20VC: Deepseek Raises $50BN | Wall St's $725BN AI Question | The Rise of Open Source & How it Threatens OpenAI & Anthropic | OpenAI Builds it's Own Chip: Jalapeno | The Death of Moats & The New AI Software Winners

AGENDA: 00:00 – Google Loses Two AI Legends as Anthropic Wins the Talent War 14:45 – China's $50B DeepSeek Bet Changes the AI Power Balance 27:15 – AI's Memory Crisis Has Begun — Apple Warns of a '100-Year Flood' 30:00 – Wall Street Finally Asks the $725 Billion Question: Who Pays for AI? 41:00 – We Built an AI Finance VP... and It's Better Than Humans 46:30 – The Death of Moats? Why Founders Should Stop Talking About Defensibility 58:30 – Databricks, ServiceNow & the New AI Software Winners 01:07:00 – The Seat-Based SaaS Model Is Dying 01:12:00 – OpenAI's Custom Models Could Rewrite Enterprise Software 01:17:00 – OpenAI's Biggest Threat Isn't Anthropic Anymore

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

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Open source is a bit of a fake because China is paying for all the training.

• 0:03Speaker 01

  The market is set. The game is clear. And this is the classic thing about bull markets is that you can be intellectually right, but the narrative can keep going a long time.

• 0:12Speaker 00

  I think the big story of 2027 in AI and the enterprise and all the margins in the enterprise, right, is show me the ROI next year.

• 0:19Speaker 01

  So you're really talking about 7%, 8% of the labor force being replaced by tokens for the mat to work.

• 0:27Speaker 00

  I literally was doing a pitch this week and the founder was going on and on about their moats and I immediately didn't want to invest. Like I just, enough. Your moat can be LLM lifted away.

• 0:37Speaker 01

  There's only one thing worse than a seat-based model, Jason, and that's a model that's based on bodies.

• 0:42Speaker 00

  You don't get to make 10 million for working 18 hours a week. You get a watch. You get an Omega. You want an Omega or you want to be rich? Make your choice, boys.

• 0:50Speaker 01

  The whole reason the OpenAI and Anthropic models work is because other idiots have spent the $300 billion on their behalf.

• 0:58Harry Stebbings?

  This is 20 VC with me, Harry Stebbings, and it's my favorite show of the week. Jason Lemkin, Rory O'Driscoll, discussing everything you need to know that's gone on in the last seven days. So what do we discuss today? Google loses two generational scientists in 48 hours. That's a tough time. Deepsea closes $7.4 billion Series A, is the Series A, at a $50 billion price, but only China gets voting rights. Interesting. And then finally, the $725 billion question Wall Street is finally asking, who's actually going to pay for AI? But before we dive into the show today, are you a founder working nonstop to raise your next round? Are you an investor doing all you can for your portfolio companies to help them stand out?

• 1:41Harry Stebbings?

  Funding and scaling a vision is challenging. Banking should not be. HSBC Innovation Banking caters to tech and healthcare founders all over the world who need a really great banking partner that matches their pace, offering fast onboarding, product packages designed for your business, and capital solutions built for high-growth startups and the VCs investing in them. With HSBC, Innovation Banking's rapid onboarding. You can get access to your new accounts and facilities quickly, so your team can stay focused. On building and scaling what's next. You'll be paired with your own dedicated team of venture ecosystem veterans who have the network and experience to guide companies in your specific sector, at your specific stage. And behind that support is this real strength.

• 2:24Harry Stebbings?

  HSBC's $3 trillion balance sheet and global network that provides this stability and international reach needed to grow your operation with confidence. To see how HSBC Innovation Banking can support you. Whether you're on day one or day 1000, visit innovationbanking.hsbc to learn more and connect with an innovation banking specialist. That's innovationbanking.hsbc. While HSBC manages your corporate banking needs, Deal helps you build the global team behind it. Founders scale startups faster on Deal. Grow without borders. Deal handles the hard parts of global hiring, so you can stay focused on growth. Set up payroll for any country in minutes.

• 3:06Harry Stebbings?

  Hire anyone, anywhere and get visas handled fast. Deal takes care of onboarding, HR, IT, EOR, benefits and compliance. Everything your startup needs to scale quickly. All done fast in one place. It's why more than 40,000 fast-growing companies like Airwallex, 11 Labs and Intercom trust Deal to move fast and get back to building. Visit deal.com/20vc. That's D E L D E E L dot com slash two zero V C. Deal handles the global team and Framer handles the front door. A website should help your business grow, not slow it down. If updates to your dot com feel harder than they should, Framer is the shortcut you've been looking for.

• 3:49Harry Stebbings?

  Framer is an enterprise-grade, no-code website builder that works like your team's favorite design tool and is used by companies like Perplexity, Miro, Mixpanel to move faster. Designers and marketers can fully own the site with real-time collaboration, a robust CMS built for SEO and advanced analytics that include integrated A/B testing. So you're not just shipping pages, but you're maximizing what works. And when you're ready to ship, changes go live in seconds with one click. Publish without relying on engineering. Plus, Framer is built for scale with premium hosting, enterprise-grade security, and 99.99% uptime SLAs. Whether you want to launch a new site,

• 4:30Harry Stebbings?

  test a few landing pages, or migrate your full .com, Framer has programs for startups, scale-ups, and large enterprises to make going from idea to live site fast. Learn how you can get more out of your .com from a Framer specialist, or get started building for free today at framer.com/20vc for 30% off, 30% off a Framer Pro Annual Plan. That's framer.com/20vc for 30% off. Framer.com/20vc. Rules and restrictions may apply. You have now arrived at your destination. Boys, it is so good to be back. Jason, you are back. It is so good to have you back from China. We're going to start with the news that I put at the top of the list,

• 5:15Harry Stebbings?

  which was DeepMind loses two generational scientists in 48 hours. Namely, we have first, Norm Shazier, who was character AI, and then we have John Jumper, Nobel Prize winner, co-creator of AlphaFold, also leaving to join Anthropic. How significant are these moves? What should we read from this?

• 5:37Speaker 00

  Look, listen, it's easy to pick a turnover in any organization, right? There's so much turnover in any organization. On the other hand, you know, when you talk to some of the smartest engineers and developers in AI, they're really looking to be in a very specific environment, right? Where they get to pursue exactly what they want to do, especially on the research side. They want to work on what they want to work on, on the best of the best. And, you know, I was thinking back in the day, I went to pitch Google for my last startup, and Vince Surf was there, like one of the creators of the internet, popped into the meeting, okay? And I didn't get it at the time, but Google back in the day, right? Pre-AI days had created this environment where the best researchers in the world wanted to be there. And I think that's how they lured the DeepMind guys in, right? Was the story, right? This persistent to create this environment.

• 6:20Speaker 00

  Look, you're going to get to stay in London. You guys are going to get to build your own thing. And I think this is probably just a sign of the cracks, of the realities of having. To try to be number one in AI and forcing an environmental change potentially that your competitors can welcome, right? Anthropic and OpenAI can say they just come over here and work on whatever you want to work on for $500 million, $2 billion. And it's I just when I talk to folks at the bleeding edge of AI, that's just so appealing.

• 6:50Speaker 01

  It's funny because that feels like a one dimensional answer, but there might be two dimensions to this. Because in one sense, yeah, you know, you have that whole, you know, researchers just want to go do what they want. On the other hand, you listen to a lot of people who left Google and it's a little bit of the frustration of not being able to ship. I mean, there's a lot of frustration that they had a chat G P alternative. And then the bureaucracy just kind of smothered the product when, you know, opening I just jammed it out the door. And as a result, took a lead on them. When you have a historic, you know, an existing business, you're kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sometimes people want to just do research. Other times they want to actually get shit done and ship and you're getting in the way of that. My sense is, first of all, these two people in terms of their research pursuits are somewhat different.

• 7:32Speaker 01

  And then, you know, Noam obviously was at Google, did the original attention paper, left, did character, got bought back to Google. In large part to be, you know, it was a very clever acquisition. The brains behind their restarting their, you know, after OpenAI stole a march on them. And I think it was a couple of billion dollars. So a good slug of that was going for him. So assuming for your vesting, he's probably left half or whatever he's offered on the table.

• 7:55Speaker 00

  That's a lot.

• 7:55Speaker 01

  I can imagine there it's a combination of some version of, hey, as you say, more research, more ability to do things. Plus a more certain ability to ship and make shit happen. Because I think even though we all did the last year, we did the yay, Google is amazing. Because unlike the other three, unlike the other hyperscalers, they have their shit together. They have an AI story and the stock has reflected that in the last year. It's one of only two of the mag seven that's up on the last 18 months. But at the same time, when you look at things like having a viable coding model, having really kind of that next level up from just going from just shipping a model to shipping your interesting products. The truth is, Google hasn't done an amazing job and OpenAI and Anthropic have. So if you're in the into product shipping.

• 8:40Speaker 01

  Which I think, no, might well be, then I can see why going to one of those two makes sense. Totally different, you know, on the jumper. I mean, this is someone who's pure research science around undergraduate, postgraduate degree, I think, University of Chicago, all focused on protein folding. Remember, got a Nobel Prize. DeepMind has been the only company he's ever worked at since his, I don't know if the graduation is the right word after you get your postdoc, but whatever, since academia, right? So basically, it's been a whole bunch of academia, a whole bunch of time at DeepMind, pick up a Nobel Prize. You gotta believe you're going to Anthropic because there's some story there about being able to do more research, which is almost kind of high-end science, which again, they've had, Anthropic's announced initiative on that. So kind of somewhat different, but I think what it speaks to stepping back is,

• 9:25Speaker 01

  you know, when you're top of the heap, you can promise everyone, everything to everyone in a way that you're not, and the truth is, top of the heap right now means you're the new model, you're the new companies, you're not unconstrained by history, you're unconstrained by the installed base, like that old, you know, proverbial joke about, you know, hell is the installed base. And you got a stock and a currency that is huge, and no one's giving you shit about stock-based comp. So if you're Anthropic and OpenAI, you know, you can buy whatever you want, including people, and you can let them do whatever they want, including whatever it is they've been promised to do, in a way that you've much less constraints than the incumbents.

• 10:00Harry Stebbings?

  You know me, I would never deal in rumors. I don't do rumors, but the rumor mill that I heard was-

• 10:06Speaker 01

  Harry, you're a rumor slut.

• 10:10Speaker 01

  Come on, bring it on, baby.

• 10:11Harry Stebbings?

  Is that candidly, Anthropic have clearly had a breakthrough that a small number of people know about. And that's why John Jumper went there.

• 10:20Speaker 01

  The reason I'm skeptical of that, Harry, is the lag time between I've had amazing invention and revenue in the kind of core LLM space is a year or two years or three years. The lag time, if you have a medical invention, an idea, and turning it into real meaningful economic value is 10 or 15 years. The amazing thing is, the protein folding advance has collected its Nobel Prize and as yet has not had meaningful commercial success or a drug in production yet. So I doubt it's like, oh my God, we've discovered something new and this is magic. And if you don't join in the next three months, you won't be part of this thing. My guess is, the initiative, whatever initiative Anthropic has around next generation science

• 11:02Speaker 01

  is a multi-year thing, and it's just a question of where do you want to spend the next five years of your life doing research?

• 11:07Speaker 00

  It is a vibe for what it's worth. And listen, I really hate to be one of those like VC dad tells stories about their kids or what happens in their spoiled kid's school, you know, as your thesis for investing. But my son is very good at a certain type of math. I don't understand Jensen Fine String Theory and all this stuff, but as a college student, he's one of those like top 10 in the country. So my point of the story is the labs find him. He doesn't have to apply per se. He got an internship offer without looking for them anthropic. From out of money that when I was in college or grad school would, you know, and the opportunity is incalculable when you graduate even today. And so he instantly turned it down, right? With no job, but he's just, he's just like, I can't do enough research.

• 11:50Speaker 00

  I want to do my type of research for my type of math and my type of AI. And so, you know, everything that we do on this show or the other stuff, he kind of makes fun of me because he's so far ahead of how inference works, how open source work. I mean, really, you should replace me with him. But my point of the personal, the dad VC stories, which I hate is he instantly just said, he's not worried about money. He's not worried about any of this. If they can't create the right learning environment for him, he just won't do the job, right? And so I don't mean to map my family to two of the top researchers in the universe, but I feel the same vibe. Like in today's world, we're on a bull run like we've never seen in our entire lifetimes.

• 12:27Speaker 00

  There's nothing like this where a so-called startup can pay billions of dollars to Aqua Hire You and then you leave with 50% of your billions unvested. We've never been like this and it just creates an environment for the best of the best where you just will only do what you want to do. You just won't do the job that isn't 100% what you want to do. And it's really hard for, if you're not anthropic, how do you retain? Now it's not deep sea, but how do you retain this talent? How do you let people work on what they want to work on when you need the chat bug fix so you can compete with Sierra? I mean, how do you, how do you contain them? And I think it's very hard.

• 13:02Speaker 01

  First of all, you're exactly right. I mean, these are two of the most talented people on the planet. One of them was one part of the attention paper and has made plus or minus a billion dollars. And the other has a Nobel Prize for medicine and he's still relatively young. I mean, these are not top one. They're not top point one, they're top point zero, zero, zero, one percent people. And the funny thing for Google, the so hard thing is they're struggling to keep people like that. While at the same time, they're not getting the tactical shit done and just making the stuff happen to kind of continue to make progress. And the amazing thing about someone like Anthropic is they're able to do both. They're able to create these wonderful research environments for the leave me alone, let me do research people. While at the same time, they're obviously executing tactically brilliantly in terms of product, making stuff happen. That's it's momentum. I mean, that's my aha here.

• 13:47Speaker 01

  It's like everything in life, when you start winning, everything starts going your way. The people start going your way, the brakes start going away, you know, winners win and they compound until something happens to break that chain. Right. And this is just it and magnified.

• 14:00Speaker 00

  Listen, Google overall, I think actually has been on fire. But I think as I continue to learn, and I'm only so smart about the role of open source versus closed source. The most vulnerable is going to be number three for talent, for people, for revenue, for and for your ability to do things that maybe aren't core. If you're number three as the closed source L L M, that's where you're going to hit the most pressure from open source. And it's just sometimes when you're in that, and I'm not saying this is correct, but sometimes when you are in that place, you feel like you don't have the luxury of letting folks do what they want to do because you're under such intense pressure. Maybe maybe Anthropic feels like as competitive it is, it has a luxury that its competitors don't have.

• 14:39Speaker 01

  I think that's true. And just, I want to come back on the Google is executing amazing or is it not comment here. Objectively, as over the last 18 months since 2025, only two of the mag seven have outperformed the S and P. It's Nvidia and Google, which is another way of saying, you know, people like Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft are doing shit. They're not relevant here. Google has done an amazing job of being relevant here. And that's true. Statement one, but statement two, that's equally true is you don't wake up every morning and say, let's try the new Google model. Let's try the new Google harness. Let's try the new Google coding tool. You do try Claude code, you do try cowork, you do try open A I. So the fact is they are relevant and in the frame, but they are definitely number three in terms of innovation,

• 15:21Speaker 01

  which is a whole lot better than being Microsoft are meta and having to say, we don't have something yet, but we spent 70 billion. We might get something next year. Right?

• 15:29Harry Stebbings?

  Jason, just so I understand, why is number three the worst position and like the powerless one in a way that it's not for cloud?

• 15:36Speaker 00

  I think the reason is there are two threads happening at the same time. On the one hand, clearly, the price of tokens, token maxing, the budget issues are real. And so the amount of folks routing models, running multi-model is exploding, right? And so at a small level, the open routers and your own sources, that stuff's all a big deal. And everyone is realizing they just have to get smarter and smarter much more quickly on routing workflows to different models. Okay, that is clearly very true today. And in maybe 90 days on the pod, it wasn't clear how big a deal that was. It is across all, everything except the smallest of startups are routing. So what do you route to? Well, if you have three vendors, and Rory's the professor, especially with his background, number two was often simpler, number three was usually cheaper, right? Some variant of that, right?

• 16:21Speaker 00

  Frankly, GCP, old Google Cloud blew up because it was cheapest. It was cheapest. You know, a generation ago, Google Cloud struggled in the beginning, and then it was just cheapest and simple. And so people would move certain workloads a generation ago to Google Cloud. Now you're trying to do the same thing with your massive, massive AI spend. And the question is, open source is really complicated. Open source in inference and training is not free, unlike Linux. It's not free. There are substantial costs, but it is materially cheaper, which we could talk about. Forget about the fact, in theory, with open router and others, you could route to 10,000 models. In practice, is the number three thing, you're going to figure out, what's the best open source model I can use for my application? Or is it the number three closed source? There's so much going on in open source, right?

• 17:05Speaker 00

  It's fueling these crazy Base10 and fireworks and all the, there's so much innovation in open source that number three just might get swamped by all the subsidies of the Chinese government, everything else subsidizing open source, because open source is a bit of a fake, because China's paying for all the training, okay? It's not open source like a generation ago. And the reason is, is because there's so much innovation and cost savings. So your number three, there just might not be enough energy for the number three closed source model, even if Google has the billions to fund it. They do have all the money it takes to fund it, but developers may lose interest, other than it being a setting in open router and friends. It's a big deal. And literally this morning, you know, I I got an email from Anthropic.

• 17:48Speaker 00

  This is their sort of shot across the bow for open source saying, "Your prompt cash hit rate is low. Your prompt cash hit rate is out of the blue." I don't know if you guys got this email this morning. But what Anthropic is doing here aggressively is fighting back at open sources and trying to get you to cash your prompts, which are very expensive. And they offer such a massive discount on cash prompts if they work for you that it actually can be cheaper than open source. Right? This didn't say, you know, fighting Gemini. This is an email they sent to their, maybe their entire base, saying, "Cash your prompts so that it's cheaper than open source." That's why I think it's just hard. Number three, you can't be cheaper and you can't keep the researchers and the products are less interesting.

• 18:29Speaker 01

  The short answer is I agree. You're right, Jason, is that, look, you don't end up with perfectly competitive tech markets in the economic sense of millions of players. You end up with small numbers in a tight oligopoly where there's a leader, a number two, and then depending on the size of the market and competitive dynamic, maybe there's a three and a four. And the vast majority of the revenue goes to one and two, right? It's just, it's the structure in the cloud market. Where AWS was first, Microsoft second, and Google Cloud third. The interesting about Google being third, right? Well, a couple of things. One is, unlike the typical third, if they were a standalone company and didn't have the Google balance sheet behind them, I think it would be incredibly tough. And I think implicit in that statement is it's almost impossible for a number four, a same business model, closed source,

• 19:13Speaker 01

  number four to emerge and catch up at this point. I mean, Alad Gil had a nice piece on that six, 12 months ago. The market is set. The game is clear. And the only reason we can keep on punching is because they have a whole balance sheet behind them. Because I agree with you, Jason. The other part of it is, if there is a compelling alternative to this entire set of competitors that's, you know, 5X cheaper, which is what open source is, then it's going to grind everyone down. And when an industry gets ground, what tends to happen is the number one guy makes a little less money. The number two guy makes quite a lot less money. And the number three guy goes bust. In this case, obviously not bust because they got Google behind. But you're right, it's a real powerful downward pressure on the profitability across all these. And that is, I think, the big story now, kind of from open source, with lots of caveats.

• 19:58Harry Stebbings?

  Rory, how do you think about sovereignty then? And like sovereign models? And Mr. All of the world, if there's no room for number four?

• 20:04Speaker 01

  First of all, there's two ways to answer that. We'll answer sovereignty first and then the impact of China. On sovereignty, look, Europe is effectively saying, if someone says we need a sovereign model, rephrasing that, what you're saying is, we no longer are part of the market over there in America where our product is third. We are in fact first, instead of being fourth in the worldwide market for closed source, state-of-the-art foundation models, we are first in the European market for state-of-the-art foundation models. So you're effectively saying, I couldn't compete as the fourth player worldwide, but I can compete, profitable for me, but probably less efficient for the system as a whole, as the dominant player in Europe. And look, a million years of economic theory explains why that's a dumb idea from an efficiency

• 20:49Speaker 01

  perspective. By definition, everyone in Europe is getting the less good model at a higher price. But someone's deciding that there are political or national security reasons to pay that tax. And that's a political decision that's beyond the economic analysis, it's just something that government may choose to do or not. But the other part of it, and I'm going to segue to Jason's trip there, is, the other part, I thought the sovereignty question is, the fascinating thing is all the competitive models to the foundation models, all the open source models, bar not quite all, but most of, are Chinese based. And you know, Jason, you're just back from China. In the context of sovereignty and security, it is amazing that the entire open source initiative is running on, you know, four or five models, all of which are built in China.

• 21:34Speaker 01

  So what was your takeaway from there?

• 21:36Speaker 00

  Well, it was, you know, it was interesting. I mean, folks probably already know that, you know, when you go to China, and interesting that even Hong Kong, where Hong Kong has its own sovereignty, it can do whatever it wants. Anthropic and OpenAI don't serve there, intentionally for security. Like, they don't allow you to access Anthropic or OpenAI. You can't access it. You can do it over a VPN, but it's harder. You can hack it on your phone, but it's tough. They intentionally try to block whatever IP address blocking or whatever. It's not China, it's them blocking it, right? But Gemini doesn't. So when I'm in China for two weeks, it's DeepSeek and Gemini. Those are my friends. It's a parallel universe. And DeepSeek is intentionally crippled in China. It's not As good as it is here, it can't search the web and it is trained on different data as near as I can tell.

• 22:20Speaker 00

  But you get it. I don't think I got the sovereignty argument until I was in China, right? This is China basically saying, we do not want to be subservient to the United States. Whether this was the original goal of DeepSeek and others and Alibaba and others, I'm not sure. I'm not a, I don't have my professorial background, but it clearly is where it is today, right? Massive government subsidies, right? DeepSeek's raising this round at 80 billion. The government's the only one getting voting shares. It says all you need to know. And it is an existential sovereignty thing. The Chinese does not want to be reliant on Anthropic and OpenAI to run the next generation economy. It's very smart. And whatever investment the government has quietly made to subsidize all of these providers, it's a drop in the bucket, isn't it, at the sovereign level?

• 23:05Speaker 00

  What, 10 billion, 20 billion, even 50 billion? I mean, this is nothing, what does an aircraft carrier cost? A lot. It's easier just to subsidize an open source model and pretend the training costs are 10 million. What did DeepSeek claim their training model was back when it launched? 15 million to train and OpenAI competitive, like, of course it wasn't true, right?

• 23:25Harry Stebbings?

  The round itself is pretty wild in a couple of different ways in that 7.4 billion dollars at a 50 billion dollar give or take price. The thing that's crazy is the founder is committing 20 billion yuan himself, which is like 40% of the round.

• 23:43Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 23:43Harry Stebbings?

  I mean, it's like 3 billion dollars the founder is committing himself. Wait for it. And there's fewer than 10 investors, including JD.com. I saw this and I was like, what? And then none of them are getting any rights. The only people getting rights is the Chinese state which retains governance control. It's wild.

• 24:04Speaker 00

  I mean, it's a different world, right? These are not companies that, you know, it goes back to the old hallway drama. They're not, they're not independent of the government in any way, shape or form, right? And so you either do it the right way or you end up thrown out of your own company or, you know, having to recycle and give back your 2 billion that Meta took from you. I mean, you got to play by their rules, right? And so this is the rule for DeepSeek to not be taken from you.

• 24:28Speaker 01

  You know, a couple of comments here. First of all, your comment on, oh, only the Chinese government's getting voting rights, I felt like saying, so the only people getting voting rights are the only people who don't need them. Because Chinese government doesn't need voting rights because they have sovereignty, right? They have an army. As we've seen by manners, they can make you discharge back your money after you've got it just by leaning heavily on you. So it's not like, I mean, in one sense, Iran's not surprising at all. And zooming out to levels, two other things on that. One is, yeah, it's a $50 billion, but we have two companies, the leading two American companies, closed source models, which by definition yield more, have more economic upside, are trading plus or minus a trillion. So $50 billion for the open source competitor feels roughly right. You know, 120 to the price. And you know, there is a couple of, I think ZhiPu, which I checked,

• 25:13Speaker 01

  Z.ai is, which is the Americanized version of it, is actually public now in China. It's trading at $100 billion or something like that, 1,000 times revenues. So again, plus or minus, if you think of these as the sovereign alternative and the open source alternative, they're trading at numbers that aren't crazy at all compared to the US. And then the other thing is just to say, we're doing a little bit of the, oh, you know, you have, and you do, you have a lot of state interference in China. And you know, you're seeing it over and over again in your property rights a week. We saw it with Alibaba back in the day with Jack Ma. We're seeing it here and now. But you know, at some point, we'll have to talk about the fact that you're seeing more of that in the US as well. We're seeing Anthropic unable to ship their most recent model until they satisfy the concerns of the US government.

• 25:58Speaker 01

  And I got to give Leo and his 2024 situational awareness credit here. It's like, he called it that about now, national governments are getting involved. And we can argue if that a little bit overwrought. But in both, we can't give China grief for this kind of thing when we're doing the same thing ourselves. Both governments are feeling this technology is pretty existential, pretty impactful, and they're trying to figure out, do you regulate it? Do you take over it? Do you stop it from being used by other people? There's a whole bunch of policy questions going well beyond economics that are being raised here. And China's solving it their way, and we're solving it ours. And Europe is doing theirs.

• 26:36Harry Stebbings?

  Rory, you mentioned ZhiPu. I hope I pronounced it right. ZhiPu AI's GLM 5.2 beats GPT 5.5 on coding benchmarks. How significant is this? This was deemed one of the most consequential open source AI releases.

• 26:52Speaker 01

  I mean, look, to me, all it says is these guys are cranking. And I mean, there's probably six total open source Chinese models, three of them top at or close to US performance, three more just behind it. The half for me is it's to Jason's point, it's a compelling competitive alternative. You know, many US companies are starting to build their own model based on the open source alternative. So it's providing a ceiling on profitability for some of the US closed source vendors. It's really economically significant. And I think the most compelling fact is that there's six of these companies pounding it out there. And there's just a lot of competition on the open source state of the art alternative. I mean, we can talk later about distillation and how much of what they do is a function of, you know, the ability to learn from what the frontier models are doing. But they're

• 27:37Speaker 01

  there, they're relevant, and they're providing a competitive drag what Anthropic and OpenAI can charge.

• 27:44Harry Stebbings?

  Behind all of these, there is actually the infrastructure. And a core part of that infrastructure is seeing increases in price, memory being one of the biggest. Price of memory has gone up four to five X in certain cases. Tim Cook told the Wall Street Journal that Apple faces a hundred year flood in memory costs driven by AI infrastructure demand. DRAM contract prices rose ninety to ninety five percent in Q1 alone. How significant are these cost increases? Who feels them? How will we see this? What should we take from this?

• 28:18Speaker 01

  I think, other than a profound regret on not buying Sandisk and Micro on technology a year ago and making your twenty X. I mean, look, I think it's funny. I was thinking about this and going back to the kind of discussion on the researchers at the start. Very different topics, but actually, they're all about the same thing. The investment in AI is commanding resources, right? And then via the price mechanism, everyone else is getting impacted by that. And the impact of this, it's going to manifest itself, as you say, I mean, I can take four of DRAM pricing, right? It's going to manifest itself in the price of your iPhone. It's going to manifest itself in the price of your electricity. It's going to manifest itself in the price of your house in San Francisco. And it's going to manifest itself in terms of twenty percent of you losing your jobs if you're one of the companies that wants to kind of go all.

• 29:02Speaker 01

  All in on capex for AI like Oracle, right? So what you're seeing is the positive side. And again, this is not a, oh, AI is bad as much as economics just sends its signal. It doesn't have morality. It just says, oh, you want to devote more resources and more DRAM to a data center in Tennessee or Mississippi. That means you're going to have to have less DRAM for Rory's iPhone. And the only way to make that happen is to raise the price of the iPhone, right? And that's just what's going to happen. I mean, this is price filter. And the amazing thing about the AI capex explosion is it's so huge that it's literally impacting everything. And this is just one of the examples. It's just sucking in the money. It's sucking in the resources.

• 29:43Speaker 01

  And specifically what it's going to mean is Apple has clearly decided wisely not to swallow the loss and lower their margins. They're just going to raise prices and they'll sell a few less iPhones because of price. You know, there's some price elasticity and everyone will just have to pay more for their iPhone.

• 29:58Harry Stebbings?

  Goldman Sachs projected there'd be 7.6 trillion in cumulative AI capex from 2026 to 2031. But it was fascinating and it just brought up now the $725 billion question. I remember David Kahn from Sequoia, the 50 billion, I think.

• 30:16Speaker 01

  Oh, it's 600 billion. I remember it well. It was a good piece.

• 30:19Harry Stebbings?

  Are we going to have a trillion dollar question next year that we're going to be discussing?

• 30:23Speaker 01

  What Goldman Sachs is saying is the hyperscalers are now spending $700 billion in capex a year, which times five or six years is three, five trillion dollars, some astronomical sum. And you only do that if you expect revenue to be greater than expenses, because that's how American capitalism is meant to work. So that implies that at some point, someone has to spend $700 billion in revenue for you to make a buck. And right now, we're nowhere near that. We're probably well under $100 billion. So AI as a whole is getting 100 billion in revenue and spending 700 billion a year. That's not a great business. What you're basically saying is how does that, how does that end?

• 30:58Harry Stebbings?

  And with the increase in capex, there's not, does that not just increase the revenue requirement that's come from it?

• 31:03Speaker 01

  Yeah, absolutely. People are going the other way. And that's the funny thing to say. I really thought that David Kahn piece a year ago was really good and it made me think and I was wrestling with the same things. And then you step back. And you say since then, all that's happened is people have doubled their conviction and doubled their willingness to spend. At that point, it was, oh, my God, CapEx is like 60% of free cash flow for the MAG7. Now it's 120% of free cash flow for the MAG7 and they're borrowing to fund it. So even though a year ago, and this is the classic thing about bull markets, is that you can be intellectually right, but the narrative can keep going a long time. It's very hard to know when it ends.

• 31:39Speaker 00

  I just think in my lifetime in tech, being aware of things, I can't think of another time where this level of demand was infinite. And so how we deal with it, how we deploy capital. But if you're sitting on the other side of infinite demand, you can choose not to embrace it, right? That's like shorting everything, but where does it get you, right? I mean, the demand for AI is an order of magnitude more than it is today. If it could be served cost effectively, right? We would all be consuming tokens 24/7 if we could. So the demand is so much higher than is delivered today. And do you do you play the game or are you a Debbie Downer, right? I don't know what the right answer is, but certainly in venture, you don't make money not deploying your fund.

• 32:18Speaker 00

  Like it's hard to, I mean, fees are nice and all, but like you got to deploy into demand cycles and just hope to God you get liquidity before it crashes down on you.

• 32:27Speaker 01

  Diving one level deeper, because you're right, Jason, you can't just say, oh, I think, you know, this is irrational and go home. First of all, that would clearly have been the wrong decision for the last two years. B, it's not the business we're all in, we're in business investing the future. But you do have to think about, and the comment you said was interesting, which is you've never seen this level of infinite demand. And then you caveat it in a very important way because you said price adjusted. And I think that's the difference between this and, you know, kind of prior generations of software technology. Because it was something like Salesforce, if you're buying a SaaS product, there was really only two states. If you didn't need it, you didn't buy it. And if you needed it and you were a big enough organization, you paid the hundred grand and you said it's just the cost of doing business.

• 33:08Speaker 01

  What's interesting now about tokens and intelligence is there's an infinite demand for intelligence if it's free. But it's not free. And now everyone's just wrestling with some version of, so how do we allocate that, given that it's not free? Like no one said, I'm gonna buy a hundred seats of Salesforce if it's a thousand dollars a year a seat. But if it was, you know, only five hundred dollars a seat, I'd buy two thousand seats, right? I didn't buy more. I bought seats for my people if I needed them, and then I didn't. Whereas intelligence is this thing, as you say, where the real question is not, do you want it? The real question is, how do you have? You now have to have this new skill that didn't have to exist in kind of prior world. If you're a CIO, how do you decide how much to spend and where the cutoff is?

• 33:51Speaker 01

  I've always felt that the slowdown here doesn't come from some kind of technical barrier around all the models. You know, because the people who articulate the models can do everything are correct. The models are gonna keep on doing everything. They're gonna get better, blah, blah, blah. The real question is price. Price is gonna be the arbiter of how much you can do. And I, I, I think you're right on that. To make it in practical terms, even the last month and a half, there was this suddenly this your recognition that maybe token maxing wasn't a good idea. And now you're seeing people try to be more efficient. The question is, do you think that shows up in actual slower revenue growth for Anthropic and OpenAI? Because that's the rubber hits the road question. If they're sending you an email, Jason, trying to effectively cut your bill by saying, if you're more efficient, you won't be spending as much with us. Do you think that reduces the growth from 10x to 5x?

• 34:36Speaker 01

  How does all that shape out in terms of revenue growth?

• 34:39Speaker 00

  You know, it's interesting. I got that email. You guys got that email. But also, I'm on the, I'm on the max plan where for $200, I get $10,000 of inference a month if I can use it properly, right? So, so for me, they may have more of an incentive to send me that email than someone on an enterprise plan where for $10,000, I spend $10,000 a month. Anthropic and OpenAI are running an A/B test where they have a free segment of their base, which, which they are subsidizing, right? For sure. It's just bigger than OpenAI. They have an enterprise base, which is, has, you know, between 40 and 70% in gross margin just on inference. And then there's this prosumer one, the max, the max guys, right? That some of us, they're making a profit on, but some of them is massively subsidized.

• 35:19Speaker 00

  The kid vibe coding $10,000 of tokens a month, paying a hundred dollars, $200 for a max plan is massively subsidized. And that, that's not a joke, right? That's the whole open claw drama. It's a real issue. And so we have, we have this weird spectrum of free, massively subsidized. And actually, if you just look at inference and not training, fairly, fairly profitable enterprise customers, right? Fairly profitable. Well, I don't know what the term they use is, right? It's not, it's an unblended gross margin, but the inference margins are attractive. And that's what open source is attacking, that enterprise customer, the lucrative customer.

• 35:51Speaker 01

  Yes, because it's it's lucrative profitable for the vendor, right? And the question is, is it profitable for the customer? In other words, have people said, assuming you're not on some kind of cap plan, and I think those are increasingly harder to get for the enterprise. Assuming you're on the API, can you really afford to give everyone free untapped intelligence all the time? And does the math of that work? And as I say, the question is, what's happening? I mean, I'd love to know what's happening in real time now on usage and revenue across those companies, because that's that's the be all and end all question.

• 36:22Speaker 00

  Token maxing isn't really the story, I think, to what Roy said. I think the big story of 2027 in AI and the enterprise and all the margins in the enterprise, right, is show me the ROI next year. Right now, it's token maxing, because 2025 into early 2026 is, guys, just go do it. I don't want to be behind, right? We can make fun of token maxing, but it was the best way to get teams AI fluent. Just go build it, guys. Here's here's 100 million, 50 million, 10, 5 million, whatever, guys, just go build it. We've even seen in our portfolio companies. Then the reaction was, guys, it's actually not a joke. You spent too much, right? You blew through the the IT budget is bounded, it turns out, right? Then you're already starting to see it, but I think going into 2027, CIOs and others are going to be, OK, just show me the F and ROI.

• 37:04Speaker 00

  We're not just going to ration tokens based on who we like the most in the company and and who makes the best PowerPoint pitch. Show me the ROI. And if you have if you have ROI, if you were able to lay off 20% of your department or you have the highest growing division in our company, we will give you more tokens. And this group that can't ship or can't get anything done or is in decline, we're just not going to give you the tokens. And so for the first time, ROI is really going to have to connect to a lot of this spend.

• 37:32Speaker 01

  I think you're exactly right, Jason. If you're running a big company, you said, OK, I wrote off the first half of 2026. We spent way more than we thought, but at least my people now know how this shit works. Write it off as a one time thing. You're exact and the question now is ROI. And then bringing it back to Yeah, the 750 billion dollar question, the Goldman CapEx question. I mean, I did this math a while back on the fly on the podcast, I'm kind of revisiting again. Let's round up to a trillion because if you're spending 750 on CapEx, you got to pay for electricity too. So you need a trillion dollars of revenue. And if companies are going to give you a trillion dollars, they got to be getting more value than that from that spend. So trillion and a half, plus or minus, you know, right? The total spend on labor in the US across

• 38:15Speaker 01

  everything is GDP is 30 trillion, you know, it's sub 20 trillion. So you're really talking about seven, eight percent of the labor force being replaced by tokens for the math to work. I mean, when you look at that, you go, it's a dauntingly high bar, right? There's a little part of me that says, I think this is amazing, but I don't know if that last dollar in CapEx is going to earn a return. And if it does, it's going to be because there's a huge amount of labor force disruption and product, and let's call labor force disruption is the negative spin, the positive spin is of course productivity improvements. If the trillion dollars is going to earn a buck, you're going to have to have huge productivity improvements from AI and huge productivity improvements, you know, result in labor displacement

• 38:58Speaker 01

  and eventually new jobs for that labor that's displaced. But if one's going to happen, the other's got to happen.

• 39:04Speaker 00

  The problem with productivity calculations is there's also a parity tax, right? You know, if you're the only one using a tool, you can achieve certain types of productivity, even if it works, even a lot of software productivity was BS, but let's assume it even works. But then all my competitors deploy Salesforce and Anthropic and all of a sudden it doesn't show up because we have parity. So you can't go back, but we may reach a situation in 2027 where we just cannot prove any of these productivity gains. And so going to your math, everyone may just need to lay off 10% of their company in addition to all other layoffs, right? Maybe the Oracle layoffs and others are just early views of where it's going and Robin Hood. And everyone's just going to have to say, listen, we have to fund this. We have no choice, right? We can talk about ROI and productivity, but

• 39:44Speaker 00

  if we don't do it, we're going to lose to our competition. So our team has to be 15% leaner next year, guys. It's just this simple. It has to be 15% leaner.

• 39:53Speaker 01

  And now I'm going to do the professor thing just for that is productive. You're right. You can have an improvement in productivity and a massive improvement in productivity in industry by virtue of the advent of an enabling technology like AI and no improvement in profitability for that industry if everyone adopts the technology. If every bank adopted ATMs at roughly the same time, everyone could, in theory, save on tellers. In fact, they used, ended up taking more tellers because the business expanded, but we'll skip that for a second. But the problem didn't change. And the same could happen here. Everyone adopts AI and everyone's cost function reduces by the same amount, but the people who don't adopt that are dead. That's your point, right? Yeah, which is why you have to lean in. And I think that's probably likely in a bunch of these industries. If consulting or any of these companies, any of these white collar

• 40:37Speaker 01

  jobs are 20% more efficient with AI, then everyone should adopt it and then everyone will be then the cost of those white collar jobs like audit should reduce by 20%. All other things been equal.

• 40:46Harry Stebbings?

  My question is like, do we see the same acceleration in model progression capability that we saw in coding in legal, in accounting? Because if we do, where Andre Kepathy says, I moved from 20% to 80% in a six months period. If you're able to see that same advancement in legal, whoa.

• 41:04Speaker 00

  Listen, obviously coding is uniquely well suited, but we just built an AI VP of Finance while we were in China and it's already better than any of the humans on our team. It does. It creates the quote, it builds the contract, it ships the contract, it gets it signed, it updates the opportunity in Salesforce, it logs into bill.com where Aurora's an investor, it sends the invoice, it follows up on the invoice, it gets it paid, it interacts with Brex and it closes out the entire transaction. Then it logs into QuickBooks and makes sure for the first time in 10 years, our books are accurate. They've never been accurate before and the revenue is properly characterized. The agent does all that. This is what the models today, which are not tuned for this workflow. It's so good. We had a human that for Saster AI Annual this year Aurora was at, forgot to invoice

• 41:46Speaker 00

  $80,000 of revenue we had to write off. Now, listen, I can afford it, but it was so frustrating that this person just didn't do it. It had no, didn't even explain any reason why, just didn't do it. So Amelia's like, I'm gonna fucking build an agent to do this in China, when we're there for Saster and then boom, like it's just better than the humans.

• 42:04Speaker 01

  Did you have a full human being doing all? Did you contract labor as a result of this? Or was that person doing different stuff?

• 42:10Speaker 00

  No, I mean, we use contractors and for us, it's more that we will use less hours of the contractor on accident. But this is an issue too, right? Variable cost, human labor, which does exist, right? You may even use less of it incidentally due to agents and intentionally. This is not replacing for humans on the team. This is for us, this is the agentic story. We replace things that humans are unwilling to do on our team. They're unwilling to follow up. They're unwilling to get the update the sales sort of job. They're unwilling to send a proper invoice. They're unwilling to do these. And rather than fight the fact that as humans, we really only want to do like five or 10% of our jobs, including investing. I only want to do five or 10% of that job too. We just have the agents do the other parts, right? And if it's a variable price,

• 42:52Speaker 00

  you could see what you pay to these humans fall by 50 to 60% without even intentionally trying to save money.

• 42:58Harry Stebbings?

  Brandon from Record posted nine hours ago, which I sent it to the whole team here. Training agents will be the largest job category in five years' time.

• 43:06Speaker 00

  Largest job category?

• 43:08Harry Stebbings?

  Training agents will be the largest job category in five years.

• 43:11Speaker 00

  Well, look, I'm sure he's right. He's much smarter than me. But didn't we say this about prompt engineers when this show started?

• 43:15Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 43:16Speaker 00

  How many prompt engineers have you hired on the 20 VC team? I think the point I would sort of agree with, but the fact that we were able to build a director, we're going to call him a VP, a director of finance remotely in China that is better than any human on the team in a single digit number of hours is kind of this point, right? And then Rory asked, why isn't everybody doing it? And my response is they can, they just don't have the mindset to do it today. They just don't have enough of, they just haven't spent a year vibe coding. So they don't know what's possible and they haven't scaled a certain amount of of human learning to have the comfort. You know, it's like doing your first venture investment. It's a little scary, right? You know, but when you've been doing it for a while, the next one doesn't seem so complicated, even if you know how to put the pieces together. So it's kind of like that. So I do think it's true.

• 43:58Speaker 00

  I think this is the number one skill is being a master of agents. But but I think what that means is going to get redefined each year. Again, when we started the show, people were still hiring prompt engineers because prompts were complicated to craft. When we started the show, whatever, 60 weeks ago, if you didn't craft the right prompt. The software that came out was unusable. Today, I can vibe code something, I can say, "Build me an AI VP of Finance, connect it to Bill, QuickBooks, Salesforce and our other app, reuse what we have and just automate all of our billing process." That can be my prompt. I think most people can write that prompt, can't they? So you don't need a prompt engineer, but you do need a master of agents to understand what you're going to get out of that, where the limitations are, where it's going to break,

• 44:41Speaker 00

  what it's not going to see, where it's going to get lazy. Our AI VP of Finance last night admitted it didn't fully read a contract. We asked it why, it's like, "I don't have a good answer for you." Wow. Okay, so being a master of agent is not throwing your monitor out the window when you hear that, or calling IT. It's like, okay, I get what happened, okay? This is running on Sonnet. Sonnet rapidly goal seeks. It tries not to finish complicated behaviors. I need to work with the agent to change how we do it and make clear, all contracts must be read from beginning to end. And then I have to be comfortable with, it will still not do it sometimes, right? So I know I'm rambling, but in a year, maybe we won't, like, the models and the harnesses will get so good, you won't have to do that anymore, right? So what that means is gonna change.

• 45:26Speaker 00

  Even this whole idea of folks talking about loops and agents looping is like an early view of where everything's going to go. Because if your agent is constantly looping and improving itself in the background, which is already happening, it just fundamentally changes the way we build agents. They're not static, they're looping. They're constantly improving themselves in the background. And again, when we started this show, you need to be a fucking prompter. They would joke this was the highest paying job out of college was prompt engineers were making $150,000 out of college because they knew how to write a prompt. That skill's worthless today. So I think Brandon is right, for sure. It'll be really interesting what skills it takes to be an agentic expert in three or four years. It's just the rate of change here. It's just so crazy that with a very mediocre prompt, we could build an AI VP Director of Finance from China.

• 46:10Harry Stebbings?

  So we have a lot of early-stage founders that listen. I saw this brilliant tweet that I did actually want to discuss with you guys. And it was from Nicholas Desain at Y Combinator, formerly founder of Algolia as well. And he said, "A most common reason I see good companies fail to raise their Series A, B right now isn't growth, it's margin. I keep meeting founders doing real revenue and growing fast, but once you remove delivery costs, there's almost nothing left. Investors don't fund revenue, they fund the margin on it. If that's you, fix the unit economics first. Fast growth on revenue you don't keep is a trap." That was the tweet.

• 46:46Speaker 01

  I like Nicholas. We've looked at Algolia back then. I think he's awesome. I disagree with him on this. Look, I'll go further than that. The objective reality is that's not what was happening. In other words, companies with tough gross margin profiles and hypergrowth have been getting funded and frankly have been able to improve their gross margins and pull it off. That describes the foundation models, it describes the inference providers, and it describes the coding agents. So historically, what he's saying is not correct. Now, he may be picking on something in real time, which is that ability to build a company with a tough gross margin profile and then fix it over time probably makes the most sense in that kind of big bang stage of AI,

• 47:28Speaker 01

  which I think was the last three years, where you went from nothing to something and you had 10x growth. And it just paid you to grab the ground, like it paid Cursor to grab the ground. It may be that investors now are saying, hmm, as a first-generation coding environment, you can be Cursor, you can have negative gross margins, you can still be worth 60 billion because you just grabbed the space. It may be that next generation they're seeing, because they see a lot, obviously, given the volume it was. They're seeing a little more focus on gross margins now, which is plausible. But there's no doubt that to date, the bet that my gross margins are shit, but my growth will cover it, and I will figure it out, even though it sounds stupid when you say it, has in fact been 100% true.

• 48:09Speaker 00

  I think he was synthesizing all the learnings across the Y Combinator portfolio and this change, right? Is it okay for startups to have negative gross margins or no clear path? To positive margins because they'll figure it out. That's Rory's point. And I think you could argue both sides to Rory's point, but maybe that age is ending partially. Maybe it should should end, right? You know, we're sitting here and Menlo just raised a $3 billion fund after 50 years on the back of a crazy bet on Anthropic that went very well, right? When the margins were crazy. But maybe that era doesn't last forever. And I'm sure all three of us are sitting on a portfolio company investment we made in the last 12 to 15 months, where inference was the marketing strategy and the gross margins were negative.

• 48:51Speaker 00

  And we're sitting here today and we're like, company's doing okay, but I'm not sure we're going to get right side up on that investment. We're all sitting with a couple of investments like that. And then we see a few others that are wildly efficient. Like they took advantage of AI in other ways that's wildly efficient. And we're wondering, in that two by two, do we really want to be in the in the bottom? Is it the bottom left, highly inefficient and not better growth, not top 0.1% of growth? I don't think we want to be in that that two by two, do we?

• 49:20Speaker 01

  Everyone will have some deals where you go, we thought we'd earn our way out of the gross margin problem. And for whatever reason, we couldn't, either because we didn't grow quickly enough to get to scale, or because the foundation model company started grinding us, our competition bundled in. And now you're just in a shitty gross margin profile business, which will go bankrupt. Because when things slow down, no one says, hey, let's do an acquisition of an adjacent gross margin negative thing. It's gonna be fun.

• 49:46Speaker 00

  Yeah, that's all these startups will just fail.

• 49:49Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 49:49Speaker 00

  Right? If they don't achieve massive growth, they will all fail. Good simplification, right? And so for an investor, that outcome is not that fun.

• 49:56Harry Stebbings?

  Jason, you mentioned Menlo, obviously one of the biggest winners from Anthropic, raised $3 billion. I'm sure we've all got friends at Menlo, awesome, good people, happy for them. They're also in Legora, they're in Lovable, they've been some of the best AI ambassadors of this wave, I think categorically. The interesting thing, honestly, for me, and you're going to kill me for this guy's child or the boom, whatever, whatever. Why is it not more? They legitimately are one of the best, they'll deliver billions and billions of dollars back. In the wake of Thrive and GC and Lightspeed, this $3 billion is pretty conservative.

• 50:31Speaker 00

  Any thoughts? I thought that I actually don't have an answer. The only answer I could come up with, right? Look, not only is Menlo wildly successful, but they're omnivorous. They'll invest at every stage. They will take lead positions, but they will also do smaller checks in small positions. Right? And so they'll, you know, if they lose the round, they'll do 2% into the round or maybe they'll invest more later. Maybe they won't like if it's a great one, they'll just do it. Right? Kind of like how Felisa's got going, but it's any size like 20%, 1%. So at first my answer is that it's all they could raise. Poor guys could only raise $3 billion. Okay, this was my first read. Rory shaking his head, the professor. And listen, I don't know. I just, I shouldn't have gone first with the answer, but I think my secondary read is look, they'll just raise another 27 million in other vehicles like they did for Anthropic.

• 51:15Speaker 00

  Like this is just one or two funds and they'll raise another 10 or 20 billion in SPVs or sidecars or other funds. The headline number of the fund size is not always correlated to the amount they'll end up deploying over the lifecycle of those investments. Right?

• 51:28Speaker 01

  I think they were smart. Yeah. To raise that amount because yeah, they all, given their amazing performance, they'll always have access to more. And by not, you know, starting the clock on a much larger growth fund, you know, with the fees and the drag that that entails, you just set up for success. I mean, remember all other things being equal, provided you've got a big enough check size to play in any round. As a GP, you actually quote unquote have a higher risk adjusted return if you have smaller funds, because then you have less cross deal aggregation. Two separate $1 billion funds versus a single $2 billion funds. All other things being equal, you have more probability of winning on at least one of the two funds than on the single $2 billion fund. So that's not the reason, by the way, they did it, but just to point that out. The zoom out question is this, $3 billion is a lot of money.

• 52:13Speaker 01

  Like how many deals are there going to be like Anthropic or OpenAI or Android where you can put one or $2 billion to work? And the question is, do you create your main vehicle for that? Or do you accept that there are anomalies and you know, you have access to that capital via SPV? So you run your business on what you think you can deploy across normal cycles or normal deals, including wildly successful, you know, $10 billion, $20 billion. And then you accept that, you know, two or three times a decade, there's going to be a trillion dollar outcome and you want to have access to that capital. But you can get that via an SPV. I think it's a reasonably rational structure. I mean, your fund size dictates your strategy. Once you raise $10 billion in a fund, there's relatively few places you can put it.

• 52:57Speaker 01

  You are signing up to put, you know, one of the statistics in Q1, like 70% of the venture dollars went to four or five deals. You're really signing up to put a whole bunch of money in those deals and that's the only place you can put it.

• 53:09Harry Stebbings?

  I kind of like it in the way that you're like, hey, we're conservatively sized and we can just take advantage of deal by deal carry on SPVs if anything does pop. And we'll have great fund returns if not. Yes.

• 53:19Speaker 00

  As long as you can spin up the SPVs on demand, it's a great, it's the better model.

• 53:23Harry Stebbings?

  Oh dude, they'll be able to spin them up like never before.

• 53:25Speaker 00

  No, I know. Listen, as long as you can, like when I started investing, I had two hedge funds at LPs and they said, listen, we'll each give you a blank check SPV in your winners. And I'm like, okay, that sounds like a great LP. I took it. I called them up for a winner. Both of them said, well, we need to meet the founders. We need to do some diligence. I'm like, this is the worst deal I ever got. You need, for the SPV work, it needs to be one WhatsApp message and I get the 200 million to invest. Then I'm all, then it's the best model of venture there is, right? I just need 100 million. I know you haven't heard it. It's a good one. Did you read my last investor update? I need it by five.

• 53:58Speaker 01

  I think the impressive fact that I haven't internalized about that announcement, because obviously I've known folks at Menlo since the mid 90s, is that they're 50 years old as a firm.

• 54:09Harry Stebbings?

  Which makes them 30 years younger than you.

• 54:11Speaker 00

  Is Menlo still with the firm? Is he, is Mr. Menlo still with the firm? Do we know?

• 54:15Speaker 01

  Not with the firm.

• 54:16Speaker 00

  Does he still come into the office a couple of times a week? Does he have an office in the back or is it in the front of the office?

• 54:20Speaker 01

  Stop, stop guys. Keep it sane here. My point is that they're pursuing a strategy that I think is designed to survive and be successful across the cycles rather than, you know, my worry would be if you were reaching and doing a $10 billion fund, you've got to be really sure you can put that somewhere. And without changing your strategy dramatically, it's not impossible. I think founders have done it very successfully. But again, to repeat, the number of companies that can ingest billion and $2 billion checks is pretty limited even on a decade by decade basis. So I give them huge credit. I think they've done an amazing job with Entropic and they've done an amazing job lasting 50 years.

• 54:57Harry Stebbings?

  But speaking of people crushing it, Kalshi passes $2 billion run rate, starts prep for IPO rumored to be. How did we think about this news?

• 55:07Speaker 01

  Americans like to gamble and we weren't allowed to gamble for years and years and years and years. And then the Supreme Court said, screw that. So Americans started to gamble, but the states regulated it. And that's why FanDuel's and DraftKings did well, but there was always regulations. And Kalshi found a way to pretend that it's a prediction market, found a way to get US jurisdiction from the CFTC. And have convinced everyone that it's predictions, which is different than betting. 90% of what they do is sports betting. They're on a roll. They found a regulatory arbitrage to a wildly popular pursuit, says the person who's betting as we speak on the World Cup. Right? So it's 80 to 90% sports betting. Sports betting is really popular in America.

• 55:49Speaker 01

  It was illegal because of the puritans for the longest time and these guys are riding a wave. End of complex analysis.

• 55:54Speaker 00

  I do think if Meta really can copy it, right, for real, like if they're comfortable going as far as Kalshi has gone in poly market, I do think there's a chance they'll clean up. It would be so convenient to go into Facebook, right, in my feed or whatever, and just instantly bet on anything my friends are betting on. Like the social aspect for Facebook could be so powerful. I just don't know if they'll if they'll cut the same corners or not. I'm ignorant, but I actually think this is one where Meta could win big. Because like I'm a little bit slow to Kalshi, but if I logged into Facebook and I saw that Harry was doing something for five bucks or 10 bucks, I might just do it with him on Facebook, right? Grandma and grandpa might, like, there's a whole, Kalshi's scary. What does it mean? Is it safe? Right? Like Facebook's still doing pretty good, right? I think it's a great place to bet.

• 56:36Speaker 01

  Having back just again to remind folks, Harry started by asking the question, why is Kalshi doing well? And Jason, when you jumped in, you covered something that we hadn't explicitly said, but just to say it. Kalshi's doing amazing and it's talking about going public, it's doing 2 billion in revenues. Facebook, as I met, I just said, they might offer a competing product, which right now doesn't exist. But you're speculating on, will that take the business from Kalshi? If that's Kalshi's only problem, I think they'll be just fine.

• 57:04Speaker 00

  Yeah, no, no, I'm not saying it'll hurt. I'm just saying I could imagine it being wild, instantly wildly successful. If they're comfortable legalizing betting on their own platform and making it as elegant and as fun and as social as these platforms are, I might do that rather than mess around with these llamas.

• 57:21Speaker 01

  I don't know. I think the demographic for sports betting is young and male. And I don't think that's the Facebook demographic anymore within a million years. Right. To be honest, I think it's actually smart of Facebook to think about it because yeah, I think that the core Facebook demographic is aging fast. And this is where, as I say, especially young males are playing. I don't know if it it'll turn out to be good business for them. But I I don't think they launch it on Meta and they get a whole bunch of traction. I mean, my son's an avid better. I worry about that sometimes. And let me tell you, he ain't, I don't know, he's been on Facebook for five years.

• 57:54Harry Stebbings?

  Kalshi, what price does it go out at when it does go out?

• 57:58Speaker 01

  Who the hell knows? I mean, you know, they're talking about 10 times.

• 58:01Harry Stebbings?

  Well, it's a prediction marketplace, Rory, so let's predict.

• 58:04Speaker 01

  That's actually a very fair response, Harry. You win on that. And that would be good because it would be one of the 10% bets that isn't about sports betting. Look, the growth is so amazing that, you know, if they're talking about 10 times. If it's at 2 billion today, by the time it could go public, it could be, that could only be seven or eight times. So it could be a really big win. I looked at it before I came on, but I can't remember. FanDuel's and DraftKings. So one obvious question is, why do they get revenue from FanDuel's or DraftKings, which are 100% betting? Those guys have some kind of geographic issues. They have to have state by state licensing. Kalshi, because it's regulated as a prediction market, has been able to avoid all that. So they might have an edge on that. Obviously, it's not quite the same thing because, just to be clear,

• 58:48Speaker 01

  the structure of the business is not quite the same thing. As FanDuel's and DraftKings are a classic betting house. In the case of Kalshi, they're just a clearinghouse and they match buyers and sellers. So it's not quite the same thing. But to a rounding error, the experience is much of a muchness. So right now, it feels like a really good play.

• 59:06Harry Stebbings?

  So is there a chance that in a non-Trump administration, the party stops?

• 59:10Speaker 01

  Yes, is a quick answer. You are vulnerable to regulation. There are currently some states suing Kalshi, saying you really are doing betting, so we should regulate you. Right now, the administration's perspective has been to swat that down because they want uniform federal jurisdiction. And it was the reminder, it was the Supreme Court that basically legalized your sports betting. So yes, there is regulatory risk consistently in these businesses, but that's just part of the bet.

• 59:37Harry Stebbings?

  Next question is, in two years' time, will prediction marketplaces be an ongoing activity within Meta? Like, will it be a part of that product that you can do in two years' time?

• 59:47Speaker 00

  I just think that Facebook is one of these things that we underestimate, the scale and the reach of it. It's pretty powerful and it keeps growing. It's the one we underestimate. And I think once it, once it sort of natively overlapped and became part of Instagram, it got much better. And I just, I just think it's super powerful.

• 1:00:03Harry Stebbings?

  Are there any that we've missed that you want to touch on before I do a rage bait but real?

• 1:00:08Speaker 01

  Well, we didn't do it. I don't know. Is Accenture worth the effort?

• 1:00:12Harry Stebbings?

  We can discuss it. I don't understand it personally.

• 1:00:15Speaker 00

  I just think, I don't know, understand all of it. I just think it's interesting that, you know, 30 days ago, it was an AI beneficiary. Now it's not, right?

• 1:00:23Harry Stebbings?

  The context is Accenture plummets 19%. That's on already being down, I think about 20%, so it's down about 40% for the year. And to Jason's exact point there, I thought these were meant to be services that benefited from AI. Why is it down 40% year on year?

• 1:00:40Speaker 01

  Yeah, and I think I can chime in on that because I think two separate things are happening at the same time for Accenture, right? One is the business of helping companies adopt Gen AI is probably exploding. Because all the companies need help. So if, you know, that was a zero part of their business a year ago, two years ago, three years ago. It's probably exploding and now you realize every company in America needs some help on Gen AI. Separate comment, the core business they're in, that, you know, 99%, 90% of their revenue is, is other consulting. And there are few markets more prime for disruption by AI than consulting in general. Because it's white collar work. It's already been outsourced. That's why Accenture has it.

• 1:01:22Speaker 01

  And we're seeing a whole series of companies kind of, the mental model for us is AI for SI, right? So the whole systems integrator market is prone to disruption. And so if you look at some of the business, the core business that Accenture used to do, you know, SI consulting for an SAP deployment, there are companies like Tassera and Conduct that are doing that. AI systems integration for Salesforce integration, there are companies like Swantide and others doing that. In all these markets, Accenture was probably billing, you know, maybe 20, $40 million for an SAP implementation. And today they might only get 20 million. For that because 20 million of that can be done via using L L Ms. So I think what happened is their core business came under pressure.

• 1:02:05Speaker 01

  So even though the new business of, you know, kind of helping other companies adopt A I. Is exploding and do nicely ironically. The core business defending yourself against A I is in a pretty tough place. It's not the end of the world, but it totally makes sense, right? Because I actually think one of the investment themes we'd love to find an interesting bed on and have talked to some. Is around this A I for S I space. Because all those consulting dollars, they're massively vulnerable to, you know, compression from A I. Because if you look at the kind of tasks they're doing, it's gathering requirements. It's building statements of operating procedure. And then it's writing, you know, fairly simplistic code to say, how am I going to deploy Salesforce? How am I going to deploy S A P? Those are precisely the kind of roles that A I will replace.

• 1:02:49Speaker 00

  Yeah, when I was at a V P at Adobe, there was an entire floor of Accenture for five years deploying Salesforce. An entire floor of people. And I don't know what they made off that deal, but it was 26 million a year for Salesforce. So I'm guessing they charged at least 26 million dollars a year for five years to get Salesforce up and running, right? That business has to be partially disrupted. And and also seat compression hurts them. You know, the one thing I would add to the list we get, I didn't know Devon was on such a role. We talked about it right before we started. Devon up 30% this year, one of the big winners, you know, we talked about it. The I P O crashed, it's up three X from the bottom. And when I kind of did the other day, I was just trying to do my own a little amount to oversimplify the public markets. Everyone selling seats for the most part is getting crushed.

• 1:03:32Speaker 00

  Everyone selling variably one way or the other is winning, not all of them, but pretty damn close. Variable might be because it's directly attached to A I spend, right? But it might just be because it's attached to the economy that's doing well, right? And so a lot of the Salesforce Accenture thing is tied to seats, man. So that's going to get crushed by definition, right?

• 1:03:52Speaker 01

  I think you're right, Jason. The seat element is part of it. The long term trend isn't great, but I think the short term crushing is less because the number of Salesforce seats. At Adobe went from a thousand to 900. That sucks, but to your point, the real point is you had a literally a floor. Consultants sitting there getting twenty million dollars a year for three years. And when you look objectively at the work they're doing, it's probably the, some of the easiest work for L L Ms to do.

• 1:04:17Speaker 00

  Yeah, it was migrating from Siebel and your own databases to Salesforce. It took five years to lift data. And now Databricks, which is on fire, we won't hit it this week. Databricks claims they can do that lift in thirty days for their customers. An entire lift to Databricks for anybody using L. It is actually under discussed story that Databricks promised. What are they growing eighty percent at six billion or something like that? Like accelerating. I didn't really get this until one of the founders came to Saster and then I researched it. But they tell you in thirty days, we will do an L L M lift of all of your day, all of your data, whatever how much it is. I'm sure there's exceptions and answers in that. But compare that to a five year lift with Accenture to go to Salesforce. And we just did one like, we've been trying to get off Marketo for five years. It's our worst software.

• 1:05:01Speaker 00

  And then, believe it or not, Salesforce used their L L M thing and moved us to their product in a couple of weeks. They just lifted it with no humans. Big deal, this lift, like it's under discussed and it's a moat destroyer.

• 1:05:11Speaker 01

  It is a moat destroyer.

• 1:05:13Speaker 00

  It's a moat destroyer when L L Ms will lift you from one vendor to the other. And I literally was doing a pitch this week and the founder was going on and on about their moats. And I, I immediately didn't want to invest. Like I just, enough, your moat can be L L M lifted away.

• 1:05:27Speaker 01

  And the interesting thing, staying with the kind of Accenture problem is, is that, look, I mean, one of the things we had done about two years ago is just say to yourself, when you think about what work A I will replace, you know, white collar work, you can say B P O is a good proxy for that because anything a company is willing to outsource to India, they're probably willing to outsource to A I. So in fact, you can literally just take the B P O spend and look at the B P O and start saying, okay, there's a whole bunch of places where A I will win. And you know, when you do that, Accenture's top of the heap. They have all that business. What's challenging for those companies, you would think that they would want to adopt this technology. But the problem is their business model, there's only one thing worse than a seat based model, Jason. And that's a model that's based on bodies. If your business as Accenture or any of these S I companies is,

• 1:06:12Speaker 01

  I bill out a hundred people, I pay them two hundred grand a year, I bill them out at five hundred grand and that's. That's how I run my world. If I don't need a hundred people, if I only need forty people and some AI, that makes my head hurt. I gotta get rid of these sixty people. I'll find another project for them. I gotta figure out how to build that. My whole margin structure collapses and my take being on top of the heap goes down because what we're seeing is some of the biggest consulting companies, you know, they're adopting AI technology, but they're really struggling to pass on huge price increases, which leaves the room open for newer companies to come in and say, look, we are AI first. We are using these tools. You got a bid for eighty million from Accenture, we'll do it for fifteen.

• 1:06:54Speaker 01

  And that kind of thing gets the attention of the CIO, right? And we think that's a super interesting place to invest. So yeah, Accenture has a lot of structural questions. I mean, yeah, this is going to be a constant theme for the next couple of years, the pressure on those kind of businesses.

• 1:07:08Harry Stebbings?

  Welcome law, selling hours.

• 1:07:10Speaker 01

  It's a little like the law comment, but even worse, I would argue, because I think law at some level, yeah, you want the work done, but you also want the wise guidance. You know, if you're doing SAP migration, you just want the damn thing migrated to the new version of SAP and you don't want to talk to these people ever again.

• 1:07:26Harry Stebbings?

  We're gonna do a rage bait but real. We had a little clip that went slightly, slightly rage baity this week. Five and a half million views. Ryan Peterson at Flexport said, kind of jokingly, obviously, work from home is white collar fraud. I have two kids. When they come home at three from school, of course it interrupts my work. Yes, I have a home office, but of course it does. It's not the same as in person. Rage bait or real?

• 1:07:53Speaker 00

  I saw it. I thought it's just dated was my read for what it's worth. What I mean is, listen, I get in a little trouble on the show. I agree with him. I think a lot of work from home, the era was working fifteen to twenty hours a week. I saw it on my own team and it involved a lot of distractions from home, right? On the other hand, plenty of folks do make it work, right? The reason I say it's dated is companies aren't hiring people, the companies we want to invest in, and this is a very narrow set of the universe, they're not hiring folks that want to work twenty hours a week from home. We're just not hiring, like our portfolio companies, at least our newer ones, our older ones still are, but our new ones just aren't. The whole way you build a startup to your first 100 or 200 employees, I think is radically changed and is under discussed.

• 1:08:35Speaker 00

  When we started this podcast 60 weeks ago, it was toxic to be running cognition and telling folks they had to run seven days a week and laying off half of windsurf when you acquired them because they weren't willing to work hard enough. That was utterly a toxic thing for the founder to say. Today, it is how you build a winner. You can't win in your marketplace if people are working 20 hours a week. You can't win. And so the only thing I thought Ryan's running an old company, right? It's old. Flexport is old. And I think he's struggling with trying to modernize his team and being competitive with the way startups are today. He's struggling with the fact you can't change out your entire team. What do you do with the folks that are unwilling to change at these big companies? What do you do with our 10-year-old portfolio companies where 90% of the folks are unwilling to change?

• 1:09:17Speaker 00

  That's what he's really railing against is the folks that really just want to work 20 hours a week. And so, but I think it's dated, right? I literally, I hope that no new investment I make is structured this way. And I feel like the majority of my older ones are.

• 1:09:29Speaker 01

  We say structured this week.

• 1:09:30Speaker 00

  I want small, high-paid teams that work in the office over six days a week. That's, I'm not interested in investing in anything else. I'm just not interested. And it's not because I don't have empathy. It's because they're gonna fail.

• 1:09:41Speaker 01

  Yeah, Jason, empath is the word I think about when I think of you.

• 1:09:44Speaker 00

  I am an empath.

• 1:09:45Speaker 01

  It's okay. Let me just ask a question here, right? Let's do a simple, pretend I'm a consultant, poor guys, two by two. Do you, is your dimension of objection is, there's two dimensions. It's do you want to work hard or not? In other words, yeah, hardworking, not hardworking, and then effective, not effective, right? Do you think the problem with work from home is that people don't want to work? Or do you think it's not effective?

• 1:10:10Speaker 00

  Yes, it's both. We need to hire teams that are half the size they used to be, that are paid top of market, that get double the equity because the teams are smaller. And we come into the office, frigging, the corgi guy, whatever his name, what's the insurance guy you had on the show that people made fun of? Yeah, with his cafe. I want to invest in startups with a cafe that runs 24/7. Because you can't win when corgi is running 24/7. You're not going to win. Here's the problem, and I'm struggling with this intellectually. It is not a sprint. It is a marathon, but it actually is today. It's a series of endless sprints. This is so hard because it's a sprint. You get about five minutes to relax. And then today, OpenAI released the jalapeno chip. We didn't even know it was coming out today. Now they have their own inference chip. Maybe we don't need Cerberus anymore.

• 1:10:53Speaker 00

  Maybe the whole market is going to be disrupted in 60 days because OpenAI is going to run its own inference. Do we get to breathe, guys? You don't get to breathe anymore. Sorry, guys. We no longer get to breathe. If you want to make any money, do you want to make money from your equity? Or do you want to make $180,000 a year? Like, this is going to be your choice in tech. Do you want to make money from your equity? Or do you want to watch? Honestly, this is a choice. You want to watch or you want to make 10 million or 100 million? There's nothing in the middle. You don't get to make 10 million for working 18 hours a week. You get a watch. You get an Omega. You want an Omega or you want to be rich? Make your choice, boys. Pick your path, I say to people. Pick your path. Go work for that old software company growing 8% a year. Go work there and make your 180 or 220 and wear a really nice... They all have nice watches at these companies now.

• 1:11:36Speaker 00

  Or go work in the office six and a half days a week at the Corgi Cafe with a chance to make eight figures. That's the choice today. This is a different world. And I don't want to invest in anyone in the middle, and I can't afford to invest in the folks that want watches. Enjoy your $12,000 Rolex or your $8,000 Omega. I hope it's meaningful to you.

• 1:11:53Harry Stebbings?

  Okay, I'm letting it go. Boys, do you want to have one final addition in the five minutes remaining? And it's OpenAI have announced that they are doing a custom chip. If Google has TPUs, Amazon have Tranium, well, OpenAI now has Jalapeno. Co-developed with Broadcom, OpenAI says this chip beats current state-of-the-art GPUs on performance per watt. Broadcom CEO on record saying it cuts costs by 50% of a typical GPU.

• 1:12:22Speaker 01

  Zoom out. Inference is 50, 60% of revenue, plus or minus. And we know you're peering through CapEx. When you look at CapEx, GPUs are well over half of that, so that's 30%. So maybe if you could replace all of them and Nvidia makes 70% margins. You can make some kind of intellectual case for you can save some money with this. But honestly, my real response to it is you've got plenty to be doing elsewhere. OpenAI winning on the top line side. I hope this isn't distracting you from the things that matter. So yeah, I'm trying to give a shit.

• 1:12:57Speaker 00

  I'll throw out one thought and maybe we could talk about it next week for what it's worth because we did one topic I thought we were going to do more this week, which we didn't is talk about open source even more. I do think that open source as token maxing comes under becomes a bigger deal. I think open source is more and more important. And I think that how do you win for certain workloads if you're open AI or Anthropic? Well, it's you cut your inference costs cheaper, actually cheaper than commodity open source providers can provide it because they still have to buy the GPUs like open source is not a again, it's not free, right? Listen, if I can run my own inference farm, one way or another, buying somewhat expensive Nvidia chips. So just how I have to do it, right? But the advantage is I get to keep the margin, right? Or I get to keep most of the margin.

• 1:13:40Speaker 00

  Or OpenAI can provide me with a cost competitive product because its inference costs are half of what it costs me to do it on open source. This is not just about cutting costs. This could be about shoring up yourself from open source, which is going, which has the potential to kind of destroy the middle of their market. Like people are always going to use the best models for frontier applications. And actually, at the bottom of the market, these guys are pretty competitive. But the middle is open to massive disruption. But if you cut your inference costs in half, the truth is open source is probably only twice as cheap for a lot of use cases. And if you cut your inference in half, your model still makes sense. That's why I think in theory it's a it's a big deal. It's not just about capacity and driving down costs.

• 1:14:22Speaker 00

  It's about this this flabby middle, the flabby middle in open in AI is at is at risk.

• 1:14:27Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 1:14:28Speaker 00

  Next week, you're going to agree with me.

• 1:14:29Speaker 01

  No, no, no, I'll disagree right now. I understand the benefit. OpenAI and Anthropic have discovered the single best tech market in terms of consumer demand in the last 20 years. And they should put all their effort into meeting that demand. Vertically integrating backwards down the stack, two levels down, not just vertically integrating to own a data center, but vertically integrating to own a chip that goes into a data center doesn't strike me as the highest and best use of resources. Why do I say that? You've got three or four cloud providers who are dying to do business with you. You've got Oracle, you've got Google, you've got. Microsoft, you got CoreWeave. So you got a whole bunch of vendors one level down for you.

• 1:15:12Speaker 01

  Some of those vendors themselves have chips. Google has a chip. Amazon now has a chip. There's a whole ecosystem of people breaking their picks to provide you with cheap compute and taking on all the capital risk of that. God bless their poor little selves, right? Oracle will rue that day sometime, as will Microsoft. And you're sitting in here and you should be putting all your effort right now into grabbing those end customers in enterprise. If you've got additional time and resources and you can also take on building a chip, have a go and knock yourself out. And I get it intellectually. You're right, Jason. At some point, to the extent it's become a cost business, you know, optimizing the whole vertically integrated stack may make sense. But if the whole point, I mean, if you look at it, you said it, but right now,

• 1:15:57Speaker 01

  if OpenAI and Anthropic had to do vertical integration today, they'd be fucked. Because the whole reason they worked is because they have outsourced $300 billion in CapEx to other poor fools. And the definition of vertical integration is taking in-house things that were done outside, right? The whole reason the OpenAI and Anthropic models work is because other idiots have spent the $300 billion on their behalf. I mean, at some point, maybe you have to vertically integrate, but it just, it doesn't strike me.

• 1:16:25Speaker 00

  Well, look, it's not that I argue with you. And first of all, the fact they launched this as we're recording this is obviously a decision that was made in a different era, right? It was even before the TBPAN era, right? It was an era of abundance. And so if this decision was made today, it would be a more, it would be an interest, very different conversation as it makes sense today. So all that caveat aside, we're actually looking at a, you know, some sort of early 2025 decision when the world is radically different. Okay? Having said that, I just think that OpenAI and Anthropic have massive existential risk that didn't exist at the start of the year, which is we glossed over this GLM 5.2, open source, whatever. It's not just performance. It's the fact that as we come under cost pressures,

• 1:17:06Speaker 00

  the middle of their market is under massive threat. And what you would do if you had a high margin product like software is you would just have a cheaper offering. You would just subsidize the middle of the market. They really only. They have the high end and the low end today. They have Sonnet, Opus and Friends, which is great. And then they have Haiku and Mini, which are these super small models. They don't have this middle product. And the problem with the middle product is it's too expensive to provide. And so if you can cut your inference costs to below open source inference costs, then you can have this middle market where every single workflow you can serve, rather than have your middle, your flabby middle haul it out for you. I think the flabby middle is high risk for these, just when they're all ready to go IPO, they have a brand new existential risk, the flabby middle. Just when things are getting good.

• 1:17:50Speaker 01

  Agreed on the cost side, and I totally agree that. I'm just questioning is if in order to minimize your cost, you have to vertically integrate backward two steps. I not only own the data center, I query whether you really need to vertically integrate it back through the hyperscaler and also integrate into the chip level. It just feels like a lot of backwards vertical integration that where in a competitive market and there are three or four chip providers and there are three or five or six hyperscaler providers. Surely you can just beat the crap out of them on cost because you are the largest buyer on the planet of this shit. Let's check if the market cares. Why do I say that? Well, we should actually see how much the stock, what happened to Cerberus today. If you remember Cerberus went public.

• 1:18:29Speaker 01

  Had a decent quarter going really well and their big traction is a $20 billion chip order from OpenAI. Did the stock go down a lot? Because presumably that is now, I mean, you know, yeah, it did. It went down 16%. So there you are. The market said, poor old Cerberus, OpenAI is going to build a chip instead. Now, the question is, would they have done just as well by saying to Cerberus, you know, we're playing you off versus I can name TPUs and Nvidia. We need a 20% discount. Did they need to build their own chip to do that? I don't know.

• 1:18:58Speaker 00

  It doesn't matter because it's so many generations ago, the decision was made is irrelevant today. The world's changed so much, right?

• 1:19:04Speaker 01

  That's totally fair, which by the way, gets to how these cycles end. I really believe what you're saying is if they, the next stage is when someone comes in and says, what we need to do is build a foundry and make our own DRAM. At that point, you'll know the cycle is about to go really badly down. If you vertically integrate back into memory, then you know it's over. Just you and the Koreans.

• 1:19:26Speaker 00

  Look, I'll just say one thing, maybe for the, as we can find out next week and as the months go on. I firmly believe, especially for, we just want to tie this to B2B software and stuff for some of the heart of the show. I firmly believe we need these middle level models from the closed source providers for the business to work, okay? Not everyone can afford to run every workflow on Opus, and Haiku and Mini are too small, and this is where open source is going to disrupt the market. And so, this is more important than it looks if it can work, because you've got to head off this middle disruption, this middle layer.

• 1:19:55Speaker 01

  Jason, first of all, I totally believe that. I think the number one question is, software companies, how will they access kind of mid-priced, high-quality intelligence that's not got frontier pricing? Because we're seeing people start to gag on pricing. I totally agree with you on that. In my comment, I don't think it's a question of optimizing the stack that gets you there. It's, what's the business model for these guys to provide? And maybe with only two frontier providers, there's not enough competition. If I was someone like Google, I'd be looking at, that's why I go back to, come on, guys, wake up. I'd be looking at this market and saying, how do I put a lot of pricing pressure on Opus and on, you know, GPT-5.5 by providing a just, almost just as good, US-based, competitively priced product?

• 1:20:38Speaker 00

  I think they have.

• 1:20:39Speaker 01

  Yeah, they just haven't made it happen. Boys, it's so good to have you back from China, Jason. We missed you.

• 1:20:44Speaker 00

  I thought the guy from Benchmark was pretty good. I don't mind being replaced.

• 1:20:49Harry Stebbings?

  But before we leave you today, are you a founder working non-stop to raise your next round? Are you an investor doing all you can for your portfolio companies to help them stand out? Funding and scaling a vision is challenging. Banking should not be. HSBC Innovation Banking caters to tech and healthcare founders all over the world who need a really great banking partner that matches their pace, offering fast onboarding, product packages designed for your business, and capital solutions built for high-growth startups and the VCs investing in them. With HSBC Innovation Banking's rapid onboarding, you can get access to your new accounts and facilities quickly, so your team can stay focused on building and scaling what's next. You'll be paired with your own dedicated team of venture ecosystem veterans

• 1:21:34Harry Stebbings?

  who have the net Work and experience to guide companies in your specific sector at your specific stage. And behind that support is this real strength. HSBC's $3 trillion balance sheet and global network that provides this stability and international reach needed to grow your operation with confidence. To see how HSBC Innovation Banking can support you, whether you're on day one or day 1000, visit innovationbanking.hsbc to learn more and connect with an innovation banking specialist. That's innovationbanking.hsbc. While HSBC manages your corporate banking needs, Deal helps you build the global team behind it. Founders scale startups faster on Deal. Grow without borders.

• 1:22:18Harry Stebbings?

  Deal handles the hard parts of global hiring, so you can stay focused on growth. Set up payroll for any country in minutes. Hire anyone, anywhere and get visas handled fast. Deal takes care of onboarding, HR, IT, EOR, benefits and compliance. Everything your startup needs to scale quickly, all done fast in one place. It's why more than 40,000 fast-growing companies like Airwallex, 11 Labs and Intercom trust Deal to move fast and get back to building. Visit deal.com/20vc. That's deal, D E E L, dot com, slash, two zero, V C. Deal handles the global team and Framer handles the front door. A website should help your business grow, not slow it down.

• 1:23:02Harry Stebbings?

  If updates to your dot com feel harder than they should, Framer is the shortcut you've been looking for. Framer is an enterprise-grade, no-code website builder that works like your team's favorite design tool and is used by companies like Perplexity, Miro, Mixpanel to move faster. Designers and marketers can fully own the site with real-time collaboration, a robust CMS built for SEO and advanced analytics that include integrated A/B testing. So you're not just shipping pages, but you're maximizing what works. And when you're ready to ship, changes go live in seconds with one click. Publish without relying on engineering. Plus, Framer is built for scale with premium hosting, enterprise-grade security and 99.99%

• 1:23:45Harry Stebbings?

  ...and uptime SLAs, whether you want to launch a new site, test a few landing pages, or migrate your full dot com, Framer has programs for startups, scaleups, and large enterprises to make going from idea to live site fast. Learn how you can get more out of your dot com from a Framer specialist, or get started building for free today at framer.com/20vc for 30% off, 30% off a Framer Pro Annual Plan. That's framer.com/20vc for 30% off. Framer.com/20vc. Rules and restrictions may apply.