Epstein Files Flop, State of the Market, Autonomous Robots, Trump's Gold Card, Friedberg on Jeopardy

(0:00) Bestie intros (1:41) Epstein files first release underwhelms (4:40) Friedberg recaps his experience on Celebrity Jeopardy! (14:22) State of autonomous robots (21:06) Comparing annual reports from Stripe and Adyen; Stripe's network effects, stablecoin infra, and the pace of AI company building (29:12) State of the market: stocks, tariffs, spending bill, the "great reset" (49:07) Trump's Gold Card (56:19) Sophisticated investor test, changing accreditation laws (1:06:57) USPS, Bezos refocuses the WaPo's opinion page Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theallinpod Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1895195194947183047 https://x.com/adcock_brett/status/1895175400160133543 https://x.com/markjeffrey/status/1892735775550406828 https://x.com/pitdesi/status/1895117427480109238 https://x.com/jmover/status/1895129169882661100 https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/usd-coin https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/12/cpi-january-2025.html https://x.com/StealthQE4/status/1894227465616171361 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-ttACozP8s https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/US10Y https://x.com/chamath/status/1888371069322686895 https://polymarket.com/event/how-many-gold-cards-will-trump-sell-in-2025/will-trump-sell-2pt5k-5k-gold-cards-in-2025?tid=1740688723350 https://x.com/Jason/status/1706067572226244789 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/20/trump-usps-takeover-dejoy/ https://x.com/Jason/status/1894412028279693546 https://x.com/JeffBezos/status/1894757287052362088

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

• 0:00Jason Calacanis?

  All right, everybody. Welcome back to the All In Podcast. Our incredible comedian celebrity guest got sick at the last minute today and didn't make it. We won't say who it is, but my lord, when he comes on this show, you are gonna laugh your ass off because he's awesome.

• 0:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I like the comedians. I think that their takes on society and culture are pretty interesting, I think.

• 0:19Jason Calacanis?

  Do you think it will work in our format? What's your prediction here? We've never done it.

• 0:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think the quality of the show is best when it's less just people doing takes and it's more the back and forth banter. So, yeah.

• 0:29Jason Calacanis?

  That's what I'm always trying to do is get the ball to go around the horn and get some real dialogue going here. But, you know, sometimes people feel passionate. With me again this week on the All In Podcast, David Friedberg and Chamath Palihopatia. My name is Jason Calacanis. You can follow me on X.com/Jason. He's at Chamath and he's at Freiberg.

• 0:50David Friedberg?

  Why can't I make fun of you in the replies on Twitter anymore?

• 0:54Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, because it's a very good question.

• 0:56David Friedberg?

  Blocked my ability to reply to you?

• 0:57Jason Calacanis?

  No, what I did was my replies were so many MAGA lunatics and crypto scams that I had no choice but to like, I had to do something because I would have like 500 replies to every single one. And I put it on subscription and I said, if you want to reply, it's $3 a month now. 1,500 lunatics signed up. I did, so I can troll it. Just so you control me. And I thank you for the $3 every month. It's all going to charity.

• 1:29Speaker 03

  Rain Man David Sacks.

• 1:33Speaker 03

  And it said, we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, Ben.

• 1:41Jason Calacanis?

  Do you want an intro to the show or get some warm up banter by Jeopardy? Or do you want to go right into Epstein?

• 1:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The letter from Pam to Cash is crazy. Dear Director Patel, before you came into office, I requested the full and complete files related to Jeffrey Epstein. In response to this request, I received approximately 200 pages of documents. Late yesterday, I learned from a source that the FBI field office in New York was in possession of thousands of pages of documents related to the investigation and indictment of Epstein. Despite my repeated requests, the FBI never disclosed the existence of these files. When you and I spoke yesterday, you were just as surprised as I was to learn this new information.

• 2:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  By 8 a.m. tomorrow, February 28th, the FBI will deliver the full and complete Epstein files to my office, regardless of how such information was obtained. There will be no withholding or limitations to my or your access. My question to you guys is, do you think that this is much ado about nothing? And then that the FBI needs to have the discretion to be able to say no? Or do you think this is one of these things where you're not allowed to

• 3:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  do what they're doing?

• 3:01Jason Calacanis?

  It's above my pay grade. I don't know the law of like FBI investigations. And then what if they investigated a bunch of people? They were not guilty and then they were in the files. Maybe they need to look at them before they do a document dump. Maybe there's informants in there. I'm trying to think of what happened with like the whistleblower papers from.

• 3:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  This says something different. This doesn't say, let's negotiate what we should release together so that we protect people. This says, we're just gonna lie to you.

• 3:31Jason Calacanis?

  Tell me about these things.

• 3:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We're gonna lie to you and tell you that, you know, here's, here's.

• 3:34Jason Calacanis?

  That's her side to the story. Maybe they have another side. Maybe the FBI has a different side. We'll have to hear from them, right?

• 3:39David Friedberg?

  Is this just like people are intrigued by the gossip angle of it? Or is it because they want to prosecute people for hurting people? Or is it because they want to cancel people? And this is a nice opportunity to cancel? Like what's, what's, what's the?

• 3:52Jason Calacanis?

  I think that's an interesting question because this thing's been going on for 20 years. I think this actually has more to do with conspiracy theories and now the deep state. Like, is there a deep state cover up? Is the question.

• 4:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think the question is, if the chain of command requests something, are you allowed to withhold it? Because you decide in your own judgment that

• 4:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  the person above you doesn't deserve to know it. I think that's an important question.

• 4:18Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, the thing about the FBI is the FBI can withhold information from the president, from other folks. If there's an ongoing investigation, sources are like secret and they would be in jeopardy. And national security concerns, I'm reading here, so.

• 4:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm very excited to see these next two days unfold.

• 4:36Jason Calacanis?

  Listen, it's a breaking news story. We'll have more to say about it next week when we get the facts. All right. It has been an amazing 24 hours for my guy, David Friedberg. I am so proud of you. If people don't know, David Friedberg was on, I'm sorry, Celebrity Jeopardy this week and.

• 4:55Jason Calacanis?

  He had a great performance.

• 5:00David Friedberg?

  Can't say that.

• 5:01Jason Calacanis?

  I can't say it. You're right. Bleep it out. Bleep it out. So you were on Celebrity quote unquote Jeopardy.

• 5:07David Friedberg?

  Shows you how much of a bar there is.

• 5:08Jason Calacanis?

  The bar was pretty low. They're now inviting podcasters apparently, but Jeopardy is watched by like 10 million people every episode, right?

• 5:15David Friedberg?

  Yeah, they have like a huge audience on regular Jeopardy. I think it's like nine million a night or something, or seven, seven to nine million a night. Yeah. But I think Celebrity Jeopardy, because it's like later, it's got a smaller audience, but it's still like a couple million people watch this thing, which is crazy.

• 5:30Jason Calacanis?

  So you were on, and for the last four or five months, we've all had to like bite our tongues and you've been in a full scale. I don't want to say panic, but you've been hand wringing about your performance. And spoiler alert, Friedberg won. Not only did he win, he f***ing crushed it. I was like watching this. This was like better than watching the World Series of Poker or a Knicks Warriors game for me. Here is my favorite moment, the all in call. As a tribute, he gets the deli double and.

• 6:05David Friedberg?

  I'm gonna go all in, Ken.

• 6:07Speaker 04

  Oh, okay.

• 6:08Jason Calacanis?

  How dare you?

• 6:09Speaker 04

  12,800 for Dave, but you have to be correct in African geography. Known for its snows, this Tanzanian peak is both Africa's highest and the world's tallest freestanding mountain.

• 6:20David Friedberg?

  What is Mount Kilimanjaro?

• 6:22Speaker 04

  That is correct.

• 6:25Jason Calacanis?

  What did you think of that moment, Schmuck? He goes all in and these people, they think that they're gonna get Friedberg by giving him a question about Africa, not knowing that he's African American.

• 6:39David Friedberg?

  Honestly, like a six year old. You guys want to hear something crazy?

• 6:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  A six year old should know that category, no?

• 6:44David Friedberg?

  That category, African geography. I was at dinner the night before with our friend Xander and his wife. And we started talking about their son was taking a quiz on African geography and they started giving me all the questions and we were actually quizzing at dinner the night before on African geography. It was like a Slumdog Millionaire moment. And I was like, in my head, I'm like, there's no way that's real, that that actually happened. We literally were just talking about African geography at dinner the night before. And I'm like, the judges had to have been listening or something, but.

• 7:15Jason Calacanis?

  But you were nervous. You talked about being nervous and your techniques, our friend Jason Kuhn. But the, we actually are lucky enough to play with one serious professional poker player in our game. Jason Kuhn comes to the game and he coached you a bit. What did he, what did he, what was his advice to you?

• 7:32David Friedberg?

  Well, I was a little wound up because I've watched Jeopardy my whole, like since I was a kid, right? I mean, I don't watch it regularly, but a couple of months ago, I was kind of watching the show. I kind of reached out and was like, hey, you know, do you guys know anyone on the show? And that's how I got like hooked up. So, and I'm like, wait, I'm really going on? That's awesome. Okay. And they're like, you're going on Celebrity Jeopardy. So I watched the Celebrity Jeopardy episodes from last season and I figured I could get like 60% of the answers. But you get there and you don't realize how hard it is to buzz in in time. Cause if you buzz before the light turns on-

• 8:10Jason Calacanis?

  I've heard this over and over. How does it work? Because you bought, I understand, an actual buzzer to practice with. Am I, am I correct? You did this?

• 8:20David Friedberg?

  Well, yeah, I bought this cheap buzzer on Amazon, the Pressa, but it didn't do anything. So I'm watching the TV at home, watching old Celebrity Jeopardy episodes from last year. And I'm like, oh, buzz in, buzz in. But the problem is when you're there, you're not allowed to buzz till the light comes on. And if you buzz too early, you get locked out for a quarter second. And that quarter second makes a huge difference. So I was actually behind the people I was against. Most of the show, I felt, when I was buzzing in, I'm like, I know the answer. And I kept missing, I kept missing. So I still did okay, obviously, but-

• 8:51Jason Calacanis?

  Wait a second, let me ask you a question about that buzzing thing. A light goes on, when does the light go on? When the question is finished?

• 8:57David Friedberg?

  When the guy, so they show, they show the question on a huge screen. So the whole screen gives you the question right away when-

• 9:03Jason Calacanis?

  So you can read ahead?

• 9:04David Friedberg?

  So you can read ahead, just read the whole thing. Boom. Then you have to wait for Ken Jennings to finish. As soon as he finishes enunciating the last syllable of the last word, the light turns on. But here's what I found out. There is a delay of about 150 to 200 milliseconds difference between your eyes and your ears. You actually hear stuff before you see stuff. And which is really interesting, like for your brain to register it and people have different, different delays. But for me, I'm like waiting for the light and then I buzz in and it's too late because the people next to me have buzzed in.

• 9:36Jason Calacanis?

  So speed of sound versus.

• 9:37David Friedberg?

  But anyway, I was a little, I was a little wound up going into this. I called Jason Coon because I realized there's no upside. By the time I show up, I'm like, I'm going to look like an absolute idiot for saying some stupid stuff, getting answers wrong, which of course everyone texts me last night being like, how'd you miss Hoosiers? How'd you miss this?

• 9:52Jason Calacanis?

  All right, here we go. Since you're bringing up the big miss.

• 9:55Speaker 04

  Answer there, Daily Double.

• 9:57Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, man, you get the Daily Double. 16,000. Crushing, crushing their souls.

• 10:04David Friedberg?

  Not my best category. I'll go 4,000.

• 10:06Jason Calacanis?

  You look great, too.

• 10:07Speaker 04

  20,000 if you're right. Climactic moments in sports movies. Jimmy Chitwood buries a jumper from the top of the key to win the Hickory Huskers the Indiana State Championship.

• 10:19David Friedberg?

  What is hoops?

• 10:20Speaker 04

  Sorry, no.

• 10:21David Friedberg?

  What am I doing?

• 10:22Speaker 04

  You were right.

• 10:23David Friedberg?

  I'm so embarrassed just watching it. I can't watch it.

• 10:25Jason Calacanis?

  Hoop dream? Come on.

• 10:26David Friedberg?

  Dude, I.

• 10:28Jason Calacanis?

  Hoosiers.

• 10:29David Friedberg?

  I know, I know.

• 10:30Jason Calacanis?

  Hoosiers. I mean, come on. Gene Mackman, he died today.

• 10:33David Friedberg?

  And no one sends me a text being like, oh, I can't believe you got that answer. Great job. Everyone just sends the text. How did you not get Hoosiers? How did you not get cream? It's always like, oh, I knew the answer. You're needed. And then I realize, I realize.

• 10:46Jason Calacanis?

  The answer to different ones, yeah.

• 10:47David Friedberg?

  And I realize as I'm walking to Jeopardy, I'm like, you know what? There's no upside. Because what'll happen is everyone will just call you an idiot for the things you missed, which is.

• 10:53Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I mean, and let's face it, you're the Sultan of Science. You went to an Ivy League school and you worked at Google. So there's an expectation. You should run these people over. You did run them over for a bet.

• 11:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You know who you're facing in the semifinal?

• 11:07David Friedberg?

  We don't know until all the quarterfinals are over. And that'll be in the next couple of weeks here.

• 11:12Jason Calacanis?

  When you see a category come up, like the Hoosiers one, right? I think that one was about sports movies, right?

• 11:17David Friedberg?

  Yeah, that was, uh, sports movies, like big.

• 11:19Jason Calacanis?

  So don't you, when you see sports movies in your head, catalog probable answers like Rudy? And, you know, Field of Dreams and just, yeah, so you had all those ready to go.

• 11:31David Friedberg?

  But dude, you don't understand, like, look, I'm not a guy who gets very nervous. I don't get like stage fright or like wound up, but for Jeopardy, it's so weird. You're up there and you can't focus or concentrate like you normally can. My brain had these like weird brain farts where I'm like, I know the answer. Why isn't it coming out? Or I buzz in and I said like Beethoven instead of Debussy. And I'm like, why did that come out?

• 11:53Jason Calacanis?

  God, for Claire DeLune, you don't have to.

• 11:55David Friedberg?

  I mean, dude, don't get me started. So there's weird, there's weird stuff that happens up there. That's really hard to explain. And then you're angry about the buzzing and you can't buzz in in time. And you're on the set of Jeopardy and it's like, oh my God, I'm actually on the set of Jeopardy. It's also real. And you're like watching the scores. It's very, it's very overwhelming.

• 12:12Jason Calacanis?

  There are an audience?

• 12:13David Friedberg?

  Yes.

• 12:14Jason Calacanis?

  There is an audience.

• 12:15David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 12:16Jason Calacanis?

  How many people? Like a hundred people there?

• 12:18David Friedberg?

  About a hundred people. Yeah.

• 12:19Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, well, that's nice.

• 12:20David Friedberg?

  Yeah. Before you go on the, the show, they have you do a practice round in front of the audience, just so you get, everyone gets used to it. And I deliberately answered wrong. And I was like acting like an idiot and acting like I couldn't buzz and acting like I didn't know the answer.

• 12:34Jason Calacanis?

  You leveled them?

• 12:34David Friedberg?

  I tried to be like, a little, I tried to be a little.

• 12:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That's so diabolical.

• 12:38David Friedberg?

  Yeah, I don't really know what I'm doing here.

• 12:40Jason Calacanis?

  Ooh, sharp elbows.

• 12:42David Friedberg?

  Yeah. And then I came out swinging and I felt like I had to kind of get aggressive out the gate.

• 12:46Jason Calacanis?

  And you, yeah, I've done that before in a bar fight once. I was like, guys, guys, we don't need to get in a fight. And then bang, it's clocked again. Anyway, we're so proud of you. You won. You trounced them. I have to say, the woman.

• 12:57David Friedberg?

  Money for the Humane Society of the United States. All the money went to charity, Humane Society of the US.

• 13:01Jason Calacanis?

  How much did you make for them in the end?

• 13:03David Friedberg?

  If you win the whole tournament, it's a million dollars. And then I think.

• 13:06Jason Calacanis?

  A lot of dog food.

• 13:07David Friedberg?

  As the winner, your charity gets more and the losers, their charity gets less, but it's a fixed amount. It's like 30,000 or 50,000 or something like that.

• 13:14Jason Calacanis?

  Nice. I think they should put the three of us on together. Normal episode. That would be crazy.

• 13:20David Friedberg?

  Oh my God.

• 13:20Jason Calacanis?

  If the three of us were on it.

• 13:22David Friedberg?

  I would wreck your ass.

• 13:23Jason Calacanis?

  No, you would not. I will play you heads up Jeopardy anytime for money.

• 13:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Let's play poker. Yeah, I say we play poker. We'll play for all of the all in profits.

• 13:34Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'll give you two retards, two extra chip stack, and let's see what happens.

• 13:38David Friedberg?

  Oh, my God, Ed.

• 13:39Jason Calacanis?

  That sounds very compelling.

• 13:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Would you do it?

• 13:41Jason Calacanis?

  Actually.

• 13:41David Friedberg?

  Jake, would you do that?

• 13:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Would you do it?

• 13:44David Friedberg?

  All the profits.

• 13:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  All the profits.

• 13:46Jason Calacanis?

  I do it for all the profits, but I would carve out 25% of the profits for a four-way tournament that was televised live. If we could get 2 million in sponsors, then we'd be up no matter what.

• 13:55David Friedberg?

  Grift. Endless.

• 13:57Jason Calacanis?

  Not grifting, I'm thinking like a business.

• 13:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The whole point is pain.

• 14:00Jason Calacanis?

  I'm a businessman.

• 14:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I want to do this so that I inflict pain on one of you, or both.

• 14:03David Friedberg?

  What gives Chamath happiness is hurting others. That's.

• 14:06Jason Calacanis?

  Exactly.

• 14:07David Friedberg?

  That's his love language. It's hurting the people he loves.

• 14:12David Friedberg?

  His love language is hurting the people who love him.

• 14:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I like putting you two to the test, and I like to see you two break.

• 14:18David Friedberg?

  Okay. This is what makes him feel good.

• 14:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Anyways, did you guys see Brett Adcock's tweet?

• 14:22Jason Calacanis?

  No, what did he say?

• 14:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Friend of the pod Brett Adcock, who's the CEO and founder of Figure. He just announced today that he's moved his timelines up by two years. He's going to be.

• 14:32Jason Calacanis?

  Two years.

• 14:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Beta testing robots in the home by, by the middle to end of this year.

• 14:38Jason Calacanis?

  That's crazy.

• 14:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Crazy. Crazy.

• 14:41David Friedberg?

  Are you an investor in his company?

• 14:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I don't talk about my investments. But in this case.

• 14:46Jason Calacanis?

  No disclosures here.

• 14:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But in this case, no, I'm not an investor.

• 14:51Jason Calacanis?

  So we're not talking a book here. I do think Optimus and this figure and the other, this is about a dozen of these doing it credibly. If they can make these for what, Chamath, 20 grand? When do you think it becomes something a middle-class household, you know, dual-income household would buy one of these? Five years from now, 10 years from now? How, how.

• 15:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Last week.

• 15:12Jason Calacanis?

  Could they be?

• 15:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, I think the issue is bounded by two things. Well, one is that. I'm not sure that the generalized AI is good enough yet. And what he did was he had a deal with OpenAI, which he pretty publicly canceled a few weeks ago. And he announced his own model. And I don't know the details of it to know whether he rolled it himself, or this is just like taking some open source-based model and iterating from it.

• 15:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But I think the model is not perfect yet to be general purpose. That's one. And then the second is a practical issue with the robots, which is that the actuators themselves are good, but they're not great. And you can see it in the demo where it's an incredible demo, because it shows the value and the power of the model where there's sort of this master-slave orientation that has to happen where one model is actually doing most of the computation and the second model and the second robot is infesting off of it. And the demo that they do, Nick, you can probably find the video, is of them sorting a bag of groceries for the first time, totally unsupervised, which it's an incredibly cool demo. It's a cool demo. The thing that you notice, though, is that the actuators are good, they're not great.

• 16:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so the physical dexterity is still relatively limited. And I think that that doesn't allow these robots to be super functional in the next couple of years. But when they get that figured out, then I think it could be really useful, because if you have a robot like this that could sort the groceries, make food, do the laundry, mow the lawn, so to speak, it just requires a level of dexterity that's not yet totally possible. But see, in this example, what you're seeing are the two robots basically figuring out how to communicate semantically between the robots. And that's incredibly powerful. And it's yet another sort of breakthrough that we need. So I don't know, we're probably like a couple of years away. But see, look at the dexterity there. He's taking the Pepperidge Farms and feels like he's crushing the Pepperidge Farms, or she, or whatever you call this robot.

• 17:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  They, them. Please don't misgender the robot. But it's really incredible. They're figuring, the coolest part of this demo, by the way, which I loved, was they take an apple, and then the second robot figures out that it should go in the fruit bowl, pushes the fruit bowl to the first robot, and then the first robot. That's cool. There it is. But that level of semantic awareness and understanding between two models working dependently. Is very cool. Look at that. That's very cool.

• 17:43Jason Calacanis?

  They're collaborating with each other. It makes total sense. I can tell you here on the ranch, I would love to have an all-purpose robot going out there and using the weed whacker and trimming the bushes and the hedges and getting me wood and collecting chicken eggs. Like, there's a million things they could do on a ranch to be immediately applicable for ranch work. And if they're 24 hours a day, it doesn't matter if they go slow. But I think this is the category people are sleeping on. And I don't know who on

• 18:11Jason Calacanis?

  our prediction show said this will be the year of robots, but it's been this is the year of robots for 30 years in the industry. And it does feel like this is it. Free Bird, you're sticking with your prediction, I assume? Yeah.

• 18:21David Friedberg?

  I am, yeah. I think it's also, it's not just this kind of dexterous automation, but I do think drones, autonomous vehicles, I put them all in the same category where there's some, it's some combination of mechanical response to a machine vision system that I think has become like accelerated this year.

• 18:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You need a lot of rare earths to make robots.

• 18:50Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, where can we ever get those from? Hmm. Does anybody owe us a little money? Is anybody behind on their payments? Maybe the vid could be a little, you know, taste. I don't know if you guys have seen this, but there was a company in the 90s that was all the rage called Segway. They were going to absolutely change cities and everything, and they never did. But it was basically like a scooter you could walk on. It had a balancing kind of system to it. But they made robots. And here they're making these lawn mowers now. And these lawn mowers are really like cheap. They're a thousand bucks, and they work. Here in Austin, I have seen two or three of these on people's lawns. This could be like, you know, what was the one that you did in your house? Roomba? So your point, Free Bird, there'll be purpose-driven ones to deliver you a burrito,

• 19:35Jason Calacanis?

  do your lawn, etc. And A Roomba is like three or 400 bucks, I think. And this thing's a thousand bucks. Man, this is gonna get crazy.

• 19:43David Friedberg?

  Yeah, I do think it's a lot harder to create one of these general purpose systems and automation than create like vertically or kind of utility specific automation system. So a device that just does one thing, delivers something to you in the air or drives your food to you or loads and unloads your dishes. I, you know, I'm not sure if that's the whole, the whole idea of the humanoid is, it's ambitious.

• 20:08Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 20:08David Friedberg?

  It is a general purpose device and it makes a technically very hard roadmap, I gotta imagine.

• 20:15Jason Calacanis?

  Some of the bulldozers out there are also now becoming remote controlled. So you can get like a bulldozer that you have to put in a dangerous situation and they're remote control and they're going to have AI. So I got pitched on a startup one time that was going to go up into Tahoe Hills and allow humans with remote controls to drive them off little bulldozers and make fire paths. So imagine some fire breaks out, you send in or helicopter in the bulldozer, no human in it, just got a 5G connection or a Starlink connection and zip, zip, zip. You're doing fire roads in the middle of this smoke dense area. It's gonna be really interesting when these things get dialed in and they're getting dialed in every day.

• 20:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm gonna ask Brett to be a beta, alpha tester of one of these robots in my house and then we'll go and do it. We'll do a segment.

• 21:00Jason Calacanis?

  That'd be great. Excuse me, robot. Can I get some more Morels? To tweet, Morels.

• 21:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Let's talk about Stripe. I thought the, the report was really good.

• 21:10Jason Calacanis?

  We had the Colson Brothers on last week. They crushed it. Great job to them. And then here's a quick summary. So in terms of processing volume, Adyen 1.34 trillion, Stripe at 1.4 trillion. I mean, that's incredible that they're both in the, almost the same exact space. One's growing 33%, Stripe's growing 38%. Valuation, Adyen 56, they're public, Stripe, private 91.5 billion. I guess that's the private market premium. Employee account, very interesting here since we've been talking about Jamie Dimon's rant last week. Adyen 4.3 thousand, Stripe over 8,000 and both are profitable. Adyen's got a billy in EBITDA, which is extraordinary, but Stripe has a higher margin. What's your take on a tale of two cities here?

• 21:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I thought there was three takeaways. The first takeaway for me was the value of Stripe's ecosystem is, is probably underappreciated. I think Patrick mentioned it.

• 22:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But he just kind of said it as a passing fact and none of us picked up on it. But in the report, they talk about all the additional products that they're able to build around core payments. And one of them is the billing product. It's half a billion dollars a year of ARR. That's just incredible. And I think if they figure out network effects inside of the Stripe ecosystem, that's interesting. So that's first, which is the hub and spoke of payments being at the center, but all of these other incremental services. I think that that's really interesting and underappreciated for Stripe. That probably speaks to why there's such a difference in valuation, because Adyen has less of that ecosystem, or at least it's not nearly as well described maybe as Stripe's. That's number one. Second is, I go back to what I've been saying for

• 22:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  a while now, but the rise of these stable coins is really interesting.

• 22:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The stablecoin infrastructure globally, the push for a bunch of these national governments to embrace them inside of India, inside of Brazil, slowly it's happening inside of the United States. So I think that that was really interesting. And then the third takeaway, Nick, I sent you this tweet was just that the nature of the AI ecosystem relative to the rest of SaaS. And what this is, was from Stripe's report, which showed the time to get to 5 million of annualized revenue. And the average SaaS company took 37 months. And by 2024, the top 100 AI

• 23:36Chamath Palihapitiya?

  companies got there in 24 months.

• 23:40Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, that's efficiency in the market, right? I mean, that's why we're all looking at AI, saying, we could see a lot of our economic issues come from growth, and the growth is very clear. You can do more with less, and you can generate more revenue with AI. So it's pretty clear, the trend, yeah, Chuma?

• 23:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think it's really clear. I mean, I can give you a little factoid from 8090. You know, we got to 5 million of revenue in three months. Really crazy.

• 24:08Jason Calacanis?

  Couple of wells in there, yeah. Couple of big ones.

• 24:10Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah. And so it's just a very different selling motion than than I've historically seen, where

• 24:19Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The ROI is just so obvious in terms of the efficiency that it creates and the cost savings you can generate relative to traditional enterprise software. It's a more straightforward sale. The ROI is clear. The revenue is bigger. It happens faster.

• 24:36Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 24:36Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So.

• 24:37Jason Calacanis?

  There's also, I don't know if you're seeing it, but there's a sense of urgency in the market right now. People feel like they have to adopt this new technology fast because there's competition, because the gains are so clear, because in a slowing economy, this is maybe a way to accelerate revenue.

• 24:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'll be honest with you, at least with the, our 80, 90 customers, I haven't seen that yet. You know, we're in, I don't know, eight or nine segments of the economy, big segments of the economy.

• 25:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's more still about the frustration that they have with what I would call the software industrial complex. There's a big, and you, you can see it with what's happening to Salesforce and other big companies is that these renewal cycles are getting harder and harder to justify. And so people are willing to take some bets and see if there are different ways in dealing with this problem. And I think that's the real opportunity is if you can find a repeatable pattern to help these companies replace that big software spend that they have.

• 25:40Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 25:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That scales really quickly. And the only way to do that really is using AI in two ways. AI inside the machinery of what you're using yourself to make the things, right? So those are things like cursor and whatnot to just fully accelerate. And then AI within some very specific products that the customers actually need that also create efficiency. So there's two different places, but the problem with using it in both of these two different places is in the first one, you can manage the errors. It's very, it's very straightforward. At the end of the day, code either compiles or it doesn't. So even if you're using something like cursor, which is an incredible product, there are no errors at the end of it because the thing actually works or it doesn't. The problem is actually when you use these models in actual work.

• 26:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And if you're in a regulated environment, particularly, it gets very complicated because if you generate a hallucination in a healthcare business and it causes a, you know, patient record to be incorrect. There are huge consequences there.

• 26:37Jason Calacanis?

  Hmm.

• 26:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And that we haven't solved yet. That exists in regulated finance. It exists when you're dealing with real estate and construction. It exists when you're dealing with power. It exists in aerospace, right? Imagine if an LLM helps you design a plane better. But if there's a tolerance error and that's not well understood, that could have horrific consequences downstream. So we're working with all these people to try to figure it out. It's a very difficult technical challenge. But I just thought the Stripe data was really interesting because it validates what we're seeing, which is the growth in this industry is it's not like anything I've ever seen before.

• 27:15Jason Calacanis?

  Back to the stable coins. Here's a look at Tether. They're at $143 billion in Tethers out there. Who knows what's reality there? They've got a little bit of a shaky history. And then USDC, Jeremy Olaires, is at 56 billion already. And that's only been in existence since like really in earnest, like 2021. I do think Stripe's main business could be, if we're sitting here in five years, Chumoff, could be sitting on $300 billion and getting whatever it is, 3, 4, 5% on some coupon, right? They could be making $10, $20 billion in pure profit if they have a stable coin out there that gets widely adopted.

• 27:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, and I think the best way for Stripe to actually do this is just to build it and to actually facilitate payments between existing Stripe customers. Because again, it's sort of what I said last week. These are all ultimately ledger entries. And I think that the more that you can commoditize these things to be a simple ledger entry inside of two systems of record at two companies, that's a much better product feature. I think Stripe has the scale to do that now. And to your point, they could have an enormous stablecoin business. At the same time, they're probably better off just Embracing what's already been built, it may be disruptive to try to launch yet another one. I don't know.

• 28:36Jason Calacanis?

  They bought that other company, so I gotta think they'll launch their own.

• 28:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But Bridge is the facilitation layer.

• 28:41Jason Calacanis?

  It's the rails, yeah. But I mean, I think, you know, this is where brand comes in. If you have a trusted brand amongst developers and there's three choices, are they going to take Tether, which people go, eh, maybe it's a little sordid, it's offshore, eh, I got some challenges there. Am I going to use USDC? Okay, I haven't heard of it, but okay, yeah, they sound interesting. Oh, we're going to use Stripe. I'm going to go right to Stripe. It's kind of like the IBM, you know, or Microsoft of payments. Nobody gets fired for picking Stripe, I would say, so.

• 29:10Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Not anymore.

• 29:11Jason Calacanis?

  Not anymore. Right, let's go through the market update here. A lot of people are trying to figure out, are we going to have a market collapse, a boom? Let's just look at some of the numbers and have a first principle discussion here. S and P up almost 2% so far this year, Nasdaq 100 flat, Dow up 3%. So, pretty good start to the year in those index numbers. But if you look at the MAC7, some of them have had some serious compression. Tesla down 27%. I do think that they had a big Trump Elon spike. Google down 10%, Amazon 9%, Microsoft about 8%, Meta, Apple, Nvidia were up to varying degrees. And then

• 29:53Jason Calacanis?

  coming into our taping this week, Bitcoin down 15% over the last month. That too got the Trump bump. And then adding to all this confusion, unemployment is still at historic lows. We're at close to 4%. And if you look at the deportations that were promised, they've been modest to start. Obviously, they're just getting started. They need some money to deport folks, but they've only been deporting 500 people to 1,000 a day. And we haven't heard many numbers about the last couple of weeks as Doge has been sort of the center of attention. So, you know, they'd have to get to 2,000 or 3,000 people a day to have low millions, let's say, Chamath, 2 or 3 million people deported for it to have any impact on unemployment. Finally, Act 3, and then we'll get everybody's feedback on this.

• 30:38Jason Calacanis?

  CPI up 3% year over year. We had dipped down to that nice 2% handle, and now it's back a little bit. If you remember in September, it bottomed out around 2.4% just in time for the election. Interesting how that happened. That same month, the Fed cut 50 bps, then it cut another 25 in December. And since inflation's been growing modestly, but steadily, not insignificantly. So put it all together, Tramath, and what do you think? And then Freebar, what do you?

• 31:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I tend to be sort of in the Stevie Cohen camp. It's not like the bottom is going to fall out, but there's like a lot of room for concern. I guess is the best way to put it. Nick, I don't know if you can find that clip that at FII, but he had a very precise summary of how he saw the world. And I frankly, just agreed with everything that he was saying. So he probably can say better than I.

• 31:29Speaker 05

  When you take a brew of tariffs, on top of that, we have slowing immigration. And in addition, now you have Doge. I mean, that's austerity. We think growth is going to slow to one and a half percent from two and a half percent in the second half. And so I'm actually pretty negative for the first time in a while. And it may only last a year or so, but it's definitely, I think the best gains have been had and it wouldn't surprise me to see a significant correction.

• 31:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think a couple of very specific thoughts. The first is that you're starting to see this compression of the MAG7 towards everybody else. So this is the forward PE of these guys. And so what you're starting to see is everybody else starting to capture back some of the ground. People are processing what the real upside of, of the MAG7 is. Now, if you go to the other chart, what this starts to show you though, is that MAG7 is really priced to perfection. And so you have to believe that the world kind of stays the way that it is. Otherwise you're going to have some amount of, of mean reversion. So I think the stock market on the margin is a little expensive and not particularly

• 32:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  that attractive. Second, the bond market has basically said, okay, we are going to give you credit that Doge is going to work and that tariffs are going to work. So we've had some pretty meaningful compression in the 10 year, which I think is really interesting. I think it's very good for Besen and for Trump. And I think I've mentioned this before, but we got to go in and, you know, refinance $10 trillion in the next six months. So you could see this thing maybe even get under 4% if we gets a good string of data. The real problem, I think though, is that if you look back and say, what does this look like?

• 33:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The example that I would give you guys is in 2010 in the United Kingdom. The deficit as a percentage of GDP was 10%. And the UK government embarked on a multi-year austerity plan. And they said, we're going to get the deficit as a percentage of GDP back in line. And ultimately, by 2016, it got to 3%, which is where we are trying to get to. And right now, we're a little bit under 7%. We're trying to get it to 3%. So it's interesting to ask, what happened? And there, the bond market gave the UK government a ton of credit. So they kept rates relatively low. And they brought them back from where they were.

• 34:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That seems like what's happening here.

• 34:09Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 34:10Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The stock market, the stock market kind of went sideways to a little bit down.

• 34:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Let's see what happens here. But the real big thing is, in the UK, all of this created tremendous dissatisfaction. And you had Brexit.

• 34:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So I think the question that I have is, if we go through a prolonged austerity program.

• 34:34Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And the frustration amongst the American populace builds, what's the release valve? There, the release valve was voting to leave the EU. Here, it's not quite, it's not obvious to me what a release valve is.

• 34:45Jason Calacanis?

  Electing Trump was step one, and I don't know if there's something even more populist than Trump.

• 34:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, I think, I think he is the mechanism of implementing the austerity. I think people want this austerity. Just the question is, what happens when the actual byproducts of that austerity are felt by people for six or seven years? I don't know what the answer is.

• 35:04Jason Calacanis?

  Certainly, people are in favor of Doge and downciring the government more than I think anybody anticipated. People are, the statistics are showing, and the polls are showing, Friedberg, that it's incredibly popular. When you look at this.

• 35:20Jason Calacanis?

  I don't want to say conflicting, but it's a lot of different conflicting data here as to what's going on. What do you, what do you see in the numbers here? And what does your instinct tell you? Because part of this, I think, is getting used to Trump again, right? Like, he says a lot of stuff. Some of them are scary. Some of them are just trolling and everything in between. So what are your thoughts here? Are markets just adjusting to the, the new, uh, the new team back in town?

• 35:48David Friedberg?

  The big question in the Trump actions is around tariffs versus the tax cuts that are being proposed versus the, the spending cuts. Those are kind of the three levers. And there's a very serious sensitivity to the economic outlook for growth and inflation as a function of how far each of those three levers are pulled and how they relate to each other. Is Trump actually going to pull forward the cuts that he has talked about or that Elon's talked about? How real is that? There's a whole spectrum of opinions on that right now. On one end, you're looking at the House and the Senate reconciliation process for the budget proposals that they've put forth. And you're going to scratch your

• 36:30David Friedberg?

  head and be like, are we really cutting enough relative to what the economists and others are telling us we need to do? Meanwhile, you've got Elon and Trump saying, hey, we're cutting, we're cutting, we're saving, we're going to get to a trillion dollars a year. But that's not showing up necessarily in the budget. Is it showing up in the actions out of Doge, TBD? So there's a whole spectrum of opinions on the cuts. On the tariffs side, there's a spectrum of like, how far are these tariffs going to go? You know, the United States up until 18 something was entirely tariff driven in our federal government's revenue. And it was a way of being kind of protectionary to the industry here. And then over time, the tariffs rates came down and down and down as we introduced an income tax, which started, I think, at 3% right after the Civil War and went to 5% for high

• 37:14David Friedberg?

  income earners. And then obviously in the 20th century, that's totally flipped. Now we have like no tariffs and a 50% income tax for the highest bracket. So can we actually revert back to a tariff-driven income model for the federal government? And what is the economic effect on growth for corporate America in that world? Where taxes get cut for the companies and for individuals, but we make all of our money from global trade, does the increased cost of global trade hurt companies more than the benefit of paying fewer taxes, lower taxes? That's the big economic argument that's underway right now. And it's funny, it kind of seems to fall along political lines, believe it

• 37:53David Friedberg?

  or not, much like everything else, you know, like economists that are democratic-aligned are

• 38:00Jason Calacanis?

  What's my party doing? I agree with that. Yeah.

• 38:03David Friedberg?

  Yeah, exactly. And so the Democrat-aligned economists will say, the tariffs don't make sense, they reduce economic growth, they have a negative effect, we shouldn't be doing that. And then the Republican-aligned economists are saying, the tax cuts will more than make up for the reduction from the tariffs. And that's the big unknown right now. So I would say that the spending cuts, wide spectrum. The income tax cuts, big spectrum on what's actually going to get done here. And then the tariffs, big spectrum on how far this is going to go. And so those three things, you've got like three very wide ranges of things that all interplay, that ultimately determine inflation, economic growth, government

• 38:46David Friedberg?

  deficits over the next decade. And we don't really have a clear picture yet of how those three things interplay. And they're all being hotly debated. And by the way, there's high variability, they're changing day to day. Every day, Trump's like, this tariff, that tariff. Yesterday, there's a whole bunch of confusion on tariffs. Today, there's a whole bunch of like, discussion on how far the tax cut extension is going to go in the reconciliation process, and on and on and on. So TBD.

• 39:10Jason Calacanis?

  I encourage people to use my 72-hour rule and look at what happens 72 hours after Trump says something spicy, because a lot of times, he's just, he says a lot of things, and you've got to wait for it to end.

• 39:22David Friedberg?

  Yeah, but the House and the Senate, they both put forward their budgets, right? And now they go through this reconciliation process. And there's a lot in there that leaves a lot to be desired. If you're, if you're an absolute, like, you know, fiscal conservative and you're trying to get us to 3% deficit as a percentage GDP, you're like, wait a second, does this do enough?

• 39:47Jason Calacanis?

  And the tax cuts are 4.5 trillion over 10 years. So, you know, it's approximately 450 billion a year. If you're trying to catch up, how are we doing tax cuts?

• 39:55David Friedberg?

  But Jake, I'll remember, you can't make those statements as fact because a lot of those over 10-year projections are projections based on someone's estimate of the economic effect of the tax cuts. So there's also a lot of debate on that, which is, hey, some people are saying, if we make these tax cuts, the economy will grow faster than this particular...

• 40:14Jason Calacanis?

  Much faster, yes.

• 40:15David Friedberg?

  The CBO economists will estimate, and the CBO economists are trying to be conservative. So there's a whole lot of debate going on right now on like, how much is this really going to cost? And people are like, oh my God, Trump is talking about raising our deficit so much over the next decade. But then there's a different point of view, which is, wait a second, if you assume that the economy will grow because of these cuts, then that's actually not true. And then there's all these wild cards around the golden Visa card.

• 40:38Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, we're about to get to that, yeah.

• 40:40David Friedberg?

  Are the tariffs going to be a trillion a year? Are there going to be $2 trillion of revenue?

• 40:43Jason Calacanis?

  Or none, really? And it's just a negotiating position.

• 40:45David Friedberg?

  Or just a negotiation, so no one knows, yeah.

• 40:47Jason Calacanis?

  No one knows. So that's my, I think, main point is, this administration is all over the place. You know, and the cuts are great.

• 40:56David Friedberg?

  But you're right, the bond market tells you a lot. The fact that the 10-year has...

• 40:59Jason Calacanis?

  The bond market does tell people's fate.

• 41:01David Friedberg?

  The 10-year was peaked at 5% two weeks before the election, and then it peaked again the second week of January at 4.78%. Now it's down to 4.26% today. So it's come down by a full half a point in the last month, which tells you a lot about the expectations on inflation and growth over the next decade. And it's actually a reasonable, like, sign that we don't think there's going to be rampant inflation over the next decade, based on some of the policy decisions and actions that are being taken by this administration. So I would say, there's some indication that if, if you were to kind of try and decode the enigma of the three things that we talked about are going on, you know, it's generally kind of deflationary to some extent, or it's not inflationary.

• 41:43Jason Calacanis?

  Are you optimistic, just net-net, Dave? You optimistic about this next four-year period or not?

• 41:47David Friedberg?

  I'm honestly pretty uncertain, and I'm pretty unhappy with both the Senate and the House budgets, personally. I don't think that there's a

• 41:53Jason Calacanis?

  They're too fat, too many cuts.

• 41:54David Friedberg?

  Yeah, I don't think there's enough action in there. I don't think that. And it's weird because you hear Elon talking to all the members of the cabinet and he's pretty clear cut. Hey, we've got to save. This government is in a debt spiral. We have to fix this problem, yada, yada. And then it's sort of like business as usual, which like I said, when we were in DC, that was exactly my observation for every senator, representative, member of Congress that we met with or that I talked to at a cocktail party. It was the same bullshit. It was like, I gotta get this for my people. That's the goal. And we've turned this federated republic into a whole bunch of elected representatives showing up in DC scrambling and grabbing money for their constituents. That's what they were hired and elected to do. And it's a really unfortunate circumstance that no one looks out for the better interests of the US dollar over time and says, you know what?

• 42:38David Friedberg?

  We've actually got a limitation on us and that limitation should be less than 3% deficit to GDP. That's our budget. That's our max budget and start from there and then do a buildup. Yeah.

• 42:49Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I mean, Chamath, I think collective action aside, you've been talking a little bit about this. I don't know if it was a couple of weeks ago, you were tweeting about the great reset theory. And there's, you know, whatever that is, the third or fourth turning people have been talking about. You want to maybe encapsulate your thoughts?

• 43:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think you have to figure out what the goal is. So one goal is you could say that the Republicans want to have consistent political power, right? That's a reasonable goal. The Democrats want that too, right? A different goal would be to do what Freebrooke said. We're going to go and take the lumps because we are going to defend the dollar and the credibility of the United States. We're just going to make sure that structurally it's sound and take the pain that's necessary to reset. That could be a goal. I think the reality is something in the middle where you can't be in one camp and you can't be in the other because I don't think you can get anything done.

• 43:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And somewhere in the middle, I think the thing that I have been thinking a lot about is when will somebody sniff out what?

• 44:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The great coalition is that preserves political power, whether that's the Democrats or the Republicans. The reality is that you will have a consistent majority if you get three cohorts of people together. Cohort number one are the people that frankly don't have many assets and are the working and middle class. Meaning they don't necessarily own homes. They don't necessarily have investments in the stock market. So they don't particularly care about what's happening there. Okay, that cohort dominates. There was a clip of a discussion at Harvard just this past week about the different political coalitions that voted for Trump versus Kamala Harris.

• 44:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The most important takeaway that I took from it is that if you make a hundred thousand dollars or more a year, you're a reliable Democratic voter. If you went to college, you're a reliable Democratic voter. Everything else is a reliable Republican voter. But the thing to remember is that bucket of everything else is growing faster than that first bucket.

• 45:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So you have this coalition of the asset light, working and middle class. And then you have other people, patriotic business people and patriotic business owners and technology people that care about innovation that MAGA has been able to corral into a coalition.

• 45:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  My point is if that is the consistent reliable thing that cements political power multiple elections from now, and we've seen this before in the past where Republicans can go on a three term run or, you know, a four term run Democrats have as well in the past. It is bad news for the stock market and it is bad news for asset owners because it doesn't reward the constituents. Back to Freebrooke's point, so if you are going to feed your constituents and your constituents don't own stocks and your constituents don't own homes or they are so wealthy that they can be inoculated from a massive drawdown in those asset categories. What do you think the winning strategy is?

• 46:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That is my rough working version of what our

• 46:18Chamath Palihapitiya?

  version of Brexit is, right? So if you have many, many years of austerity, what does it really result in? I think if you want to cement political power, I think it requires a walking down of these asset markets in a meaningful way. That's stocks and that's real estate, and I just don't see any other way around it.

• 46:37Jason Calacanis?

  Fascinating. The good news is, I think, from my perspective is-

• 46:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But by the way, sorry, last thing I would say, that's a total theory and I could change my mind as I get more data, but I'm just saying like, I'm just trying to work through the possibilities. And in the distribution of outcomes, that's sort of where my head's at right now.

• 46:52Jason Calacanis?

  I think it's like a good mental model because politicians want to stay in power. How do they stay in power? The populace has to want to continue to back, and they have to understand what-

• 47:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Backing strategies that reward asset owners when asset owners are a shrinking minority is not a good idea.

• 47:09Jason Calacanis?

  Well, they're 60% of the country own assets, but 80% of those assets are in the top like 10%. So it is definitely weighted heavily. People do have some, I guess, through their 401ks in some cases and yeah, 60% of people own a home, 61%. But yeah, I think it's a, it's a good framework. The good news is if you look at every time we have a great technological revolution, whether it was the iPhone or the internet, now AI, that tends to make the most impact on the economy. And so based on what I'm seeing in the streets, entrepreneurship is on fire right now.

• 47:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But that's not true. I think you're confusing that with how certain people, like, everybody has an iPhone, that's true. But you're the one that's talked a lot about this a lot. It hasn't lifted average hourly earnings that much. In fact, we've had massive wage suppression. It has rewarded the employees and the stockholders of Apple or Google or Meta, but that's not everybody.

• 48:10Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I'm talking more about, yes, you're correct. It does polarize the win in Apple shareholders, right? In the case of the iPhone or Google, in the case of the internet. But it does make the entire populace more efficient and the United States more efficient since we led both of those revolutions.

• 48:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I don't think it does. I think it benefits supremely a small cohort of people. That's why the denominator goes up. But does it affect individual people in measurable ways on a broad-based basis? I think that's been statistically proven as not to be true. That's why we have the populism we have today.

• 48:43Jason Calacanis?

  It's disproportionately rewarded equity holders. That's obvious. And wage earners, you know, have not had the same escalation. But I'm talking about the United States and our place in the world and our economy when compared to other countries. So I still think if we lead AI, we will still have the best standard of living, the best overall economy in the world.

• 49:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I love his, what do you guys think about the golden visa? I love that.

• 49:09Jason Calacanis?

  Well, this is incredible because I literally tweeted like six months ago, you know, we should just sell citizenship for $500,000 a pop. And he added a zero.

• 49:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'll give you a prediction. I'll give you a prediction. I will predict that within the next few months after this gets announced, you are going to hear about founders taking $5 million of secondary in a round to make sure that if they are non-Americans to get their visas.

• 49:38Jason Calacanis?

  Hundred percent.

• 49:39David Friedberg?

  Hey, check out this prediction, Nick. We now have a poly market to trade. How many gold cards will Trump sell in 2025?

• 49:46Jason Calacanis?

  Poly market? Oh, well done. I think, what is the, what is the bet?

• 49:52David Friedberg?

  Well, so you either can have zero.

• 49:54Jason Calacanis?

  Okay.

• 49:55David Friedberg?

  You can have one to 100, 100 to 1,000. Here's the the different levels, 1,000, 2,500, 2,505,000. So you can basically buy the level that you think. There's an 8% probability right now in Polymarket that by the end of 2025, there will be zero of these golden visas sold. 25% chance of 1 to 100, 17% chance of 100 to 1,000, and so on. The most probable level is actually 2,500 to 5,000, which is sitting at 29% probability right now.

• 50:25Jason Calacanis?

  I'm taking the way over.

• 50:27David Friedberg?

  So what do you think? This is by the end of 25, J Cal. So you gotta get, they basically have to get the program.

• 50:31Jason Calacanis?

  So they still have to get this done.

• 50:32David Friedberg?

  The program up and running. And then people buy the, so it's by the end of 25 is the.

• 50:37Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, so people are really just betting, when can he get the first one done? And then, yeah, how many does he get done? Yeah. I know, I'm gonna take the top two. I think I might take 5,000 and above here.

• 50:49David Friedberg?

  Will you put real money on that?

• 50:50Jason Calacanis?

  You should do that.

• 50:51David Friedberg?

  Oh, you can't trade.

• 50:51Jason Calacanis?

  It's not available to Americans, but if there was a way to do it, I might do it. This is not unprecedented, by the way. There is something called the EB5, which I talked about before on this show, where non-citizens can invest a bunch of money. But it's a bit of a scam. I got pitched on it. People said, oh, we can get you LPs for your fund. Here's how it works. They invest in some, you know, fugazi, fugazi, real estate thing.

• 51:14David Friedberg?

  You have to, you have to create 10 full-time jobs is.

• 51:16Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, so there's a bunch of scams going on about this EB5. But I said, as your president, I'm gonna sell these citizenships and get 100,000 people to do 500K each, right? And I said they would sell like Taylor Swift tickets. I gotta tell you, I think, out of the gate, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, buy, you know, 1 to 10,000 of these. So let's say you were able to buy these and you could swap them out, like if somebody left and went back to their country, you could still use it, you still have the visa. These would become incredible for recruiting talent. If you gotta get the CEO of a company over here, and you could offer them that, you could buy their company.

• 51:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Is that how it's gonna work? Or is that, is it gonna be tied to a person, do you think?

• 51:55Jason Calacanis?

  We got two different issues here. One is, could you swap these between another person?

• 51:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We don't know.

• 51:59Jason Calacanis?

  The president could make it like that if they wanted to for corporations, to give them essentially what is a season pass that you could swap between users. Those things exist in the world as a concept. So he could decide to do that. The second piece.

• 52:14Jason Calacanis?

  Is how valuable they are. Are they worth 5 million or are they worth a million? Which which would sell the most?

• 52:20David Friedberg?

  The way this is proposed by Trump and Lutnik is it's $5 million for basically a green card. You get permanent residence in the United States. You get to live here permanently.

• 52:30Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 52:30David Friedberg?

  They're getting rid of the EB5 program after this. That's their proposal. And so here's here's the map. Let me ask you guys a question. Tom, Jake, how? How many people in the world?

• 52:41David Friedberg?

  Have a net worth above 100 million?

• 52:45Jason Calacanis?

  Oh. Above 100? Uh, well, we know that there are like 5,000, 4,000 or 5,000 billionaires is the estimate, I think globally. So a centimillionaire.

• 52:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, I think that there's a lot of.

• 52:58Jason Calacanis?

  There's a lot of.

• 52:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There's a lot of.

• 52:59Jason Calacanis?

  50,000?

• 53:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There's a lot of hidden billionaires, so I would.

• 53:02Jason Calacanis?

  That's what you. Russia and China.

• 53:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Even in America. I would guess that there's at least 10 or 15,000 billionaires in the world.

• 53:08David Friedberg?

  100 millionaire.

• 53:10Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so then as a.

• 53:11Jason Calacanis?

  We're working backwards.

• 53:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Probably 50,000.

• 53:13Jason Calacanis?

  That's what I see.

• 53:15David Friedberg?

  28,000, 40% of whom are in the US, which means there's 17,000.

• 53:20Jason Calacanis?

  Who knows that number is real? Come on.

• 53:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, these these numbers are all made up, so I.

• 53:24Jason Calacanis?

  You know how many Russian oligarchs have 100 million dollars?

• 53:27David Friedberg?

  I'm just, okay, so whatever fudge factor you want, 17,000 is the reported number of 100 millionaires outside the US. Do you think that that's the cutoff for people that would spend 5 million? And then what percent of them would buy a US green card for 5 million dollars?

• 53:42Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, I think people with 20 million who are overseas in Venezuela or the Middle East would spend 5 million on it. If it was a path to them becoming a US citizen, you amortize that over a lifetime, you could make twice as much money living here. So I think the number is like, if you had 20 million dollars, you would give 25% of your current net worth to get into the US, of course. You're gonna buy a house here worth 10 million.

• 54:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And Donald Trump said that you would not have to pay any tax on foreign assets.

• 54:08Jason Calacanis?

  Right.

• 54:08David Friedberg?

  Right.

• 54:09Jason Calacanis?

  Easy peasy.

• 54:10David Friedberg?

  It's a true green card.

• 54:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That is. No, no, no, a real green card is what I had, which is your global income is taxed.

• 54:17David Friedberg?

  That's true.

• 54:18Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So it's worse. Meaning the green card is worse than this. This is way better. So if if I had to do it again and this was available to me.

• 54:26David Friedberg?

  I'm just pointing out, I'm not sure.

• 54:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I would have spent 5 million bucks.

• 54:28David Friedberg?

  I'm not sure there's a million buyers. I think there's probably 10,000 max buyers of this thing is my.

• 54:34Jason Calacanis?

  I'll take the over of 10. I wouldn't take the over of a million. I think you're right on the million number. Is that what did Trump say? He said there's a million people.

• 54:41David Friedberg?

  Pull up the polymarket, Nick? The most probable is one to 2,500. I think that's probably right.

• 54:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But you didn't ask the total. You ask in year one and I mean.

• 54:50Jason Calacanis?

  It's gonna take six months to get a job in Washington.

• 54:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  This poll is dumb. The real question is, how hard will they be vetted? Because I think the point is, there's a lot of gray money around the world. So the question is, can you bring it into the light? Right? So how many, like, look, I know of many people in India, many, who are extremely wealthy in ways that we don't understand. And their wealth is literally like in cash, it's in gold. How are they supposed to kind of like, if they wanted to like raise their family in America, because now it's possible, how do they do that? How do they, how do they take their assets? Do you go to JP Morgan and all of a sudden like you show them this

• 55:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  golden visa and they say, great, we're gonna, if there's a workaround to like the KYC AML laws, Honesty Friedberg, you could sell 2 million of these things.

• 55:43David Friedberg?

  Don't think so.

• 55:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  If you literally have to go through the existing set of frameworks on like OFAC, AML, KYC, all that stuff, it's probably in the tens of thousands.

• 55:56Jason Calacanis?

  All I have to say is, this is one of the greatest proposals ever. And.

• 56:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, it's great.

• 56:02Jason Calacanis?

  It's fan frickin' tastic, combined with Doge, okay? Uh, if he gets this done, if he gets.

• 56:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But Jason, but I agree with you, by the way.

• 56:12Jason Calacanis?

  Accredited investing done. If he gets those three things done, I'm voting for his third term. We're gonna redo the.

• 56:17David Friedberg?

  Jason, just explain to us your, your personal interest in accredited investing. What's the grift connection? I'm not sure I'm fully tracking.

• 56:23Jason Calacanis?

  It's not a grift connection. I feel like there's a bunch of people stealing money doing crypto scams. And that all of that would be solved if people could just take. A test to become an accredited investor, which is like currently 6% or 7% of the country. And then they would understand diversification and you know how different devices work, convertible debt, whatever. And if they did understand that, you could take people who are gambling in the stock market and allow them to invest in private market companies. And I believe that would create more, this issue we brought up in the last segment, about poor people not being able to become rich people and upward mobility. Upward mobility could be very easily, hold on, let me finish my thought.

• 57:08Jason Calacanis?

  Upward mobility could be so much better if a person who's an Uber driver or an HR person working, you know, at a company could put $500, $1,000 instead of betting on the Knicks or the Jets, God forbid, they could put that $500 into this new product or service they're using, LinkedIn, or this new product or service they're using. And then that would allow more startups to get created. There are so many people who contact me after reading my book and say, I want to invest in startups, they can't. And I think they would be so much better off putting $100 or $500 into a startup than just wasting it at roulette tables.

• 57:42David Friedberg?

  Great, I'll take the opposite.

• 57:44Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, go ahead.

• 57:44David Friedberg?

  And I'll tell you why. I think you're right, it would be great, but they should buy the S and P. They should buy the S and P index, proven, scaled, audited, profitable, well-vetted, solid fiduciary responsibility with public board companies.

• 57:59Jason Calacanis?

  Yep. And what will they learn from that?

• 58:02David Friedberg?

  The problem is, most of these people, most people, even smart VCs, even intelligent people, make extraordinary mistakes in the startups that they back. I don't think that we have a shortage of startups. I think we have a shortage of good startups. And I think that if you, but if you flood the market with capital, you're going to see the same problem we've had with every venture capital cycle or every private cycle, which is you get a whole bunch of bull that gets funded, that shouldn't get funded, that ends up eating a lot of people's money. And unfortunately, when people are less sophisticated and they enter the private investment markets, they're not going to necessarily be left well off. They're going to end up getting scammed in a different way. Someone's going to show some crazy fancy PowerPoint to them, take their money, and

• 58:45David Friedberg?

  they're going to get eaten up, which won't happen if they buy the S and P. Go ahead.

• 58:48Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, yeah, so let me counter all that. They should buy the S and P. Sure. And they can do that today, right? They can get a Robin Hood account. They can buy it.

• 58:56David Friedberg?

  Make 11% a year.

• 58:57Jason Calacanis?

  Perfect. And that's the protectionist paternalistic approach that we've had. What that doesn't do is it makes them nice and safe and then their $1,000 becomes $1,070 next year and $1,150 the next year. Great. They learned one lesson. The rule of 72 and compounding interest. That's the only lesson they learn. But when you start betting on startups, you learn how entrepreneurship works, how product market fit works. And so sure, put 80% into an index fund and put 20% into investing in private companies. They would learn more. And when Uber wanted to give Uber drivers access to buying shares, they're not allowed to. And so the rich can buy whatever they

• 59:39Jason Calacanis?

  want. They can make whatever bets they want. They can be in private equity. They can be in all these things that have the chance to 100x to 10x, but poor people can't. All I'm saying is if they're educated and they take a course, let them do, take a little bit of risk in an intelligent fashion and let them learn about entrepreneurship. I grew up blue collar and I didn't have exposure to how private company formation worked. I didn't understand any of this. I had to battle my way to learn all of it. If you had a course and people could go just as easily as they go to PrizePix, which I bet on every Knicks game, and they could go just as easy to PrizePix as they could go to Coinbase, as they could go to a private market company invest, that would be better

• 1:00:22Jason Calacanis?

  for upward mobility. So you're right, people are going to lose money, but they're going to learn. What do you think, Chamath? Settle the difference between the two of us.

• 1:00:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think that both are true. I think that we're all much better off just owning indices, or at least that was true. I think the problem with these indices right now is those are not really well-balanced indices because the rules have changed. And the rules have changed because these companies have been smart enough to lobby folks like S and P and S and P has allowed these thresholds to creep up. And so now when you're buying the S and P 500, you're not doing that anymore. You're buying the S and P 7 and then the rest in the 493 is, you know, 60%. So if that's what you want, that's fine. So we'd have to fix the ETF market to make sure that there was a little bit more transparency and there was more balance.

• 1:01:14Jason Calacanis?

  But these weighted indices are basically just the mag seven. That's neither good nor bad. I'm just saying that's what it is.

• 1:01:19David Friedberg?

  Yeah. And I'm just saying.

• 1:01:21Jason Calacanis?

  It just creates the same problem. People think they're buying diversification because you're like, hey, go here. And it's diversified and turns out it's not.

• 1:01:27David Friedberg?

  Not even, not even diversification, just like vetted, like mature real companies versus what I think will happen, which we've seen time and again with people that are not sophisticated or experienced, they first enter a new, a new market, any market, is this process of adverse selection, which is you have predatory practices, predatory pitches that show up and say, invest in this, it's a great deal. This is the new thing. Most people aren't able to vet that thing and they end up getting taken advantage of. And that's the problem.

• 1:01:54Jason Calacanis?

  They're getting taken advantage of in every crypto thing right now. So all I'm arguing for is more education and a path for those people who want to do it to show five hours of education, 50 questions, that they have an above average, you know, knowledge of how private companies work, just so they have the choice to do that.

• 1:02:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think the balance that people, we will have to strike is there are a lot of people that are on the outside looking in with no assets. And then second, there are a lot of young people who want the high alpha opportunities that crypto represents. And so Friedberg, it's easy for you to pull the ladder up from under you because you're already rich.

• 1:02:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But for people that are not rich, and if you went back to when you were poor, the question is, how would you have reacted if somebody above you basically said, I'm going to tell you what you can invest in? And would you have said, okay, that seems reasonable. I know you're looking out for me.

• 1:02:48David Friedberg?

  No, I don't disagree with that. I think there's a reason we have securities regulations and securities laws that public companies have to follow, but private companies are more lax on. That's, that's where there's this distinction. So I don't disagree.

• 1:02:59Jason Calacanis?

  That's not, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying when, now that you're rich, you want rules for everybody else.

• 1:03:05David Friedberg?

  That's not true. Don't, don't, don't mischaracterize me, Chamath. That's not true at all. I'm obviously a free market guy. I don't give a [BLEEP].

• 1:03:11Jason Calacanis?

  So why can't poor people invest in Uber?

• 1:03:13David Friedberg?

  I'm not, I'm pointing out the consequence of what would happen. I'm not saying I disagree with the notion of what anyone invests in anything they want. I'm just telling you what I think is going to happen.

• 1:03:22Jason Calacanis?

  Okay. What I'm asking you is, go back to when you were poor. How would you react?

• 1:03:27David Friedberg?

  I would want to invest in everything. I'm not disagreeing with the notion. I'm pointing out what will happen, which is predatory assholes will show up and they'll rip people off. That's what happens in every one of these markets.

• 1:03:37Jason Calacanis?

  And if you're educated, that's why the education component hits here, you'll learn something, just like people are learning right now to not bet on the Jets ever.

• 1:03:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What do you think the solution is?

• 1:03:46David Friedberg?

  People can lose their ass. They just need to know they're gonna lose their ass. I'm just telling you, that's what's gonna happen. And then you know what's gonna happen next? Elizabeth Warren's gonna get on TV and be like, hey, we gotta fix this, put a bunch of regulations in place.

• 1:03:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Nobody cares what Pocahontas has to say.

• 1:03:57David Friedberg?

  That's how this goes. I'm pointing out, this is what happens in all these markets.

• 1:04:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, I agree with you. That is the cycle. But what I'm saying is, how do we fix it then? How do you allow people that don't have assets to have assets that work for them? How do we, how do we do that?

• 1:04:11David Friedberg?

  Even as, as you guys know, we looked at the data, even the best venture capital firms in Silicon Valley with the smartest, most sophisticated people investing in private assets, were not able to beat the NASDAQ over the last ten years.

• 1:04:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I get it. That's true. What I'm saying is, what you were saying before, this is, I'm confused. What you were saying before is people should only be allowed to invest in the S and P.

• 1:04:28David Friedberg?

  I didn't say that.

• 1:04:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That is what you said.

• 1:04:30David Friedberg?

  That's not what I said.

• 1:04:31Jason Calacanis?

  That's exactly what you said.

• 1:04:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That is what you said. That is exactly what you said.

• 1:04:33David Friedberg?

  I said, here's what's gonna happen. I said, here's the consequence of this.

• 1:04:36Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, you're predicting doom. Got it. Here's the other possibility of what happens. eBay, Etsy, Airbnb, DoorDash, say to the people who are part of their networks, for every hundred rides you do, we're gonna give you a hundred dollars in shares. For every hundred nights you book, we're gonna give you a thousand dollars in shares of Airbnb. And by the way, you can buy extra shares if you want to. And the government says you can spend up to 20% of your yearly income, average for the past two years, on investing in startups. And then some number of people who built those networks, whether it was Google's network, or eBay's network, or Ubers, or DoorDash's, or were part of Tesla.

• 1:05:19Jason Calacanis?

  Some number of those people are going to hit massive home runs and they're going to move from the bottom third to the middle third. And then some number of those people are going to say, you know what, I got really educated. I looked and I understood Tesla and I understood Uber. So now I'm going to bet on this AI self-driving company and I'm going to bet on this other company that makes robots and delivers, you know, vitals. And the entire group of people in our United States is going to get more savvy about entrepreneurship and capital allocation. That's a good thing.

• 1:05:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think what's going to happen is not much of anything. I think the rules are going to stay exactly where they are.

• 1:05:50Jason Calacanis?

  In favor of the top 10%.

• 1:05:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Because I think this argument between the two of you is exactly the reason why it can never change. And I think that that, now again, so then what is the alternative? Maybe it comes back to what I said before, which is then the only alternative left is just to debase assets. And then if you debase assets and make them much cheaper, then there's less money theoretically to lose per quantum of investment. So maybe that's, that's the right way to think about it.

• 1:06:14Jason Calacanis?

  We've got to get more people owning equities in this country. That's just high order bit. Because if you feel like you have more agency in your life and you're just smarter and savvier, that's the American dream. And we've lost the American dream, to your point in the early segment. Half the country doesn't feel like they can ever get into the top half. They don't feel like they'll ever be able to buy a second home or even a first. So you have this helplessness of one group of people who are like, I need a handout. And the other group of people are like, got any stock tips? Where are you making money? What can I place a bet on? We're sitting here at a rigged game. We all get to play in one casino and then everybody else gets to work in the casino. I just want the people who work in the casino to be able to place some bets and maybe become owners in businesses.

• 1:06:56Jason Calacanis?

  Hey, you know, I think talking about the US Postal Service is interesting. It turns out Trump is going to issue an executive order to dissolve the leadership of USPS. And the postal service is going postal about this in some ways, not literally, but they're angry about it. And they want to observe the absorb the agency into the executive branch. Just so you know, post office has been operating for 250 years. Trump plans to fire the governing board and place the agency under the control of? Commerce. Litnik. Commerce. And for context, US Postal Service has lost $10 billion last year on $80 billion in revenue.

• 1:07:38Jason Calacanis?

  They can't figure out how to just make a simple profit margin or even break even. And it employs 635,000 workers.

• 1:07:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  By the way, Howard did an interview with Fox News yesterday where he said, one of the ideas that he went back to the president with was for the postal service to do the census, which would save $4 billion a year. Give him another idea, which is, I think that non-farm payrolls and GDP, that data should be collected by USPS as well, because they touch every business. You can actually get, instead of sampling, with all this error and all of this craziness that we have, there has to be a way for then all of these feet on the street to get us much more accurate information so that the markets can actually function properly. I am surprised that we don't see even more dramatic revisions.

• 1:08:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And that probably, again, is like errors on top of errors. I really don't trust, like, you know, you showed the GDP data or you showed the unemployment rate, Jason?

• 1:08:38Jason Calacanis?

  No, we all know this stuff is crazy.

• 1:08:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's wrong. I just don't know how wrong it is.

• 1:08:42Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, and this is where Shrip's data might come in handy. I did a tweet about this, and it's one of the most popular tweets or controversial. I got three and a half million views here without an Elon retweet or anything. I had a very simple concept here. Postal service goes down to one time a week. Easy peasy, once a week. There's nothing coming in the US Postal Service that's that important. Two, all citizens starting next year have to opt into getting postal mail by paying $1 a year. So you gotta sign up for it. You gotta give them a credit card or something. I'm thinking. 80% of people don't even bother because it's all flowers and garbage anyway. And what people don't know, because I was in the magazine business and I knew all about this. We had a magazine rate, a media rate, and all these marketers have, they're subsidized.

• 1:09:26Jason Calacanis?

  So this is the ultimate marketing and publishing grift. Magazines, newspapers, anybody, publications, advertisers, catalogs, they pay nothing. And I think they should just double or triple the rate or remove any discounts. And then take all those buildings, Chamath, put them into the new sovereign wealth fund, redeploy the buildings, get some money out of that. Give every postal worker two-year severance or, you know, whatever. Graduate it down, full year severance, half year severance, quarter year severance, while you retrain them and just let the private markets handle this. What do you think, Chamath, are my suggestions?

• 1:09:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There was a tweet from this woman who got leaked some data

• 1:10:02Jason Calacanis?

  Uh huh.

• 1:10:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  from one of her friends or colleagues in the government where they broke down, I think, seven or eight leases and real estate things that were happening inside of, I think it was Veterans Affairs, maybe? The numbers are just astounding.

• 1:10:17Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, half the office space is not being used. The other half is being underutilized. It's bonkers.

• 1:10:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Bonkers.

• 1:10:23Jason Calacanis?

  They're gonna be able to sell 75% of this stuff. So anyway, you know, don't blame me here, but I think it's like a really good opportunity. Our guy, Jeff Bezos, come on the pod. Jeff, sit in the sax chair one time. That'd be fun to have him on. He's making some big changes at The Washington Post. He's lost a fortune running this thing. And it seems like he's getting engaged and in founder mode, dare I say. He posted to his X account and he emailed everybody that the editorial page is going to be run differently. He said that while newspapers once had a mandate to publish opinions from the broadest possible spectrum, the internet now mostly covers that. He said, "I'm confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America.

• 1:11:06Jason Calacanis?

  I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinions." So he's going to focus on those two pillars, personal liberties and free markets. This seems awesome and I could get into why it's brilliant on a publication basis, but I'm just wondering what your thoughts are with him getting more engaged with the publication that he was incredibly hands-off with.

• 1:11:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I was a little surprised that he wrote this. I think that if you want to write about personal liberty, one of the tenets of personal liberty is free speech, but he's effectively said that certain...

• 1:11:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Opinions aren't allowed anymore. I don't think that that's the solution to the Washington Post. So all I think it does is it polarizes the readership even more. I looked inside of Google Trends, the overwhelming majority of WaPo readers are in obviously Washington DC, and then Maryland and Virginia, which are the two surrounding states. So I think it's very much a Beltway paper. I think he's trying to have a direct influence on the ideas that folks inside the Beltway read. And so in as much as he's the owner, he's allowed to do it. But I wasn't a fan of that idea, because I think, I think the Elon plan is much better. Here's a fire hose, go at it. You have to find the people. Despite all the conspiracy theories, I don't think he suppresses free speech in the least. In fact, I think it's a literal

• 1:12:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  free for all inside of X.

• 1:12:27Jason Calacanis?

  It is a free for all. I mean, we've got Nazi diamond pendants coming from Kanye.

• 1:12:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The difficulty in X, which I think will be the next set of features that he'll have to figure out is how the curation happens.

• 1:12:38Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:12:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Where you're curating, I'm curating, other people are curating. How can then, for example, like when I go to an account that I like, there's no easy way where I can mass follow a bunch of their, the people that they follow as an example, right? I can't just copy it. I can't sort of start with a profile. Those are all these things that allow you to just take on all kinds of opinions right away and filter from there. I think that that is a really useful feature. So I don't know, I didn't think that if I was the owner of Washington Post, I would have been even more extreme on the free speech part. I would not have sanctioned speech.

• 1:13:16Jason Calacanis?

  So it's an interesting point. You know, newspapers historically always had a point of view. They picked a side. Fox, obviously MSNBC now, and cable news picked a side. This will make the publication, I think, by picking a side and saying, hey, here's what we stand for. This is our belief system. I think it will just make it viable in one way. And you're right, he wants to have a certain influence. That's why people buy these things. That's why they've historically owned them. And they have a point of view. And the idea that it didn't have a point of view previously was probably a mirage that some people felt there was like some objectivity. But I like it. I like him being more engaged in it and tightening it up. All right. For the Sultan of Science, Chamath Palihapitiya, our sick friend, the

• 1:13:59Jason Calacanis?

  comedian, get well soon. We can't wait to have you on. It's going to be a hilarious time. And for David Sacks, who's very busy, the Rain Man in Washington DC, saving the world. I am the world's greatest moderator and we will see you next time. Bye bye. Love you boys. Bye bye.

• 1:14:16Speaker 03

  We'll let your winners ride. Rain Man David's out.

• 1:14:24Speaker 03

  And instead, we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, Wes. I'm the queen of Kinnawha.

• 1:14:36Speaker 03

  Besties are back. That is my dog taking a notice in your driveway. Sex.

• 1:14:44Speaker 03

  Oh, man.

• 1:14:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

• 1:14:55Speaker 03

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