so it's a state that is very analog and very representative of kind of a much more kind of broader condition than just a 1 or a 0.

• 23:55Jason Calacanis?

  It could be a 1, a 0, or neither, right? It can have neither state as well.

• 23:59David Friedberg?

  Think about it as a wave function. And so a qubit can only exist in a piece of matter where you can hold the fidelity of a quantum state, meaning it can't be disturbed. So right now, all quantum computing gets disturbed. It all has some error-prone context to it. And so in order to use qubits to do calculations, we use what's called quantum error correction on those qubits. And so we adjust the qubits and the output to try and resolve it. A qubit with no errors is called a logical qubit. And a logical qubit has not been built. It would require very, very, very low error rates. And there's a bunch of, and there's a bunch of theories around when this is going to happen. When are we going to have truly logical qubits?

• 24:44David Friedberg?

  When does the error rate get low enough that these qubits are truly kind of useful? Now, there is an estimate that the number of logical qubits needed to crack RSA 2048, which is the big kind of encryption standard, which could kind of break the whole cryptocurrency model, it would require about 4,011 logical qubits. Today, the largest

• 25:10David Friedberg?

  The largest quantum computer has about 100 qubits that are very noisy. And so it's less than one logical qubit. And so we would need somewhere between 100,000 and a million qubit computer to be able to have enough quantum supremacy to be able to tackle a project like cracking RSA 2048. And to And by some estimates, and some people have tried to estimate when this would happen. And the estimate currently by some researchers is that this, there's a less than 5% chance this happens before the year 2040. So we're talking somewhere between the year 2040 and the 2060. When we get a quantum computer that has enough logical qubits to be able to crack a problem like RSA 2048 and basically make all crypto fail.

• 25:52David Friedberg?

  And between now and then, a lot of people are working on quantum cryptography, which is new methods of encryption that are kind of built for the quantum era and the quantum frontier. Now, what's more interesting is that over the next 100, next 10 years or so, the current super noisy, super low fidelity quantum computers can be used to simulate quantum states, which is the condition of atoms and molecules, and use that to do better modeling of physiochemical properties of material. That's where the breakthroughs will happen in the next decade. So all the hard discrete problems that we kind of theorize about cryptography and other stuff, that's decades away. In this decade, we are already going to start to see quantum computers have breakthroughs in how material, how atoms and molecules interact with each other. For example, finding proteins that can do a better job of having an enzymatic reaction

• 26:37David Friedberg?

  in the physical world, where we can now potentially pull nitrogen out of the atmosphere to make fertilizer or drugs or or specific protein targets that can go in the human body and have specific functions by modeling what we can't do with traditional computers today, modeling the quantum properties of those molecules and how they interact with other molecules, and then building really cool predictive models that we can then turn into products. And that's going to be chased really hard this decade. Everyone's going to be going after it. And we already have enough compute power. I don't think that there's any leader in quantum computing today. These are all still science experiments. They're all breadboards, IBM, Google, Microsoft, a bunch of research labs, a bunch of startups, are all kind of basically doing the same thing with different types of qubit technology, but they all have very high errors.

• 27:20David Friedberg?

  Have very low qubit computers and so it's still unresolved. Who's going to come out with something useful?

• 27:25Jason Calacanis?

  Two companies to follow are D-Wave, which was started in 99. So just to give you an idea of how long people have been working on it, it's a 22 year old company. I know Steve Jervis has been backing it for now in its third decade. And then Ionic, is that the other one? I O N Q?

• 27:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think like quantum computing is like fusion.

• 27:45Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 27:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's like, it's like a technical problem that has attracted people who've had more money than common sense. And it's just basically a way to burn an enormous amount of money over 20 or 30 years. And the problem with that is that you start to build in technical cruft. Anything that is still in R and D phase 20 years in needs to get scrapped and rebuilt from scratch. Because everything has changed, including the people. Even the 20 year olds that started are now in their 40s and have kids and just have a completely different risk management.

• 28:15David Friedberg?

  It's a great point, Chamath.

• 28:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so, and so like you gotta just scrap these projects and start all over again. Because the, the, the problem is you need somebody completely naive to look at this problem in 2021. And say, well, okay, how are we actually going to really solve like the coherence problem? I don't know. How are we going to build a Gatorade? I don't know. And you have these very formulaic ways that we knew based on what technologies were available in 99 or 2000 to start with. And I think that's probably part of why we framed the problem as largely sort of this thing of like, okay, maybe there's like a integer factorization thing you can do. And it's like, I don't know, I'm, I'm deeply skeptical.

• 28:55David Sacks?

  Yeah, well, I agree.

• 28:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  By the way, this is why, sorry, can I just say one last thing? This is why AlphaFold beat quantum computers to the solution of protein folding.

• 29:08Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And, and the reason was they were just like, ah, we'll just take a different run at it. Completely different people, a completely different technical framework and modality. And a completely different risk profile and age as well.

• 29:19Jason Calacanis?

  A company to keep an eye on in the fusion space Commonwealth Fusion Systems.

• 29:26David Sacks?

  Wait, Zach, what were you gonna say? What I was gonna say is that the main thing I was thinking about while you were giving that dissertation on Qubits or God knows what is that I is I would never invest in this. That's all I was thinking is I would never invest in this.

• 29:41Jason Calacanis?

  Yes, you're focused on SaaS and marketing.

• 29:43David Sacks?

  No, it's exactly what yeah, it's exactly what Shama said.

• 29:46Jason Calacanis?

  Definitely seven queens and eight kings and five aces in a deck.

• 29:50David Sacks?

  These are science fair experiments, you know, with indefinite timeframes. This is basic R and D that should be done at universities. These concepts are not ready for commercialization.

• 30:01Jason Calacanis?

  Exactly what they said about AI and then now it's infected every company. So.

• 30:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, that's not true, Jason, because there was a.

• 30:07Jason Calacanis?

  They were saying this about AI 10 years ago.

• 30:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, Jason, I completely disagree with you.

• 30:11Jason Calacanis?

  DeepMind could not get funded in the beginning.

• 30:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, complete, completely disagree with you because there was a practical, commercial, revenue generating opportunity for AI and machine learning, literally from the start of computing.

• 30:24Jason Calacanis?

  It took several iterations. There's no use case for fusion energy? I mean, of course there is.

• 30:29David Sacks?

  No, I'm not saying that. It's still at the basic R and D stage.

• 30:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's still basic R and D.

• 30:33David Sacks?

  Yeah, I will. I'll partially agree with you, Jason, in the sense that I was not investing in AI 10 years ago because I thought at that stage, it was still in the realm of science fiction. But we just announced two deals in the last two days, two seed deals viable, which is basically an AI voice of the customer. It slurps in all of your customer feedback and then gives you answers. And then the other one is.

• 30:53Jason Calacanis?

  A copywriting one.

• 30:55David Sacks?

  It's a copywriting AI called copy.ai, which literally writes your site.

• 30:59Jason Calacanis?

  Trying to get a slice right now.

• 31:00David Sacks?

  Yeah, not, yeah, we might give you a slice, Jason. Stop being so skeptical, but.

• 31:06Jason Calacanis?

  I'm all in.

• 31:07David Sacks?

  Yeah, but, but here's, here's what's changed, right? Is these are seed companies with just a handful of employees. They're built on GPT-3. So you had this like basic like R and D done. It creates this platform called GPT-3.

• 31:23Jason Calacanis?

  It's like AWS, right?

• 31:24David Sacks?

  Yeah, you can now build companies on top of that. So, I mean, look, you know. What I invest in are the commercialization of new technology waves. Those technology waves happen because of deeper R and D.

• 31:38Jason Calacanis?

  What do you think about VR and AR? Because there's the same conversation with VR and AR. Like, are these worthy investments or not?

• 31:44David Friedberg?

  I think Sax's point is such a good one because what he's saying is what I think has happened over the last century. The government, the best role the government can provide is to take on that technology risk, that large capital intense technology risk. This was the case with the Manhattan Project and we got nuclear energy out of it. It was the case with Apollo Project. We have the space industry as a result now. And it's what happened with the Human Genome Project. And now we have an incredible genomics revolution and ARPANET. And that extensive early-stage de-risking requires an incredible amount of capital that's very low returning. It doesn't return anything. It's what Sax is saying is later is the commercialization where.

• 32:23Jason Calacanis?

  Do we have a heuristic, a theory, a best practice around when something goes from a research project to being commercially viable? There are signals. I mean, platformification seems like one that you pointed out, David. If it's a platform and you can use it easily.

• 32:40David Sacks?

  Yeah, I think you can tell when the amount of capital required to get it off the ground goes to something reasonable, like a few million dollars as opposed to hundreds of millions of dollars. Whenever, and Jason, you've talked about this, that any company that's trying to raise hundreds of millions of dollars or has a billion-dollar-plus valuation before shipping a product is presumptively fraud. There's still too much R and D involved. I mean, look, venture capital is a milestone-based investing model. You take a little bit of seed money, you create a prototype, you get some proof. Then you raise a Series A, you get 10 million, you get some customers, then you raise 25 million and you scale the company. And it's based on milestones. It's actually a very efficient way of investing.

• 33:24David Sacks?

  And when somebody wants to skip over all those milestones, they say, no, we need hundreds of millions of dollars to launch this thing. You have to ask, why? Is this idea really ready for commercialization?

• 33:35David Friedberg?

  What's Chamath's response to that? Because Chamath, you've done deep tech investing and you've done-

• 33:38Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, Virgin Galactic would fall into that or no? Yeah.

• 33:41David Friedberg?

  So like, how do you think about deep tech investing Chamath and like where, where like there's a role for venture capital, private market, you know, dollars?

• 33:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, I've done, I've done a lot of deep tech investing and my whole thing was I've always looked at, at the point where something is completely de-risked technically. And it's about then the exploitation of a market. Otherwise, it's exactly what David said. So I'll give you an example. A company called Relativity Space is now the second most valuable private spaceflight company after SpaceX. Okay, YC company, I led the Series A. What were they trying to do? Their, they, their, their stated goal at the time was we want to 3D print the entire rocket and the entire engine.

• 34:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And I said, wow, okay, well, when we did the math and we tried to figure this out and have the same launch capability as SpaceX, all of it comes down to, okay, well, how do you want to de-risk this? And what Tim and Jordan's first idea was, well, first, we want to basically prove that we can actually get a certain printing capability done because you're talking about these extremely, you know, energy intensive, extremely technical printers and effectively writing printer drivers, right? And to be doing it at a scale where you can hand that off to NASA and they can take that engine, literally strap it down with chains, called the hold down test, fire the engine and say it works.

• 35:04Jason Calacanis?

  Doesn't blow up.

• 35:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Doesn't blow up. And I said to Tim, how much does that take? And Tim was like, I could probably do that on 10 million bucks. I said, you're done on 10 million dollars.

• 35:13Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. And so- But if it was 100 million?

• 35:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Hundred, the only person that would have written a hundred million dollar check to de-risk that doesn't understand what they're trying to prove at that point in time. Because what he was trying to prove was the, the ability to use the printer. He wasn't saying, I'm trying to build a next generation rocket motor, right? So similarly with Virgin, you know, Virgin got to a point where it's like, it had flown demonstrably in the air. So what did it prove? It proved the flight profile worked. It proved the engine worked. It proved all the navigational componentry worked and it proved the safety envelope worked, which means that it could basically act as a glider under all kinds of boundary conditions. That's an enormous amount of technical progress. And then at that point, there I'm willing to invest billions of dollars.

• 36:00Jason Calacanis?

  And so they have a revenue model early too. Like, that's one of the things about being an entrepreneur is figuring out how you stay alive while you answer these questions. And you came up with a brilliant one, or whoever was doing Virgin Galactic, which is, people will overpay.

• 36:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, but Virgin was a 15-year process where Richard Branson, to his credit, did exactly what David said. Here's $10 million, get to milestone one. Here's $25 million, get to milestone two. He did the exact venture capital model. It's just that he did it by himself. I think what David is saying, which I agree with, is you should never short circuit that and say, here's $500 million pre-Series A.

• 36:37Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I'm agreeing with that, sure.

• 36:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Otherwise, you'll be working at something for 20 years with nothing to fucking show for it, as in fusion, as in quantum compute.

• 36:46Jason Calacanis?

  All right.

• 36:47David Sacks?

  You end up with, like, you end up with a magic leap or...

• 36:50Jason Calacanis?

  Theranos.

• 36:51David Sacks?

  Theranos or even...

• 36:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, Theranos is a, I mean, it looks like it's a fraud, but magic leap just looks like it's technically incompetent.

• 36:59Jason Calacanis?

  Or it's too hard of a technical problem to solve in the amount of time and the amount...

• 37:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Technical incompetence.

• 37:05Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I don't know if it's incompetence, it just might be, it might be a 20-year problem as opposed to a five.

• 37:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, but why are you taking this emotionally? Technical incompetence is the opposite of technical competence. Competence means you can do it. Technical incompetence means you can't do it.

• 37:16Jason Calacanis?

  I thought you were saying that that group of people is incompetent.

• 37:18Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm saying the words technical followed by the word incompetence. Technical incompetence.

• 37:23Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, when you're saying it, I think you're describing the person, not the problem.

• 37:27David Sacks?

  It could have been too hard a lift for them, so, you know.

• 37:30Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, well, the last question is about access to private equity, but let's just go into this deck here. Now, one of the things we wanted to talk to today, Chamath had a good idea. Venture capital is changing rapidly. The last decade has seen more change in venture capital than, I would argue, the four decades or five decades that venture capital has existed. In other words, more change. And we're going to go through some of those changes, how it affects the entrepreneur, how it affects the investor. Chamath was nice enough to put a deck together.

• 37:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And then I guess, Jason, we'll figure out a way to post this into the YouTube or something like that.

• 38:02Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, you know what? We'll put in the show notes a link to this Google presentation and Nick can pull up the slides when we're talking about them.

• 38:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think if folks can give us feedback, this is kind of a new thing for us. We're trying to experiment, which is sort of, this is like a half teach-in, half discussion on something we all wanted to talk about, and hopefully you guys get some value from it, but tell us if it's not. So I want to thank Carmen Collins on my team who helped put this together, but let me just go through this state of venture capital. So a couple of high-level points. There's like some really important trends at play. The first is that there really is now underneath a massive change in the players in this game. Founder demographics are changing slowly but surely. We're going to go into that in a second. Traditional VC investors are getting disrupted. We're going to go that. We're going to go into that.

• 38:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And then this model, which I love of "let me know how I can be helpful," quote unquote, basically eroding and seeding ground to what we call solo capitalists, and we'll talk about that, which is probably the most disruptive trend in venture. Second, we'll talk about the inflation in the amount of money that's going into these companies, which really means more money at higher prices, and why that's good in some ways and actually bad in some other ways. This goes back to David's point of, you know, not being forced to generate milestones sooner. And then the third is that it's really now a founders market, and I think this is really important because, you know, you've seen an enormous amount of dilution and lack of control

• 39:34Chamath Palihapitiya?

  for founders and employee teams and companies, and I think that there are some really disruptive new ways that completely usurp traditional venture, non-dilutive forms of financing. We'll talk about that. So let me just level set for you guys. I asked the following question. What are the demographics of the United States? And here's what they are. In the United States today, 59.7% of people are white, non-Hispanic. 12.5% are black, 5.8 are Asian, 18.7% are Hispanic, and 2.3 are multirace. If you map that to VC founders...

• 40:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Seventy-seven percent of VC founders are white. One percent are black. Seventeen point seven percent are Asian. One point eight percent are Hispanic and two and a half are multirace. So amongst multirace, Asian and white, you either are at or over indexing your representative population and blacks and Hispanics. This is not anything new, but massively underrepresented. If you take it from a gender, females have lower representation among founders, but it's growing. So the US is basically fifty fifty male, female. Female founded companies were twenty-three percent of all deal activity in 2019. That's, that's pretty good. Up from twelve percent in 2010, although racial diversity is still pretty lacking, which we know.

• 40:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And then the young tech bro stereotype is cracking, which is, this is incredible. Twenty nineteen study in The Times showed that the average age of a tech founder is, David Sacks, what do you think it is? The average age of a tech founder in 2019?

• 41:13Jason Calacanis?

  Median or average? Mean or median?

• 41:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Average, average.

• 41:16David Sacks?

  Well, I saw, I saw your deck, so isn't it something like, it was surprisingly?

• 41:19Jason Calacanis?

  Thirty-five, forty?

• 41:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Forty-two.

• 41:21Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. No, I'm seeing a lot. I think, I don't know, just to pause here for a moment, what do we think?

• 41:26David Friedberg?

  I can still found a company.

• 41:27Jason Calacanis?

  You can. What do we think is, given, you had the longevity question earlier, and then you have people, you know, generating wealth and starting companies in their forties, fifties and sixties, who then underwrite it themselves, right? Until they get to product market fit and then raise money. What do we think is the best zone for an entrepreneur in terms of having a great outcome?

• 41:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I've always thought that the, look, I, when I, how old was I? I was thirty-one, thirty-two when I started Social Capital. I mean, this is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. I feel like I'm reasonably successful at it. But I was preparing for the first thirteen or fourteen years of my professional career. I learned some good things. I learned some bad things. I learned tactics that worked. I learned strategies that didn't work.

• 42:18Jason Calacanis?

  So thirties or forties or thirties to fifties?

• 42:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  In my experience, for me, and I think it's for personal for everybody, I was best positioned to know what to do and at least iterate in my thirties. And I think in the absence of an idea that has some network effect or something that's sort of like supernatural, outside of your own control. I think the older you are, generally probably the better prepared you'll be.

• 42:45David Sacks?

  Yeah, I agree. I mean, I did PayPal when I was still in my twenties, but I wasn't the founder of the company. I was recruited to it at a very early stage. I didn't really start Yammer until, well, I guess I started the predecessor company Genie when I was thirty four. And then Yammer pivoted into Yammer when I was thirty five. I mean,

• 43:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Absolutely.

• 43:03David Sacks?

  That's, that's like, that's like a good level of preparation, you know? Unless you have a spectacular idea for a startup, you should probably get some experience first.

• 43:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Hundred percent. Friedberg, any thoughts there? On what's the kill zone, best time to launch companies in your mind or investing companies or where founders?

• 43:21David Friedberg?

  I mean, look, everyone's got their own path, you know, I mean, Zuck and Sergey and Larry and Bill Gates, they started right out of college without any experience, but I mean, I worked at, I had two jobs in tech before I started my first company in two thousand and six.

• 43:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah.

• 43:40David Friedberg?

  And so I had a lot to draw from and that really informed me, but I think everyone's different. I mean, some people.

• 43:45David Sacks?

  If you have the idea, if you have the idea, by all means do it in your twenties, you know?

• 43:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Absolutely.

• 43:50David Friedberg?

  But I mean, by far, the greatest kind of like measure of whether and when you're kind of prepared for this is your ability to continue learning. You know, continuous learning to me is, is one of the greatest predictors of entrepreneurial success. And all the guys that have lasted for decades from Bezos to Zuck to, you know, Larry and Sergey, you know, they were continuously evolving themselves because they were continuous learners. Bill Gates is, Bill Gates is the penultimate example of this, right? I mean, this guy's reinvented himself a thousand times.

• 44:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That, what you said is so important. I'm going to change my answer. I think I started social capital when I was actually the most able to get out of my own way and learn continuously.

• 44:28David Friedberg?

  Yeah, yeah.

• 44:30David Sacks?

  You know, what, what, what, one thing I'd add to this is it's so much easier to be a founder now today that, I mean, look, I, I remember I joined PayPal in nineteen ninety nine. That was my first startup. It was like really hard to get into entrepreneurship in the nineteen nineties, you know, the VCs had tremendous power and control. They would routinely replace founder CEOs.

• 44:52David Sacks?

  You know, everyone had to go to Sand Hill Road to get capital. It was hard to even know how to network your way to Sand Hill Road. It was just much, much harder to be a founder. It was much harder to raise money. It was hard to know what to do. And then I think actually, one of the things that really changed things was with blogging emerging in the mid 2000s. It led to a proliferation of information where now, you know, other founders started blogging. Investors started blogging and there became a wealth of information out there. So you could learn how to do it. And then of course you had incubators and so on like Y C. So there became more of like a playbook for just like how you actually get a company off the ground. When I graduated in law school, which was 1998, I, I knew I wanted to get into business and entrepreneurship. I really had no idea how to do it.

• 45:37David Sacks?

  And if it wasn't for a phone call from Peter Thiel, I'm not sure I would have gotten into it. You know, but now, now everybody knows what to do.

• 45:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Can I ask you a question then? So let me, let me give you a stat and I'll ask a question.

• 45:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What do you think that story would be David for somebody that wasn't a white man? So here's the, here's the data. The percentage of female V C decision makers has grown by more than 2X. What that means is about firms over a billion dollars. About a quarter of them have at least two plus female decision makers, but 61% of them have zero. And 80% of venture firms still have no black investors. How do you correlate or intersect that idea of ease of starting a company with the pattern recognition of those folks and the inability to sort of maybe map to people with black skin or women?

• 46:30David Sacks?

  I mean, I think that what Silicon Valley and what venture capital represents is opportunity. Right? And we have to extend that opportunity to as many people as possible. I mean, that's really the, the key here is we do need to make it as widely available as possible.

• 46:43David Friedberg?

  By the way, Chamath, I mean, one way to slice things is the percentage of diverse representation within the ranks of venture and private equity. But there is an equivalent scaling in the number of venture firms and the amount of venture capital since, you know, Saks and you and I and all of us kind of entered the technology industry kind of early 2000. And the number of firms that exist today that are kind of micro firms and scaled firms, I think, presents a much larger set of opportunity. You're right, there are still standards and there are still challenges in diversity and kind of having access, but there is so much more access than there has ever been. And that's really changed the landscape.

• 47:27David Friedberg?

  I mean, folks coming out of college can get a million dollars. That was kind of unheard of back in 1999.

• 47:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Or the reality is like, there's so many incubators. I mean, it's not as if Jason or Y C or any of these folks give millions of dollars, right, Jason? Like, these checks are still really small. So the point is, you can build something if you have the skills to build something.

• 47:46Jason Calacanis?

  The gap right now is that there's a lot of people who have ideas about what they want to do, but they have no skills. And I think what we found in a vibrant market like today, I mean, this is the most vibrant I've ever seen it. There's at least three or four times as many startups to choose from at the earliest stages. And what we're seeing is the number of VCs has not grown at that level. It has grown, the number of plays has grown, but not at that level. Therefore, the average quality of a deal has gone up. The average quality of a funded deal has gone up, but the average quality of a startup has gone down. Does that make sense?

• 48:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah.

• 48:23Jason Calacanis?

  So the ones that get funded are better than ever, but the one, the average is lower because there's so many doing it. And then just the best piece of advice I have is when we talked about continuous learning is if you are not building the product in some way or selling the product in some way, then what are you doing at this startup? Like, you either build it or you sell it. Like, there really isn't much more there, and a lot of people just have ideas and no ability to execute. You really have to be a developer, designer, UX person, marketer, or something in terms of getting this product out to the world.

• 48:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What do you guys think about this other trend, which I think is really important, which is the atomization of these firms? So, you know, we're moving from a world where people used to care about, name the brand, Sequoia, Y C, and then now they name the person, right? And they'll probably follow that person wherever they are.

• 49:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So what do we think about that? There's a really interesting tweet from Eric Torreberg. He said, founders don't want to raise money from institutions as much anymore. They want to raise money from individuals. And then if you marry that with what's happening with Angel List and all this other stuff, isn't that the trail of breadcrumbs for how like VC just kind of, in some ways, just kind of gets blown up the way that it's normally been done?

• 49:33David Friedberg?

  I remember as a founder, when I started my company in 2006, there was a lot of this conversation in, as Sacks pointed out, in the blogger community, blogging community and with like various websites that rated VCs. And there was generally a trend in the support network amongst CEOs and venture firms of talking a lot about make sure you pick your partner, don't pick the firm. And so this, I don't know if this is necessarily a new trend, Chamath. It's certainly something that I remember being top of mind 15 years ago when I started my first company. And so much of it was about make sure you have the right partner because that's who's going to be on your board. That's who you're going to spend time with. That's who's going to recruit executives with you. That's who's going to be helpful in finding your next round of funding for you.

• 50:16David Friedberg?

  And I feel like that's always been the case, but you're right. The brand value of a firm has certainly become less useful. And folks have struggled to kind of figure out, I think, a solution here. I mean, you see what Andreessen Horowitz did. They launched in 2009 and really focused on trying to be this kind of full service provider to startups. And I don't know how much that matters as much anymore as much as making sure you've got a great partner from the firm that's helping you with your business. I don't know.

• 50:41Jason Calacanis?

  It's actually, you're right, Friedberg, that's a continuing trend. What I'll say is the top firms are still as attractive or more attractive to founders. The loser in this, I believe, is the mid-tier firm or the lower tier firms that actually, none of the partners there are all that great. The performance is not that great. Their value add is not that great. But when you do get a Sequoia or an Andreessen, and I put Kraft in this as well, when you get one of those all-star VC firms to join your board specifically, that is the key. When they join the board and they own over 10%, you are anointed in a way that is transcendent. You will get pounded with inbound from the second tier and third tier firms who want to triple your valuation.

• 51:21Jason Calacanis?

  And give you 20 million bucks. It happens like clockwork. In fact, there are a couple of firms like, was it DAG, the one Sachs that would always follow on Sequoia deals? And so there were firms that were built around this concept.

• 51:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That was their LP pitch. DAG's LP pitch is we just, we will mark up every Sequoia deal.

• 51:37Jason Calacanis?

  Exactly. So it was one page. So it's like, if you can't get into Sequoia and you're willing to wait an extra round, invest in DAG. Well, and then now, I think the big trend here is those firms, Andreessen and Sequoia are now full stage where they have the late-stage growth. They have a scout program. They have a seed program. They have a series A program. So the full lifecycle.

• 52:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's not those guys also. It's just, it's all these other big crossover guys that have come down. Tiger, Co2, Durable.

• 52:06David Friedberg?

  I think that's the biggest trend of the last 15 years, Chamath. And I think it is what has enabled the proliferation of early-stage startups and enabled the valuation increment and the capital that flowed in the early stage is the, is the scale down from the big guys. I just want to kind of do a quick walk down memory lane because when you guys said you wanted to talk about this, I kind of remembered. I got my series B term sheet in 2008, I guess it was, and, or 2009, and I had three venture firms. Andreessen was one of them that gave me a term sheet. And the interesting thing about at that time with Andreessen was they gave me a term sheet. I was trying to raise $30 million and they said, we want to give you 40 million and they upped the valuation significantly. And, and there was a, I ultimately went with Coastal Ventures, but there was this trend

• 52:52David Friedberg?

  that Andreessen was kind of imparting, and I heard about it a lot from other entrepreneurs, was that they were going out and offering more money than the founder was asking for or seeking at higher valuations. And it was this trend towards saying like, go grab the market because the interesting thing about web-scale economics and, you know, web-scale businesses is you get so much leverage and you can get extraordinarily rapid growth. I mean, the rate of growth could be infinite and, and the leverage could be infinite. And so.

• 53:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  If you do it at the right round, I think that's.

• 53:22David Friedberg?

  But so much of this was, and then obviously, so that was a huge step up. And I remember Andreessen Horowitz beginning 2009 kind of started to build a reputation for doing this of kind of, you know, putting larger checks out and saying, go scale. And then the big crazy thing was the crossover guys started coming in and offering bigger checks in kind of this proven stage, growth stage kind of funding. And then obviously, the big step up was SoftBank and SoftBank with the $100 billion vision fund. And ultimately, when-

• 53:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What exactly did that disrupt, Friedberg?

• 53:50David Friedberg?

  Just hang on. So when all of these things happened, those large chunks of capital became available and the valuation step ups were so significant for these later stage startups that the money flowed down and more money was raised in earlier stage venture that enabled this proliferation of capital and this proliferation of new startups and enablement of startups at the earlier stage because of all the crossover money that started to come in and the blitzscaling of proposals and lots of money that was being thrown at the later stage. That to me felt like the reason all of the earlier stage stuff proliferated was because of the amount of capital coming in at the later stage.

• 54:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You're absolutely right. And now 10 years later, here's where we are in early-

• 54:25David Friedberg?

  Sacks are the next step, Chamath, because like-

• 54:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Totally.

• 54:28David Friedberg?

  I think what you did, you know, pre 2009, there was $10 billion a year in Sacks. Then when you started this in 2009, it stepped up to 2019, it stepped up to 13 billion. Last year, 80 billion was raised in Sacks. This quarter, 100 billion in Sacks. And Sacks are that you crossover investing. It's taking, you know, growth stage, private equity style risk in the public markets with this proliferation of capital. And we're seeing the benefit in the early stage and founders and entrepreneurs are seeing the benefit because there's so much access to capital on the backend. You can take more risk on the early end and you can make more bets. And I think, you know, I think it's the next step up and we just keep seeing these step ups.

• 55:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, I tend to think that the growth stage is the most troubled and challenged because at the early stage, you can get a guy like Saks or J. Kell on your board and you can grind. And I think that that's really important to get to product market fit. And at the public stage, you can get somebody like me and, you know, we can help transact and actually help optimize and run the business for scale and value. But in the middle, you have all of these weird dynamics that no longer maybe don't make as much sense. So just to give you a sense of it, the average deal size, okay, so the typical round is up 3X over the last 10 years. 3X.

• 55:36Jason Calacanis?

  That is absolutely anecdotally my experience.

• 55:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  In late stage, investors are doubling and tripling down on these mega deals so that that average round size is up 5X in the last decade. The typical pre-money on a growth stage deal in 2010 was 100 pre. This is for the top quartile. And it's now, or sorry, this is for the average. It's now.

• 56:00Jason Calacanis?

  This is for a growth stage?

• 56:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, growth stage, 100 pre is now 570 pre.

• 56:07Jason Calacanis?

  Wow.

• 56:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, it's getting crazy. It's really, it's really, really getting crazy. Tiger, it says here in the notes, Tiger Global has announced a deal, according to PitchBook, every 48 hours in 2021.

• 56:20Jason Calacanis?

  Well, here's an interesting thing about.

• 56:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That's fabulous.

• 56:23Jason Calacanis?

  That's fucking fantastic.

• 56:25David Sacks?

  What Tiger, I think, has figured out is they're, they started as public market investors and worked their way down the stack, right? So they're very familiar with the public market valuations. They're seeing that these SaaS companies are, you know, we, I remember 10 years ago when I was doing Yammer, we thought that the best outcome that you could have as a SaaS company was like a one to $2 billion exit. That's why when Microsoft offered us 1.2 billion in 2012, we took it, right? We're like, we could work five more years, maybe get to a $2 billion outcome. Well, now you're seeing what Slack just got acquired by Salesforce for close to 30 billion. It's pretty routine to see SaaS companies IPOing it now 10, 20, 30 billion and up. And so the exits are just so much bigger than anybody thought 10 years ago. And we were the optimists, by the way.

• 57:10David Sacks?

  There's a good tweet on this by, it was Jay Malik. Basically, he gave some stats. He said that if you're wondering why everyone wants to invest or be a VC today, the stats from PitchBook provide an answer. We had 43 billion in exits in 2010. We had 290 billion in exits in 2020. So we had about 7X roughly greater exits over the course of a decade. Now, the average deal size has grown 3X and there's a lot more money going into venture capital. But the reason why you're having all this money go in and all these new players is because the outcomes are so much bigger. And then he said, and I. I agree with this. Wouldn't be surprised if VC hits one trillion by 2030. So we're seeing just that. I mean, I remember 20 years ago when I first got into the business.

• 57:54David Sacks?

  You know, like Silicon Valley was a small little concentric circle around Stanford. And now it's spread to San Francisco and the entire Bay Area and to other cities. And it just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

• 58:07Jason Calacanis?

  Continence.

• 58:08David Friedberg?

  It's the digitization of every market, right? I mean, every traditional business, every traditional industry is being digitized in some way or another. And so it's no longer a tech enabler of other industries. It is the industry itself.

• 58:18Jason Calacanis?

  We know that the the brand really matters in the early stage because they anoint you and they bring so much value in terms of working with you to solve problems. We know with Sacks, whoever and IPOs, whoever is anointing that really matters, right? The sponsor. But in the middle, is all that cash now moved to a a game of who will pay the most for the least rights? In other words, Series B to, you know, when you get involved, Chamath, is that just?

• 58:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's such a good point. So what you're now teeing up, Jason, is this next big category, which is if it's undifferentiated capital, at some point, you're going to go to the logical conclusion, which is I don't want any dilution from this. I'm happy to take dilution in the Series A when I get, you know, Kraft or Sequoia or Benchmark. I'm happy to take dilution in the IPO because that's sort of the necessary process of, you know, diversifying the stock ownership, getting, you know, my users and my customers to be able to own the stock, et cetera, et cetera. But in the middle, now you have these companies like Pipe and Clearbank, where now all of a sudden you can grow, Jason, in your B, C, D rounds and you have zero dilution. So if you're a founder, you know, the best formula is going to be take Series A and seed capital

• 59:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  from an expert, single, you know, GP brand person who knows that business category so well. Right? If you're starting a SaaS company, you should probably get your seed from Saks. You know, raise your A from some expert or what? Let me say it differently. Seed from Jcal, A from Saks. And then go to Pipe and Clearbank and fund it all based on your recurring revenue growth and then go public via SPAC. So just to give you some data that I got from Pipe

• 59:57Jason Calacanis?

  Which means you would, just to give people an idea of what the cap table would look like there, you would dilute 10% in your seed round, 20% in your A. Now you still have 70% of the company and you just sell your yearly contracts ahead of time to Pipe and you're done.

• 1:00:10David Sacks?

  By the way, can I tell the story about Pipe? So Pipe,

• 1:00:13Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, it's kind of painful. Thanks for including Friedberg and I.

• 1:00:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  David, can I give the stat from Pipe and then you tell the story?

• 1:00:18David Sacks?

  Yeah, go ahead.

• 1:00:18Jason Calacanis?

  Sorry, you guys are all investors in this company? No, not me and you, David. They let us, our beaks are dry.

• 1:00:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Honestly, my beak is so wet.

• 1:00:25Jason Calacanis?

  Chafing beaks.

• 1:00:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  My beak is so wet. It is dripping.

• 1:00:27Jason Calacanis?

  Can we get a profile of that beak? I don't know why. It is, it is.

• 1:00:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh my lord.

• 1:00:31Jason Calacanis?

  It is.

• 1:00:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  People don't realize, it really is. Hold on. Do it one more time and let me compare it to this. Okay, it's a beautiful beak.

• 1:00:38David Sacks?

  No, I'll tell, let me tell, let me tell the Pipe beak wedding story because Harry, Harry, the founders told the story. He came in to meet with me in my office at Kraft. This is pre-COVID when people actually met in person. Our principal who's based in LA, Michael Tam, knew Harry from his previous startup and brought him in. I heard the pitch, which is basically to advance the full value of these contracts for SaaS companies and others. But it was so obvious, right? Because if you're a SaaS company, you spend roughly about a year of revenue on CAC, customer acquisition costs. But the customer only wants to pay you monthly. And so you have this huge negative cash flow cycle. So what if you could just

• 1:01:20David Sacks?

  take that contract and monetize it right away, get the full value of the contract advanced, then you can plow it into the next, the next customer acquisition cost. And you don't need to dilute yourself with venture capital. I said yes to Harry in like 15 minutes. I think it's the quickest I've ever given a term sheet. We invested 2 million in the company at a 12 cap and

• 1:01:43David Sacks?

  We did the deal that day.

• 1:01:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So, within nine months of launch, Pipe has connected 3,500 customers and over a billion plus of ARR to investors willing to purchase that revenue.

• 1:01:55Jason Calacanis?

  ClearBank, it's a marketplace, so they're not buying the debt. Anybody can go on the marketplace and say, I will buy Slack's revenue for 91 cents on the dollar, but something more speculative, they might pay 85 cents.

• 1:02:08David Sacks?

  This is a brilliant thing, is that they're not, they're not providing the lending off their own balance sheet.

• 1:02:12Jason Calacanis?

  As opposed to ClearBank, which does and charges 6%.

• 1:02:14David Friedberg?

  I'm done talking about your book, unless you guys share.

• 1:02:16Jason Calacanis?

  I'm gonna go to, I'm gonna go to, this is fucking bullshit, guys. Listen, I'm gonna go, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna. Fucking shares, let's go.

• 1:02:22David Friedberg?

  I'm gonna go ahead and do my email now.

• 1:02:24Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I'm good, let's do it, Friedberg. Hey, Friedberg, let's launch a bio company together and we'll block out these beaks.

• 1:02:29David Sacks?

  Go work on your life extension, we're working on our monetary extension right here.

• 1:02:34David Friedberg?

  Yeah, you need more money, you need more money.

• 1:02:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So ClearBank works with e-commerce companies, so what you do is you stitch in your connections to Shopify and Stripe, etc. They're able to monitor how well you do, and then they'll basically help finance you, again, non-dilutively. So ClearBank companies captured 55% more growth in 2020 than the prior year, so even in the midst of COVID, these companies did really well. They have revenue-based financing, they've invested $1.6 billion to date, and it turns out that, you know, their investor composition, eight times more women funded than traditional VC. By the way, I want to be clear, I was also a Series A investor in ClearBank. I mean, I am such a believer in this middle section of venture disappearing. Like, when you have these growth rounds, they're undifferentiated and they shouldn't

• 1:03:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  be dilutive in any way, shape, or form. The founders should figure out how to grow non-dilutively, the minute that they have some semblance of product-market fit. So then the dilutive, the dilutive points are the bookends.

• 1:03:33David Friedberg?

  Yeah, this was kind of the idea with like Indiegogo and some of the GoFundMe types, or not GoFundMe, the other things, where you could basically pre-sell consumer products too, right? Where you could get funded in a similar way, and you could see the same transitioning into kind of hardware businesses and other, and other consumer businesses, right?

• 1:03:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There's an even bigger, there's an even bigger trend that happened.

• 1:03:53Jason Calacanis?

  That I can talk to, which is equity crowdfunding CF, but I don't want to take you off your deck. So do you want to keep going on the deck?

• 1:03:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, the only, the only last thing I say is that the other big thing, as Friedberg says, is like, so let me just summarize. So it's kind of like, I think where we're all going to is we see the venture capitalist changing.

• 1:04:11Jason Calacanis?

  The financial stack, yeah.

• 1:04:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's going from organizations and these amorphous, amorphous financial orgs down to individuals. As that happens, I think what we're all kind of stating is it's incredibly valuable at the earliest stages to align yourself with a person that knows your business or your market. Right? And that's worth some amount of dilution. It's almost like getting a quasi co-founder. Right? So in the seed and the series A. But I think so. That's one really important point of what's happening in the market. The second thing that I think we're all saying is why are we diluting ourselves to grow in these middle rounds?

• 1:04:49Jason Calacanis?

  If you don't have to.

• 1:04:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's unnecessary and there should be really clever ways of non-dilutively financing yourself. And as, as the market becomes more and more sophisticated, there will be more companies beyond pipe and clear bank, to be clear. But the point is that every kind of company that has product market fit should be able to finance themselves non-dilutively in the B, all the way to the D and the E. And then the third thing, which is sort of what Friedberg says is this last bookend is then you have sort of the path to going public. And this is where the SPAC makes a ton of sense because you have a very certain cost of capital. You can now architect the cap table where the founder remains in control, where they and the employees are still more than 50%. And you pull in the time of the IPO. Why is that important? Typically today, these companies were taking 12 plus years to go public.

• 1:05:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Now with Sacks, they've come back in and they're closer to seven and eight years. The reason is back to that argument of like, if you want to be a winner take most outcome, the most important thing you need at scale is money. And the way that you get money is by opening the kimono on your finances and showing people who have lots of money, why they should give it to you and not something else. And so by going public in year six, seven and eight, that's where you pull in the billions of dollars so you can dominate.

• 1:06:02Jason Calacanis?

  What we're seeing is massive competition in the financing of massively competitive startup scenes. In other words, the

• 1:06:13Jason Calacanis?

  Entrepreneurial ecosystem has never been this vibrant. And I want to point out one thing that the SEC has done that is going to change things dramatically, I believe. When syndicates first came out, everybody said they were stupid. Nobody would ever do it. First one we ever did famously was com.com. We put in $328,000, became worth over 100 million. We're on track this year to do five deals a month, 60 deals, and we'll put 50 million to work this year at the syndicate.com. Think about that. My fund is 44 million. That's over three years. So now the syndicate's gotten so big that we- You should just run the syndicate. Well, exactly. So I'm going to tell my LPs the next time around. Let's have a discussion about this. But anyway, I want to point out what republic.co happened this week. Republic.co is equity crowdfunding.

• 1:06:58Jason Calacanis?

  This means civilians can invest. There used to be a cap on an equity crowdfunding of $1 million every year. And there's a lot of auditing and financial review you have to do, and you pay 6% to whoever raised the money. But it's, it's, there is no sponsor involved in this. So as an investor, you don't get me as a lead or Chamath as your sponsor or Saks on your cap table. But you can go onto Republic now, which has 100,000 investors on it. And Gumroad, which is doing $10 million a year, just raised 5 million in one day. Sahil, who is also running a rolling fund with Angel List. And he has 8,656 investors, which means people are putting in under $1,000 each.

• 1:07:43Jason Calacanis?

  Amazing. And it's capped at 5 million now. Then Arlen Hamilton, who runs Backstage Capital, did a very non-traditional, I'll say, raise. She's not raising for her fund. She sold 10% ownership, was in the process of selling 10% ownership in her venture capital fund startup studio. It had a $50 million valuation. She's selling 10% of it. If you buy shares in that, you don't get carry, but you get 10% of her carry and management fees forever. So it'd be like buying 10% of Kraft or whatever. The point is- You, the VCs get boxed out of this. And this, imagine if Airbnb or Uber decided, "Fuck it, we're gonna let our drivers buy shares through this."

• 1:08:27Jason Calacanis?

  And they said, "We're starting this crowdfunding for $5 million." And they did it every year, because you can do the $5 million every single year. So every year, you just allow folks who are in your stakeholder pool, you email them, and then they buy in. It's just absolutely extraordinary.

• 1:08:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Can you explain the Arlen thing? So she, sorry, she sold 10% of what?

• 1:08:46Jason Calacanis?

  It's a little complicated if you page down to the-

• 1:08:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Her future earnings?

• 1:08:49Jason Calacanis?

  Yes. So if you go to the flow of funds in that link I sent for public.co/backstage, she took all of her different funds and said, "You can buy 10%. For $5 million, you own 10% of essentially Sequoia Capital, or Y Combinator, whatever you want to refer to her, you know, company as, her holding company." Then every time she gets management fees, every time she has distributions from her carry, she's gonna give 10% of that to these folks forever. I don't know if that's a great idea, but it's a new idea. And I don't know if the investors in that are gonna get a massive return, or they're doing it because they want to support the cause.

• 1:09:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That's incredible. My gosh.

• 1:09:31Jason Calacanis?

  It's so weird.

• 1:09:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's so disruptive. It's so disruptive. Wow, it's incredible.

• 1:09:34David Sacks?

  Well, because it lets anybody really spin up a new venture firm, basically. Because there are some startup costs to spinning up a new venture firm.

• 1:09:40Jason Calacanis?

  Remember, she's been in it, she's been doing this for 10 years, and really has gotten, I will have to say, not a lot of traction, you know, from the classic LPs of the world. But now, just like we saw with GameStop, just like we see with Bitcoin, just like we see with NFTs and Robinhood day traders, there are new entrants here, and I think there's gonna be a world where I will be able to fire up a syndicate. And say, I would like to raise 10 million, but I'm limiting it to $1,000 per person and 10,000 people invest, or I'm limiting it to $500. So instead of, you know, going away for the weekend, or going to Vegas and blowing a thousand dollars, somebody could say, you know what? I'll go to Vegas and blow 500, but I can put 500 in the next startup I see.

• 1:10:25Jason Calacanis?

  And this is a democratization that could change everything and make America so much more competitive with what we're seeing in China with Jack Ma disappearing and

• 1:10:34Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, look, I've said this before, like, like, what's, what's crazy is like, if you talk about like systemic inequality and poverty, it's like, the government loves to give poor people casinos, sports betting and lottery tickets.

• 1:10:47Jason Calacanis?

  Yep.

• 1:10:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But the idea that they could invest a hundred dollars into a startup is illegal, even though startups generate 15% of your CAGR. So even if what you did was you generated, you invested in the market beta of startups, let's just say that degrades, it would still probably be close to 10%.

• 1:11:03Jason Calacanis?

  It would beat the markets, yeah.

• 1:11:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You'd be, you'd be at, the S and P returns, you know, over many, many years, 8%. So.

• 1:11:10Jason Calacanis?

  25% better.

• 1:11:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's, it's, it would be incredible.

• 1:11:13Jason Calacanis?

  With, by the way, 25% better, Chamath, with the outside chance of hitting

• 1:11:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That could be a homerun.

• 1:11:18Jason Calacanis?

  A grand slam. And, and that's why I love this. Um, all right. So do we want to wrap here? Or anybody have any closing thoughts?

• 1:11:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, I, I just think it's like, if you think of like that thing of like all the money flows changing, the other thing is like all the people are changing. And then what Sax said before, it's much, much easier because the technologies are changing. You put these three things in a soup and it just seems like our best days are ahead of us.

• 1:11:43Jason Calacanis?

  I think it's going to be amazing for entrepreneurship. All the answers are out there. If you want to start a company, all the skills are freely available to you. You can learn anything online. I think the message I really want people to understand is, you know, You may, you may believe that the world is filled with inequality and racism and bad actors, and you would be right. But what's also right is that every skill can be learned, capital is available now more than ever, and there is a clear path for you if you just stop watching television and learn to be a UX designer, a sales executive, a marketing or growth executive, or a developer, you can change the world and change your lot in life and be

• 1:12:25Jason Calacanis?

  really fucking rich. Don't buy into this victim mentality. It's complete utter nonsense that crazy lefties are saying, "Everybody's stupid and nobody can learn," and I got a bag of red pills here and I have been pounding them. The world is a giant opportunity for all of you. Go get it.

• 1:12:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think it's time to announce, Friedberg and I would like to announce that we've started a combination incubator and early-stage venture firm. We call it PanchDraft, and it's play on the words launch and craft. I think the Panch is more just an homage to you.

• 1:13:02Jason Calacanis?

  Everybody wants to know when we're going to launch our first syndicate. We gotta get a deal here. Somebody's gotta find a deal with a guy.

• 1:13:07David Friedberg?

  I just, I never get the phone calls. You guys are doing deals left and right.

• 1:13:10Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Jason, Jason, you need to assign somebody to figure this the fuck out, because I think there's people, there are, there are, there are folks listening to this podcast who have great businesses. What we should commit to them is, we will help you be the least diluted, and we will try to share the beak wetting amongst all the other folks listening to this. So if you have a great company and you're thinking of raising capital, come to the one of the four of us and we will hand-roll a solution for you.

• 1:13:39Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 1:13:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Okay, let's just do it. It's like, it doesn't have to be systematic.

• 1:13:42Jason Calacanis?

  We need a domain, so go to wet your beak.

• 1:13:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Okay, hand-roll, hand-roll, we will hand-roll a solution that will allow the four of us plus everybody else in the syndicate to invest, and then we will help you non-dilutively grow your business for as long as possible and then take it public.

• 1:13:57Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, I am setting up wetyourbeak.com, which is currently redirecting to the All In Podcast. It's going to be a type form, and the type form is going to let you...

• 1:14:07David Friedberg?

  I will dilute your business, but the rest of you guys can do it on their own.

• 1:14:11Jason Calacanis?

  Anyway, go to wet your beak.com and fill out the form. Tell us a little bit about your business and what and it will go to all four besties in the database. We'll share it. What your beak is the new database. I bought the domain wet your beak.com from one of the

• 1:14:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yes, you just said it now. This is the 10th time you've said it. I get it. We collectively, we own it. I this podcast is rapidly turning into a commercial for

• 1:14:34David Sacks?

  No, this is this is Jake house attempt to divert and steal my deal flow.

• 1:14:38Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, what are you talking about? We're partners. You're fucking

• 1:14:42David Sacks?

  We're partners though?

• 1:14:43Jason Calacanis?

  We are. Who did I just bring six, seven companies to the other day?

• 1:14:48David Sacks?

  Craft Ventures.com. Do not. That's the that's the website. That's the website.

• 1:14:53Jason Calacanis?

  All right. Yeah. Okay.

• 1:14:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Don't email me.

• 1:14:57Jason Calacanis?

  Give me a break, man. Come on, man. We're how many deals are we in? Back at you. All right, listen, we love all of the audience and we love our besties. Love you, bestie Chamath. Love you, guys. Love you.

• 1:15:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I gotcha.

• 1:15:10Jason Calacanis?

  Love you, Saxy poo. When are we playing cards? Come on, let's play cards. Let's play Monday. Let's Monday. Done. Done.

• 1:15:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm sending the invitation.

• 1:15:18Jason Calacanis?

  All right, everybody. It's another all in podcast. If you want to rate and subscribe or do anything like that, sure, why not? And shout out Young Spielberg. Thank you for making all of our great tracks. Do a search for Young, Y U N G Spielberg in your in Spotify. Buy his songs, like his songs, and he's the greatest.

• 1:15:38Jason Calacanis?

  If you want series A funding or seed funding, David Sacks, if you want a SPAC Chamath, and if you want to fold some proteins and

• 1:15:47David Sacks?

  Cubits.

• 1:15:48Jason Calacanis?

  You want to do some Cubits, email Friedberg. Somebody told me that the quality of the show, he calls it the Friedberg index. If Friedberg talks a lot, it's a great episode. When Friedberg demurs and doesn't talk a lot, it's a shit episode.

• 1:16:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Say the word again.

• 1:16:06Jason Calacanis?

  Say the Demur. It's French for sleep.

• 1:16:12Jason Calacanis?

  It's means you went took a nap. It's French for sleep.

• 1:16:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You're just such a heathen.

• 1:16:16Jason Calacanis?

  Day more. More as in more day, day as in sleep, day more.

• 1:16:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You could say demure.

• 1:16:22Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, he demured. Okay, everybody. We'll see you next time on the all in podcast.

• 1:16:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Love you, guys.

• 1:16:37David Sacks?

  And instead, we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, S.A. I'm the queen of Kinoah.

• 1:16:50David Sacks?

  Besties are gone.

• 1:16:53David Friedberg?

  That is my dog taking a piss in your driveway.

• 1:17:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We should all just get a room and just have one big U-Journey because they're all just... It's like this sexual tension that we just need to release somehow.

• 1:17:09David Sacks?

  What? You're the bee! What? You're the bee! What? You're a bee? Bee! What? We need to get merch! Besties are back!