Trump verdict, COVID Cover-up, Crypto Corner, Salesforce drops 20%, AI correction?

(0:00) Bestie Intros: Jason's first show for his new production company (2:15) Why Sacks and Chamath are hosting a Trump fundraiser (18:40) House COVID investigation: findings, cover-up, what's next? (41:36) The Deep State Problem: unelected bureaucrats running three letter agencies for decades (53:04) Crypto Corner with Chamath (1:04:15) State of SaaS: Salesforce drops 20%, market teetering (1:20:10) Trump verdict: guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records (1:37:36) Are we seeing an AI correction? Follow the besties: https://twitter.com/chamath https://twitter.com/Jason https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://twitter.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@all_in_tok Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://oversight.house.gov/release/new-select-subcommittee-report-recommends-ecohealth-alliance-president-debarred-and-criminally-investigated-exposes-failures-in-nih-grant-procedures https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-nih-repeatedly-refutes-ecohealth-alliance-president-dr-peter-daszaks-testimony-tabak-testimony-reveals-federal-grant-procedures-in-need-of-serious-reform https://www.axios.com/2021/07/20/fauci-rand-paul-wuhan-institute https://oversight.house.gov/release/breaking-hhs-suspends-funding-and-proposes-formal-debarment-of-ecohealth-alliance-cites-evidence-from-covid-select-report https://oversight.house.gov/release/breaking-hhs-to-debar-dr-peter-daszak-president-of-ecohealth-alliance https://x.com/emilyakopp/status/1795482121739354552 https://x.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1795454118594568312 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGxSlW0NrB4 https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/dual-use-research/feds-lift-gain-function-research-pause-offer-guidance https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-worth-taking/2011/12/30/gIQAM9sNRP_story.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext https://oversight.house.gov/release/new-covid-select-memo-details-allegations-of-wrongdoing-and-illegal-activity-by-dr-faucis-senior-scientific-advisor https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit https://x.com/KatherineEban https://x.com/emilyakopp https://www.semafor.com/article/05/28/2024/a-dying-empire-led-by-bad-people-poll-finds-young-voters-despairing-over-us-politics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvQTXAgtA6s https://s23.q4cdn.com/574569502/files/doc_financials/2025/q1/CRM-Q1-FY25-Earnings-Press-Release-w-financials.pdf https://www.investors.com/news/economy/federal-reserve-core-pce-inflation-gdp-q1-jobless-claims-sp-500 https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/30/nyregion/trump-trial-verdict https://www.google.com/finance/quote/DELL:NYSE https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-30/us-gdp-grew-at-softer-pace-as-spending-inflation-marked-down

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

• 0:00Jason Calacanis?

  All right, everybody. As you know, there was a big verdict that came out today in the Trump trial in New York City. However, it came right after we were taping. So enjoy this episode and then at the end, we'll go around the horn and get quick reaction from each of the besties on what they think of the Trump guilty verdict in the New York hush money trial. And a little update on the market close and tech stocks tanking and after hours trading. Stick with us. Man, what a week I've had. Oh, you have an intro. I smell an intro. Tell us, Jake Al, what was your week like?

• 0:36David Sacks?

  What kind of weekend you had?

• 0:37Jason Calacanis?

  What kind of week have you? Incredible. You know, I got, you know, I've always been a fan of Howard Stern and his agent, Don Buckwal, called me. He saw the show last week. This is all true. And they said they want to start a production company. So I started a production company and I've already got my first show. I've signed my first show, the pilot. What is the show? Well, here it is. Let me show you. Thanks for asking. What you are witnessing is real. The besties are not actors. The cases are real. Both parties have agreed to settle their disputes here in our forum, Jake Al Production, The Rain Man's Court. Yeah, it's law fair.

• 1:20Jason Calacanis?

  On today's show, Shamap guilty of first degree unbuttoning, Friedberger accused of plastic perjury, Jason appealing his grifting conviction, throwing the book at Thelonious Fauci. Welcome to the stand, Judge David Sacks. Hot water burn, baby.

• 1:40David Sacks?

  Nice.

• 1:41Jason Calacanis?

  That's really good. It's the first show from Jake Al Productions.

• 1:43David Sacks?

  If I'm the judge, then what does that make you? Are you like the bailiff?

• 1:45Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I'm kind of like the host. You know, like the, who's this guy who does American Idol? Ryan Seacrest. Ryan Seacrest. I'm like going to be the new Ryan Seacrest. That's what they envisioned for me. And that's my first spin option. So here we go.

• 2:16Jason Calacanis?

  There's a lot of news. My inbox is blowing up. I went over to Threads to see what was going on over there and I got absolutely savage. Threads is like all the hall monitors left one school. Like if they took the four hall monitors from every school in the country and could put them all in one place, that's Threads. Threads is like Zuckerberg's Twitter revenge killer that he created, but all the journalists and woke folks went there. And then all the conspiracy theories took over X and Twitter and like freedom of speech in one place and then the hall monitors in the other. But my lord, the inbound I'm getting, Sax, on apparently you're having a party this Thursday and a couple of people are coming, a soiree. Well, it's my birthday. It's my birthday party.

• 2:59Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, yeah. Okay. So there's a little soiree happening. Sax, enlighten the audience. What are you up to?

• 3:05David Sacks?

  We're hosting an event for President Trump.

• 3:08Jason Calacanis?

  I'm sorry.

• 3:12David Sacks?

  Yeah, we're hosting an event for the once and future president. Forty-five and forty-five is soon to be forty-seven.

• 3:24Jason Calacanis?

  Who's weak?

• 3:25David Sacks?

  As I saw from your own polling data that you tweeted this morning, Jason.

• 3:28Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, God, it's so dark. It's so dark. I mean, the betting markets are just basically they they seem to have already made their decision, the betting markets, right? And the betting markets, they're not always right, but they were wrong actually about Hillary and Trump. So who knows?

• 3:42David Sacks?

  And polling historically has underestimated Trump's support because people have been reluctant to say they're supporting him for some reason. So, yeah, things are looking very positive for for Trump right now. But in any event, we're hosting a fundraiser for him. And He said that he wants to come on the all in pod at some point. So we just need to schedule that. And by the way, we did this for, let's not forget, we did this for RFK Junior. He appeared on the pod. We did a fundraiser for him. We did it for Vivek Ramaswamy. Came on the pod. We did a fundraiser for him.

• 4:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We did it for Dean Phillips.

• 4:18David Sacks?

  Yeah, that's right.

• 4:19David Friedberg?

  Chris Christie came on.

• 4:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And Chris Christie came on, although I don't think we technically did a fundraiser, but we would have.

• 4:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And we've asked President Biden and we have not heard back.

• 4:29David Friedberg?

  And when we say we, sorry, let me just, let me just ask.

• 4:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Parse that out.

• 4:32David Friedberg?

  So first of all, who's we and Chamath, would you host a fundraiser for Biden as well as Trump?

• 4:36Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Absolutely. Look, here's the thing. I am an apolitical person who has to make a difficult decision every four years. And I think most of us are like that. I don't think it's so easy to wake up in the morning and say, oh, I'm clearly a Republican or I'm clearly a Democrat. There's parts of both sides that appeal to me. And so you have to make these reasoned decisions. And then that gets even more complicated, right? So the most important thing for me is get as many people on in a position to tell their version of the truth, so that you can see an unfiltered version of that truth and decide for yourself. So I was really blown away when I heard Dean Phillips and Bobby and I thought there's parts of both of those

• 5:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  platforms that I agree with. There's parts that I disagree. And the same thing happened when I sat down with Vivek. I thought that I wouldn't agree with much. I ended up agreeing with a lot. There's a lot of stuff that Trump, in hindsight, again, as I've said before, that he did, which was really helpful to America. And one big thing which had he done, frankly, sets up our children, which is these hundred year bonds and defraying the cost of all of this indebtedness far out into the future. So there's many things. And I think there's things that Biden has done that I think will look back and say, those were good things that he did. And then there are things in the future or today that I think that we could disagree with as well. So the point is, I would like this place.

• 6:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  To be a place where impartiality rules, where we can be on all sides of an issue and just decide what makes the most sense after looking at the facts. And I would like, four years from now, every major political candidate for president to look at All In as the first place. And I think if we can earn that trust and have the integrity to allow all sides to tell a fair story, that is going to be a really powerful thing and an artifact to leave behind for people.

• 6:28Jason Calacanis?

  Well, in fact, RFK believes that we shot him out of a cannon, is I think what he said, or something, and that we got the sort of candidacy going. Vivek, I think, also kind of debuted here in a major way. To be clear, All In isn't hosting the fundraiser, Sacks. You and Chamath are. I'm not donating. I'm not going. Friedberg, you're not donating. I don't know if you're going or not. I think you told me you're not donating or going. Got it. Okay, you waved his hand. And so, I don't know.

• 6:55David Sacks?

  No, look, donating to a political candidate is an individual choice that each person's going to have to decide if they want to do it.

• 7:00Jason Calacanis?

  Right, as Americans, we can do that.

• 7:03David Sacks?

  Yeah, if you're willing to open your pocketbook, which I know Jason's not something that you're inclined to do very often.

• 7:08Jason Calacanis?

  No, I mean, I don't, I'm not like big into politics, and the idea of giving money to politicians, to me, not my thing. You know, I'd rather invest in the next startup, to be totally honest. If I'm going to put 50K towards something, or God forbid, 250K, for me, I'll put that in startup. That's what I like to do. But, you know, everybody's different. And, you know, for the people who are asking me to not be friends with Sacks anymore, I'm going to be friends with Sacks forever. We love each other, we're besties. And he can have a different opinion than me. I'm getting absolutely crucified that I'm supporting Trump, and how could I be friends with Sacks? Go [bleep] yourself. Sacks is my friend. We can have a difference of opinion on some topics.

• 7:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Good for you, Jason.

• 7:46Jason Calacanis?

  Deal with it. And maybe you could learn something from it.

• 7:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Sorry, good for you. Sorry, I'll just say, I've heard the same thing, and I told friends and others that have reached out, why are you associating yourself with people that are doing a fundraiser for Trump? And I said, exactly because I think it's really important that people can have...

• 8:04David Friedberg?

  Different political interests, different points of view, different beliefs, and still be friends and still have a conversation. If we can model that in any way, I think it moves the needle. Because this whole thing where you only speak with, only hang out with, only talk to, only have dinner with people that you agree with, I think is exactly what got us in the mess that we're in today. People need to have a broader perspective.

• 8:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So well said.

• 8:27David Friedberg?

  And I'll support you guys with whatever. In terms of like being your friends, I'm not going to ever judge you guys in terms of what you believe in or to you have to do.

• 8:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We've said this before, but you know, in the end, what do you have? You have your family, you have your children, you have your friends, and hopefully you have work that gives you some purpose. And in all of that, if there are random people that are judging you for one thing, they'll eventually judge you for another thing. And that is not a path to any sort of contentment. I've donated to Bobby Kennedy, I've donated to the Democrats massively, and I'll donate to Donald Trump. And if there's an opportunity to talk to President Biden and really understand where he's at, I donate to him as well. And so the point is that I would like to be an organizing principle. And I would like to replace today the places that I don't trust

• 9:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  to organize and give unfiltered access to knowledge. And those things are the mainstream media. And so I'm willing to put my resources behind being that organizing principle. And I think having a broad cross-section of friends who have different political beliefs is actually a useful thing for a lot of these candidates. Because as it turns out, most people are sort of in the middle. And most people in any given election can be persuaded one way or the other. So the most important thing that we could do is get all of them, give all of them an opportunity to really tell an unfiltered version of their truth and then let the chips fall where they may. That is the right thing to do for America. That's what democracy means. So this kind of like cajoling and bullying in either side,

• 10:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I find really distasteful and I find very immature. It's not gonna work.

• 10:07David Sacks?

  What's amazing is, I mean, I really haven't gotten any blowback. You know, there was a question about, people asked me, have you gotten blowback from this thing? And no, not really. I mean, other than the reporter knocking on my door and that kind of stuff, but. People really

• 10:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Same.

• 10:22David Sacks?

  It hasn't really created blowback and I think you guys are getting more blowback and that's an indication of just sort of the cowardly response to it, which is, you know, it's like a cancellation tactic. We're going to try and like go behind your back and ostracize you instead of even telling you to your face what you think. And I think the reason why they're doing that is because quite frankly, there's a lot of preference falsification going on in Silicon Valley. I know there's a lot of people in Silicon Valley who

• 10:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, we know because we know who's coming.

• 10:53David Sacks?

  You have the list of people who are going. I mean, look, nobody is excited about Biden. Okay. Nobody's excited about Biden right now. So the only question is, do they hold their nose and vote for him? Or do they vote for Trump? Or do they vote for Bobby Kennedy? But there's a lot of people who I do think support Trump. And look, we've A B tested this, right? It'd be different if we didn't have four years of Biden, four years of Trump. There's a lot of people who can look back and say that the A B test we ran indicates Trump. So I know there's going to be a lot of people who support Trump, but they don't want to admit it. And I think that this event is going to break the ice on that. And maybe it'll create a preference cascade where all of a sudden it becomes acceptable to acknowledge the truth, which is a lot of people support

• 11:37David Sacks?

  Trump. And it's not just this. It's also Steve Schwarzman came out. I think Bill Ackman's on the edge of coming out for Trump. So there's a lot of people who are now like flipping. And I think it could really start to cascade on itself.

• 11:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think the thing that hasn't happened yet is we haven't actually now started to talk about the contours of a handful of policy things where there is some deep diversion now, where these candidates are diverging from each other. And I think that that's going to be really interesting to see how much people value that differentiation. I'll give you an example, which is President Trump in the last few weeks has become incredibly pro crypto. Now, the contours of that, I think we need to define, right? But the question is, is a pro crypto environment, especially in a world where we think that there's just going to be continued dollar debasement, an important issue?

• 12:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  An unimportant issue or a thing that is a small issue today, but that will be critical for us in 20 and 30 years to get right. That's an example. And there's a handful of these other things that I think that now we have a chance to really double click on where there really is some differentiation amongst the three presidential candidates. And I think that's healthy as well. And so it's important, again, get their specific thoughts on the record so that we can really figure this out. And I think that over these next few months, I think it's going to be important to do that. So I hope President Biden also comes on the pod, quite honestly, and allows us to ask him the hard questions. And I hope Bobby comes back on, actually, and I think Bobby will, if we ask him, just

• 13:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  to tighten up where he's at now a few months before.

• 13:18Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, there's definitely a lot of great follow up questions. I would love to interview Trump. I'll ask him hard questions. I'll respect him as president in 45 and as a candidate. So for people who like, are like, you have Trump derangement syndrome, like, that's just like a childish thing to say. I disagree with his policies. I'll ask him questions. Hey, why don't you support EVs? Like, that's a valid question to ask him. Why is he anti EV? He said all these crazy things about EVs and then apparently he's courting you on privately. I don't know if that's true or not, but, you know, there's, there's hard questions and I'm sure he'll answer them and he's more than capable of doing it.

• 13:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm excited. I'm really, I'm really excited for President Trump to come on the podcast.

• 13:52Jason Calacanis?

  I'd love to have him on. And for me, I'll be totally honest, I think the Democrats have to wake up for a second and just like take the temperature of the room, like read the room, Democrats. You have put up a candidate that nobody wants. His policies on the border and some other issues are not, you know, in sync with the majority of the country. At some point, the Democrats just have to take a deep look in the mirror. James Carville is doing it, a bunch of them are doing it, and say, we fielded a bad candidate who's too old and people don't believe will stand up to scrutiny of like, say, being on the all in pod for two hours or in the debates or with a hostile interviewer, any of those possibilities. And so I think if that's the case, we really need to have the Democrats think deeply about

• 14:36Jason Calacanis?

  maybe fielding a different candidate. And I believe that's what's going to happen in the next 30 to 60 days. So I'm predicting.

• 14:41David Sacks?

  You think there's going to be a switcheroo?

• 14:43Jason Calacanis?

  Hundred percent. I mean, if you just look at the polls, it's hundred percent there'll be a switcheroo.

• 14:48David Sacks?

  Who's the switcheroo?

• 14:49Jason Calacanis?

  I have no idea. Could be Gavin, it could be anybody. Anything's possible. I think Trump's gonna demolish him in the debate. I think he'll sink to thirty percent in the polls. And then the Republicans are gonna find, I'm sorry, the Democrats will find a way to give him a graceful out, and then they'll field somebody else.

• 15:04David Sacks?

  When's the first debate? June seventeenth. Can I respond to that, Jason? I saw your tweet basically saying something very similar, that Democrats need to wake up and, you know, recognize the situation they're in. I think this is a case of, once you've made your bed, you have to sleep in it. Look, the Democrats have set the table pursuing certain policies for the last three and a half years. We've had an open border. We had so much spending that it fed into this inflation, which jacked up interest rates. We had Ukraine become the central obsession and focus of our politics, which blew up in Biden's face with the wholesome counteroffensive. I mean, I could go on. You have the hostility to crypto, which they're now trying to desperately backpedal on, but you had three years

• 15:50David Sacks?

  of Elizabeth Warren and Gensler basically making crypto the enemy. And now, all of a sudden, we're at first and goal, at the like ten yard line, and you're all of a sudden saying, well, just read the room and make all these changes. You can't. You know, I don't think people are gonna be fooled by that. We've A/B tested this thing. We've had three and a half years of Biden, four years of Trump. Who do you like better? And we're, what, how many months are we from pulling the lever? Five months?

• 16:16Jason Calacanis?

  Never too late. I'm telling him to do it. Don't take Sacks's advice. He is a hardcore partisan and wants to win desperately. Take Jay Cow's advice. Field another candidate. The worst thing the Republicans could ever deal with is a great candidate who can speak and who's nimble on their feet, because I think people are looking for a choice that's not these two individuals. I'm not gonna say I'm anti-Trump, I'm not gonna say I'm anti-Biden.

• 16:38David Sacks?

  Why don't you support Bobby Kennedy, then?

• 16:41Jason Calacanis?

  I don't think he's gonna have the platform behind him to get enough votes. I think the Democrats need to immediately, this month, in June, do the switcheroo. And if they do, I think they win in a landslide. But anyway.

• 16:51David Sacks?

  They had their chance. They had their chance. They could have gone for Bobby. Hold on, they drove Bobby out of the party.

• 16:57Jason Calacanis?

  That's not their only chance.

• 16:59David Sacks?

  He didn't start as independent. He started as-

• 17:01Jason Calacanis?

  I know by his last name that he's a Democrat.

• 17:02David Sacks?

  A Kennedy Democrat. You had Dean Phillips. Dean Phillips took the chance. And of course, he was pushed out. Not of the party, but basically ostracized. They had their chance.

• 17:13Jason Calacanis?

  I think, you know, if I want to be a strategist, this is just a conspiracy theory. I don't want to go to like chinfoil hat corner. I think the Democrats, as cynical as it sounds, were waiting to see what happens with this Trump trials conviction, what you call lawfare, what other people call fair use of the law. And then they are going to see how he does in the debates. That's why they moved the debate up in June. And I think they know to pull the plug on this if it gets too far gone. And they have the ability to do that because all he's got to say is, you know what? I'm feeling old and I want us to win and I'm going to slot somebody else in. But listen, let's go get to this huge.

• 17:48David Sacks?

  Yeah, let me translate what you just said, which is the Democrats hope to put Trump in jail using lawfare. And when that fails, they realize that they're going to lose the election to him and they've got a big problem. So they're going to try some desperate strategy to find a new candidate, but it's way too late for that.

• 18:01Jason Calacanis?

  I think precisely.

• 18:04Jason Calacanis?

  Thank you for repeating back to me. And I think the only disagreement we might have there is, I would agree, like there's lawfare in two of the cases, and I think two of the cases, I think are, should be pursued. But, you know, we can, intelligent people, as we said at the start of this, can agree to disagree about it. And I think you should all take, if you're a listener to this podcast, you're smart. If you're here, you're smart. You're not listening to two hour podcasts with us going this deep on issues. If you're not a brilliant, smart and attractive individual. So let's get to the docket. Present. Yes, that's what I just said. He heard brilliant and attractive and he was here.

• 18:40Jason Calacanis?

  All right, listen, I hate to go into another controversial topic, but the four of us were all on fire about this. Apparently, the COVID-19 investigation is leaning towards a massive cover up. There's a subcommittee going on right now. The world's not paying attention to this, but I think some savvy people are, especially over on X, there's a lot of great journalists who are doing incredible investigative work. Let me just catch everybody up in the audience real quick here and get the besties involved. Over the past year and a half, House Subcommittee has been focused on the origins of COVID-19. And they've been investigating the NIH's ties with gain-of-function research in Wuhan. The Subcommittee was painted, early on, it's like, this is angry Republicans, this is

• 19:24Jason Calacanis?

  about mask mandates, it was like highly politicized, but it's actually turned out to be very effective bipartisan. Investigation, we'll get in on that in a minute. But so far, most of the investigation is focused on nailing down this timeline of communication between NIH officials and an organization called Eco Health Alliance. This is a nonprofit that's focused on infectious disease research. Now, these committee videos are online, we'll play you on in a moment. But through funding in the NIH, the Eco Health organization was awarded research grants to various labs. This included the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the infamous one. Eco Health violated terms of its grants by failing to report that gain-of-function

• 20:08Jason Calacanis?

  experiments were being conducted in Wuhan. Eco Health was supposed to report any experiment that exhibited characteristics leading it to being 10 times more infectious, but when that happened, it failed to disclose this research to the NIH. And on May 17th, a deputy director of the NIH acknowledged that the agency-funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan via Eco Health. This is the key, because Fauci initially denied this. During his 2021 Senate hearing, Fauci said, quote, "I totally resent the lie you are now propagating in response to questions from Rand Paul about the lab-leak theory." So Fauci either didn't know, or he lied under oath. Let me pause there for a second, there's a lot more to the story, but when you hear

• 20:49Jason Calacanis?

  this sort of setup, Friedberg, our Sultan of Science, in this initial setup, what rings concerning to you, true to you? And then we'll go on and we'll play some clips of this testimony, which is pretty wild.

• 21:01David Friedberg?

  I don't think that pre the emergence of the pandemic, that there was nefarious motives.

• 21:09Jason Calacanis?

  In other words, their funding of this was not done to create a pandemic. It might have been a mistake in hindsight, but...

• 21:16David Friedberg?

  Yeah, for many years, particularly following the original SARS pandemic, there was a lot of conversations around how do we get in front of the next pandemic? How do we figure out what's coming? And how do we prepare for it? And there was a lot of research that was launched to try and resolve that key question.

• 21:36David Friedberg?

  This is like the movie 12 Monkeys. You guys ever see that movie?

• 21:38Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, sure.

• 21:40David Friedberg?

  It's like, does the effort to try and stop the problem cause the problem? I think that from my point of view, there's a very high probability that there was

• 21:51David Friedberg?

  some leak

• 21:53David Friedberg?

  that meant that the work that was going on to try and get in front of the next pandemic and understand what we could do to prepare ourselves and what vaccines can be developed and so on, actually led to the pandemic. So then when that happens, how do you respond when you're sitting in that seat? That's, that's the key question that I think this committee is uncovering. Do you think there was a cover up, Freebro? What is your intuition on that? Yeah, I think that these guys definitely didn't want, I, I think what they were trying to do was prevent that from being the focal point and protect their own asses at the same time. Do you think they should go to jail? I don't know the extent of it yet. It'd be good to get more information from this whole thing.

• 22:26Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, so let me queue up those next details. Cause I will say this guy that gave testimony last week where he was like deliberately changing the names of people in the email, Anderson, and he put the dollar sign so that you couldn't find that email when you did a FOIA search. He knew what he was doing.

• 22:39David Friedberg?

  He knew what he was doing.

• 22:40David Sacks?

  I don't understand how you could say this wasn't nefarious. This whole thing was nefarious from top to bottom.

• 22:46Jason Calacanis?

  Well, yeah, let me queue this up here, Sacks, and then get your-

• 22:48David Sacks?

  Why are you exonerating it?

• 22:50Jason Calacanis?

  Hold on, let me queue it up. All right, so we started to see some consequences and accountability. Last week, the US Department of Health cut all funding to Eco Health in response to the committee's investigation. They disbarred its president, Peter Daszak.

• 23:03David Friedberg?

  Daszak, yeah.

• 23:04Jason Calacanis?

  Daszak, and so we don't have direct evidence, to be clear, that the pandemic was the result of a lab leak. And, you know, just even saying the lab leak, we would have gotten this.

• 23:15David Sacks?

  The furin cleavage site makes it clear that this was a lab leak. That's not a naturally occurring virus. The furin cleavage sites were engineered.

• 23:25Jason Calacanis?

  Let's go to that in just one second. And thankfully, this isn't going to get our YouTube channel shut down because we have freedom of speech back a little bit, but- This is where it gets really interesting. Emails were written as Eco Health with a tilde. That's that little squiggly line instead of an O. And they would spell Anderson with a dollar sign in the E. Christian Anderson, in this example, is a biologist who was reportedly awarded nine million in grants from the NIH two months after publishing a paper claiming COVID did not come from a lab. And so, let's get to some of these clips. Here's a clip of Fauci's former top advisor, David Morin, getting grilled in the hearing. And I'll play two clips and then I'll give it to you.

• 24:09Speaker 04

  On October 25th, 2021, another scientist wrote, "David is concerned about the privacy of texts and other messages from his cellphone to you and me because he has been using a government phone." This came from Tony. End quote. Sir, did you ever have any conversations with Dr. Fauci regarding using personal phone or email to communicate with Dr. Daszak?

• 24:30Speaker 05

  I don't remember it. It's possible. You know, I probably wouldn't have remembered, and I don't remember it.

• 24:35Speaker 04

  On January 18th, you testified that you did not have any conversations with Dr. Fauci regarding Eco Health. On October 25th, 2021, you wrote, "Peter, from Tony's numerous recent comments to me, they're trying to protect you." End quote. You meaning Eco Health and Dr. Daszak. Dr. Morin, did you ever have any conversations with Dr. Fauci regarding Eco Health?

• 25:02Speaker 05

  Well, the ones you just mentioned, I don't have any recollection of that.

• 25:05Speaker 04

  No recollection?

• 25:06Speaker 05

  No recollection, no.

• 25:07Jason Calacanis?

  All right, so we're on the no recollection train, and then I'll give this final clip here. This is unbelievable, Sax. Apparently, there's a FOIA lady, Freedom of Information Act lady, working at NIH to train and help and mentor people on how to avoid having their...

• 25:27Jason Calacanis?

  Communications, these are people who we work, who work for us. And she's the FOIA lady at NIH. Play the clip, Nick.

• 25:35Speaker 04

  And as you've said, you previously testified that you did not delete any federal records. But on February 24th, 2021, you wrote, quote, "I learned from our FOIA lady here how to make emails disappear after I'm FOIA'd, but before the search starts. So I think we are all safe. Plus, I deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to Gmail." End quote. And the next day on February 25th, 2021, you wrote, quote, "But I learned the tricks last year from an old friend, Marge Moore, who heads our FOIA office and also hates FOIAs." End quote. Yes or no? Is Marge Moore the FOIA lady you're referring to?

• 26:11Speaker 05

  She was at the time. I believe she's retired since then.

• 26:14Speaker 04

  Did the NIH FOIA office instruct you on how to delete emails or avoid FOIA?

• 26:20Speaker 05

  No.

• 26:20Jason Calacanis?

  All right, Sacks. There's your red meat. Smoking guns everywhere. What do you think?

• 26:24David Sacks?

  Please give me a couple of minutes to kind of lay out what happened here. Okay, so Fauci knew very early, as early as February 1st of 2020, that COVID came from a lab leak. The scientists said so. All they had to do was look in our microscope and see the furin cleavage site, which is not naturally occurring. It's something that was added, basically bioengineered to the virus in order to make it more transmissible in humans. So they knew right away that this somehow came from a lab leak. And Fauci and Collins said in emails that they were going to begin a brutal takedown in order to conceal this fundamental truth of the lab leak from the public. Now, why would Fauci need to conceal this?

• 27:08David Sacks?

  Because he had funded gain-of-function research programs via Peter Daszak and the Eco Health Alliance to conduct, again, gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Moreover, Fauci was personally responsible for reversing an Obama-era decision to prohibit gain-of-function research because it was so risky. Fauci wrote op-eds.

• 27:32David Sacks?

  Justifying gain-of-function research. He wrote a paper in 2012, which was actually quite candid about the risk of gain-of-function. He describes the kind of lab leak that could occur in the type of virus that could escape from a lab because of gain-of-function, but then he says that it's a risk worth taking. So this is somebody who funded the Wuhan lab. He funded gain-of-function research. He was personally responsible for lifting the ban on gain-of-function research. He had a lot of reasons to want to hide the fact that COVID was engineered in a lab and was lab-leaked. And so we know that even before this conspiracy to basically defraud the FOIA request, that

• 28:14David Sacks?

  Fauci had done things like organize that letter to the Lancet, which smeared and demonized scientists who were trying to tell the truth, saying that the so-called zoological theory was nonsense, this had to be from a lab. He was doing things like this. And now we have this added piece, which is this longtime colleague of Fauci and Collins at NIH, Dr. David Morens, developed a strategy for evading FOIA requests that would expose the truth. He did this by deleting government emails, which is a crime, by using private email to conduct government business, which is also a crime, and then strategically misspelling names and titles to frustrate the FOIA searches. And then the craziest part is that Morens foolishly detailed his schemes in emails that

• 28:59David Sacks?

  Fauci would have seen, that Fauci was on the distribution list of. So he has no plausible deniability.

• 29:04Jason Calacanis?

  It's literally like, they're like, here's how we can avoid getting caught in an email.

• 29:08David Sacks?

  You have to see the FOIA piece within the overall picture here, which is

• 29:14Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 29:15David Sacks?

  Fauci, from the get-go, was lying about the origins of COVID in order to cover up his role. In funding this type of research.

• 29:26Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 29:26David Sacks?

  And there was a comprehensive effort by people at NIH, likely at Fauci's direction, to again, not just cover this up, but to smear scientists.

• 29:37Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, they were on the offensive in addition to trying to cover their assets.

• 29:42David Sacks?

  Yeah, people like Jay Bhattacharya, who then got censored and banned on social media.

• 29:46Jason Calacanis?

  By the way, who is a Stanford professor?

• 29:50David Sacks?

  Yeah.

• 29:50Jason Calacanis?

  Was banned for speaking up. Chamath, let's zoom out here and start thinking strategy and theories of what's going on here. I have my own, but I'm curious to hear your first as we go around the horn here. What's your take on this?

• 30:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I would like to make four points, I think, that kind of summarize my view of this. I think what happened here needs a really clear accounting because the implications are far greater than I think people realize. And I think why maybe the four of us have have always been tugging on this little thread is because each of us instinctively understood that. So the first is, if you just look at the macroeconomic consequences of what COVID did and our reaction, we broke the seal of having absolutely no accountability on massive spending, right? So there are subsidies, there are kickbacks, there are government programs that now number in the trillions of dollars a year incremental to

• 30:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  what we were going to spend if things were the status quo. And the problem is that and Friedberg has talked about this really eloquently in the past, it's creating a massive debt issue that us and our children and our grandchildren will have to deal with. If we had responded to this pandemic differently, those issues would not have occurred. If we had just kept the economy open because we understood what was going on, we would not have reacted the way that we did, and we would not have nearly as much debt as we had, and we would not have made it okay for politicians to spend trillions of dollars. That is a direct consequence of our reaction to COVID, not COVID itself. The second is we caused billions of people all around the world to take immaturely

• 31:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  tested drugs. They were called vaccines. We found out that they were modestly effective at best. And then some of them were designed in some ways to manipulate our DNA and we just don't know what the long-term impacts will be. We see some small issues of myocarditis. We see other issues of all-cause mortality. But the point is, we just don't know. And that would not have happened had we not rushed to force people to stand in a line and get a jab in order to get back to their normal life. That was a direct consequence, not of COVID, but of a reaction. The third is what we're realizing right now is that we had this power-drunk apparatchik.

• 32:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And this is similar to the quote that Mike Pompeo made. When he took over the CIA, what he found, and he said this after, when he left, was there were people on the top floor of the CIA building, the seventh floor of the Pentagon, that fundamentally believed that it wasn't the Democrats nor the Republicans that ran the country, but it was them. And I see a similar level of arrogance here, which is this belief that they know better. And so what they did was they committed the greatest sin, which is where the cover-up is way greater than the crime. And they created a setup where all of these things were amplified by their prestige,

• 33:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  their perceived scientific knowledge. But what they were really doing was keeping critical information to themselves and then trying to cover it up, Jason. That is so unacceptable when you think of the broad consequences of what happened. And that's what needs to get documented, and I do think there needs to be some form of accountability for that.

• 33:18Jason Calacanis?

  I think it's well said, and you know, just looking at it, I think we are now at the part, point of this conversation and investigation where we can say this is not a bipartisism issue. And everybody knew, like, we had these conversations on this very podcast, the public knew, something didn't seem right about this. And if you just think about this from first principles of what occurred here, just what occurred here.

• 33:42Jason Calacanis?

  Trey Berg, we funded gain of research to create these superviruses that what I think other people could just as equally call a bioweapon with the Chinese. Now, we're supposed to be arch rivals here. We're like these competitors. And then, when it came out and it leaked, and of course, I don't think it was released on purpose, when it came out, the people who work for us and we trust with our family's safety, who funded this in order to save their own reputations, to cover their asses, then lied about it. And then, like as you said, Sax, perfectly, they went on the offensive. These people were not elected by anybody.

• 34:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That's right.

• 34:26Jason Calacanis?

  These people work for us, and they failed us. This is a crime against humanity of the greatest cause. People committed suicide, people died because they had depression, our kids lost two years of school.

• 34:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Totally.

• 34:42Jason Calacanis?

  This generation has lost their education, and now we have burdened them with billions, hundreds of billions of dollars in debt from this.

• 34:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, trillions, Jason, trillions, trillions, tens of trillions.

• 34:54Jason Calacanis?

  This is a failure of leadership. It is a crime. And when people said prosecute Fauci, they were like, you're being hysterical. This is ridiculous. These people need to be prosecuted. If you hid this stuff from a FOIA request, you need to go to jail. There needs to be accountability here.

• 35:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think the-

• 35:13Jason Calacanis?

  For what they did to society, our children, and the future. I am infuriated by this.

• 35:18Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Imagine what happened in the Situation Room or the equivalent, wherever the President of the United States, all these world leaders were coalescing to try to make decisions in that period. They all looked at this quote unquote expert. They pointed at Fauci and said, lead us out. And so, do we not think that at any point, he was thinking, how do I do this in a way where I have no fingerprints? Clearly, the answer is, in fact, he was leading from a position of, how will I not have any fingerprints on this? And so, do we, did we get the best advice? On the margin, I think it's pretty fair to say, we could not have gotten it because he was too conflicted. He was figuring out how to cover up what happened, as opposed to just own it and then help the world get out of it.

• 36:02Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I mean, talk about like incinerating your entire career and legacy, but putting that aside, the morality of covering this up, and you know, so then you have to think Chama. And this is why I was like, what is the strategy? What goes through somebody's mind when they decide to do a cover up this level? Is it just fear of getting caught and their lives being in their mind ruined and they're going to do this incredible cover up? I actually think that they thought this would become a globally destabilizing moment between the United States and China, and that there could be revolutions. Now, I know that this is now sounding really conspiracy theory, but if you're sitting there and you're like, what if the public finds out we created this and their grandparents died from it?

• 36:47Jason Calacanis?

  And their kids didn't go to school because of it? There'll be riots in the street. But if enough time passes, maybe there's not riots in the street. But you know what? This is something that is just so abhorrent that, I mean, people need to really be held accountable. Friedberg, your thoughts?

• 37:02David Friedberg?

  What would you guys do if you're sitting in a policymaker's seat today, and you're being offered by scientists this ability to go and figure out what the next big virus will be, and start to make plans for getting in front of it by understanding the biology of these viruses, by seeing where they're going to evolve to, and by trying to get in front of the next pandemic so that we can protect the population? Do you guys support that sort of research? And what are the questions you ask? So let's, you know, rewind 15 years, pretend Fauci doesn't get to make those decisions. You guys are the policymakers. And folks say, SARS just happened. We want to do this research. We want to figure out. What do you do? And how do you answer that?

• 37:41Jason Calacanis?

  There's a really simple, there's a really simple question. If anybody who's watched any kind of science fiction or knows the history of this kind of research, which is... Don't do this in a population center and how will you prevent it from breaking out? Like literally, that's job one. If you're gonna, even if you're not going to, like literally every science fiction film has this. It's like, put it on an island. And there's an island off Long Island where they keep these things. I forgot the name of it. It's Plum Island or something. We'll look it up.

• 38:09David Sacks?

  Yeah. And by the way, there, there are internal NIH emails that suggest that COVID leaked from a level two facility. They call it BSL two, which does not operate with the top level biohazard safeguards. So they knew the Wuhan lab was not at the level of safeguards that it should have been. But look, I would go deeper and say that why would you do this kind of research at all? I mean, you are deliberately manipulating viruses in order to make them transmissible in humans. This was a bat virus that was not transmissible to humans. It was bioengineered. They had the furin cleavage site to allow it to gain access to human cells.

• 38:47David Friedberg?

  Yeah. So Sax, I am going to push back because that is not conclusively true. What you're saying is something that some people have claimed, but there are other scientists, including papers published recently in The Lancet and other like pretty reputable, like medical journals and research journals that indicate that the evolution seen in the furin cleavage site can be traced back to an evolutionary origin, not necessarily to a human engineered origin. So I want to just make that clear that that is a possibility. I'm not dismissing it, but I'm not supporting the other side. I'm saying we have work to do to figure this out. Just to be clear.

• 39:19David Sacks?

  It's a possibility that's so remote. I mean, look, I, I heard Professor Jeffrey Sachs talking about this in a recent interview and he went through the whole history. He said, there's like 200 of these coronaviruses in this like class or category, and there's not one furin cleavage site among any of them. So can you say that there's not a one in a billion chance of it happening naturally? So back to your question. It's a very, very, very low probability event.

• 39:44Jason Calacanis?

  Let me punch up your question, Friedberg, because if your question is, what should you do? I want to ask you guys, what do you do? So like, forget about, oh, there's bad guys. Fauci's a bad guy. Like, what do you do to protect the world against the next pandemic?

• 39:56David Sacks?

  Number one, you don't do this type of gain-of-function research. Number two, if you are going to do it, you don't do it at a level-two facility like the Wuhan lab. Number three, when the virus leaks from the lab, you don't basically lie about it and conduct a cover-up campaign that smears the reputation of honest scientists. Number four, when you're hauled into the Oval Office in response to this once-in-a-century pandemic, you don't pretend like you're America's doctor and you have all the answers, when in fact, you're the guy who created this problem.

• 40:29Jason Calacanis?

  You own it. There's an idea. You own it. And you know what? Like, the question really embedded in your question, Friedberg, I think, is, is there any argument to doing gain-of-function? If so, how? And then is there any reason to research, you know, the bat dung or whatever material they get it from, you know, from those caves and take it out of the caves? I could see the latter, Chamath, of like, hey, this existed nature, you studied it on an island somewhere far away from everybody with massive controls. The gain-of-function seems like, it literally feels like the speech from Jurassic Park, like,

• 41:04David Sacks?

  I think it's nutty.

• 41:04Jason Calacanis?

  Why would you do this?

• 41:05David Sacks?

  When you listen to these people.

• 41:06Jason Calacanis?

  And Jurassic Park took place on an island for a reason.

• 41:09David Sacks?

  There were many scientists who were opposed to gain-of-function research. They thought it was unduly risky and didn't have offsetting benefits. And that is exactly why Obama banned it. Very good decision. To me, this whole idea that we need to amplify these viruses in order to find out what would happen if this happened naturally is insane. You didn't have this problem until you created it.

• 41:32Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 41:32David Sacks?

  This is nutty. This is nutty.

• 41:34Jason Calacanis?

  It's nuts. Go ahead, Chamath.

• 41:36Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There are examples we know. I'll just point to two. Let's just say the attempted overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014. You can go back to Iran-Contra as yet another example, and you can add gain-of-function research now, which is, again, I'll just go back to when there are these lifelong bureaucrats that believe they're above the law.

• 41:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That there's this sensation that they can pull the levers of power silently behind the scenes because they know better. And then what they're doing, as you guys said, is they are controverting the desires of the people. So whether you like President Obama or not, he's duly elected by the people. And when he says this isn't allowed, it shouldn't be allowed. And when you instantiate chaos and wars and all of this other stuff overthrows in all of these other places that then create all these long tail effects, they're not done with really America's support. They're done by a small group of people who think they know better. And I think that we've created that kind of a problem that needs to get fixed.

• 42:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so I think that this has to be an example where you can make them an example, because otherwise it will keep happening. And there are other parts of the American bureaucracy where people are in charge of very critical and important decisions. And I suspect 99% of them are good, earnest, honest people doing the right thing for America. But it's just the law of large numbers. There will be one or two, and all it takes is one or two, who get drunk with that power. And so unless that there's a check and balance on that dynamic, we'll have more issues of this. And as the world gets more sophisticated and we rely more on experts, I hate to say this, guys, but you have to be more skeptical of experts.

• 43:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  As much as you think an expert is an expert, you have to fight the tendency of saying, I'm going to abdicate all of my intellect onto you and you decide. Yeah. I think you have to find a way of just gut checking. And Sacks said this critical thing. If I was the President of the United States in a pandemic, I didn't need the COVID to teach me this example. But if I'm trying to solve a very technical and hard engineering problem, what I always do is I bring a cross-section of people in a room. Typically, some of them have to have disagreeing opinions and I make them intellectually fight it out. Yep. And my job is to observe. And in that, I apply my judgment. I'm not nearly as smart as them, I'm not nearly technically as trained as them, but

• 44:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  that is a process that works. And I'm just questioning, it couldn't have happened here because as Sacks said, if you basically bury the reputations of the folks that are pushing back, you could never bring them inside the room in the Oval and have a conversation with them and say, "Hey Jay Bhattacharya, give us the red team version of what you think is happening." Yeah. And that is a real problem. Steel man the opposite side.

• 44:34David Sacks?

  Let me build on a point Chamath made, which is, I think we have to ask the question, what type of government do we really have? You know, we call ourselves a democracy, but are you a democracy when the elected leaders come and go and the really powerful bureaucrats running the government, running these agencies, stay for decades and decades? And if the president disagrees with their policy, they can just wait them out. Fauci wanted to do gain-of-function research, maybe, by the way, at the behest of DOD, we don't know, could have been a bioweapon or biodefense program. There's a lot more to this that we don't even know about yet. In any event, it's clear, he was passionately committed to funding gain-of-function research. He just waited for his opportunity and implemented his will.

• 45:19David Sacks?

  Victoria Nuland, in the State Department, passionately committed to basically bringing Ukraine into NATO and using that to essentially provoke a regime change operation in Russia. Again, she just had to wait for her opportunity to basically keep pushing these policies for decades. These are the people who are really running the American government.

• 45:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What's the solution? How would you change it? You have to turn these things over, these organizations, or get rid of them? We talk about term limits for politicians, maybe we actually need term limits for the administrative apparatchik that runs all these critical organizations.

• 45:51David Sacks?

  Right. It's called the deep state, right? You ever hear the expression "deep state"? It sounds conspiratorial, it's not. It's just the permanent bureaucracy. We elect a president, but how many people does the president actually appoint? A couple hundred? You know, 99.9% of the people running the government are there permanently.

• 46:09Jason Calacanis?

  Well, and then I'll just say here, I want to give a shout out to the journalist Catherine Iban and Catherine Iban and Emily Kopp. I know that people also have no faith in journalists. These are two journalists I think you could have tremendous faith in and who are going to win Pulitzers because they've been doggedly pursuing this. And you have to wonder why this is not the top story on the news networks and why this isn't the head of, you know, the New York Times or the Washington Post. Like, there needs to be much more coverage of what's going on here. I don't understand why this isn't what we're doing. Yeah, because Trump takes every headline.

• 46:41David Sacks?

  I don't think it has anything to do with Trump. I think it's got everything to do with the fact that the New York Times was covering for Fauci. Fauci's been there. Fauci's been there for decades. He is a major source of the New York Times, just like he was a major funder of grant programs, right? So there's a lot of people who have developed a dependency on Fauci. I mean, everyone, again-

• 47:00Jason Calacanis?

  For information. You think access journalism is what's going on here. He gave them access.

• 47:04David Sacks?

  There's no question that the New York Times was covering for this. The New York Times definitely promoted the idea that anyone pushing the lab leak theory was somehow a conspiracy theorist or a nut.

• 47:15Jason Calacanis?

  And you have to lay on top of all this, Sax, it's a political environment, right?

• 47:19David Sacks?

  They were pushing that whole crazy wet market theory and the pangolin.

• 47:22Jason Calacanis?

  Well, the wet market theory.

• 47:24David Sacks?

  The pangolin, remember the pangolin?

• 47:26Jason Calacanis?

  We needed Jon Stewart to dismantle the pangolin theory. You know, in relation to that, these wet markets have spread massive viruses and, you know, all kinds of things. And they do need to be, there was like a UN report on like, hey, we have to upgrade these people, have to stop doing live markets.

• 47:43David Sacks?

  That's why it was a great cover story.

• 47:45Jason Calacanis?

  I don't know that it was a great cover story. I think it was a logical theory to pursue to the end point of eliminating it because they, around Wuhan, there are a lot of these wet markets. It is completely conceivable that a person who was in that lab went to a wet market and it spread via the wet market. This is why we need a full investigation, folks, because all these theories could come together and there are more cards to turn over, which one of you alluded to, like, who knows what the turn in the river are going to be here? Like, what did China know? What did our government in China know? Maybe they are making bioweapons. Maybe they're doing even worse stuff that we don't know about. Maybe there's all kinds of rogue programs that are being, that are occurring here. That's why we need to keep digging and digging.

• 48:26Jason Calacanis?

  The American public must hold these people accountable and they need to tell us who else was involved. Because if Fauci's involved and this guy's involved, there's other people. I want to hear from everybody.

• 48:38David Sacks?

  There's many crazy parts of this, but I think maybe the craziest part of the whole thing is that when the pandemic happens and the elected government of the United States, the president, needs to pull in the resources to manage a policy response, who do they pull in? Fauci, the guy who created the problem. It's kind of like when they have Newland be our chief diplomat in the State Department. She's fomented the coup in Kiev in 2014. It's again, these, these bureaucrats are doing the exact opposite of what they're supposed to be doing.

• 49:07Jason Calacanis?

  They have to take ownership of this and being honest, yes.

• 49:11David Sacks?

  But I think to answer your question, what do we do about it? I think we just got to clean out the stables here.

• 49:14Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 49:15David Sacks?

  I think we just got to disband some of these government departments. Why do we have so many of this whole alphabet soup of three-letter agencies? I think Vivek Ramaswamy had the right idea. Let's just get rid of a bunch of these things.

• 49:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Zero-based budget, zero-based budget, the whole government.

• 49:28Jason Calacanis?

  Start over. Yeah. And just go right through each one, like if, and, and you know what? It should be a bipartisan issue, but there's so much money involved. And this is one of the challenges in the capitalist system. Is there so much money, there's so much grift to go around that when something like this happens and there's an opportunity to, I don't know, make a vaccine and, and, you know, put a couple of billion dollars into this light speed thing, which was a great idea seemingly. Everybody lines up, okay, yeah, sure, we'll get involved, we'll take some of that money. Yeah, buy a billion shots from us.

• 49:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  President Trump was really on to this because he's the one that really coined the term, the deep state and went after it. And if you think about the other side, right? The people that are there. It must be very discomforting to hear because a lot of those people are folks that worked hard, tried to go to good schools, get educated, and join an infrastructure to move a country forward because they believe in the country and the values of America.

• 50:20Jason Calacanis?

  Sounds like a noble, noble mission, right?

• 50:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But over long periods of time, most people come and go, and then there's a small cohort of folks that sort of end up ossifying and running the top parts of this permanent bureaucracy. And I think Sacks is right. They start to observe just the simple principle that all these folks come and go, yet I'm still around. President comes, president goes. Undersecretary comes, undersecretary goes. The secretary of this comes, and then they go. And so they start to believe that they're really in charge. And that's where the deep state idea comes from.

• 50:56Jason Calacanis?

  At least we're in a democracy where these hearings are occurring. I just want to give kudos to, in addition to those two journalists, to the people on this subcommittee who are doing it in a bipartisan way, and they will be, and they're being relentless. I think that's the honorable thing to do. I encourage them and those investigative journalists to be relentless.

• 51:15David Sacks?

  And kudos to Rand Paul, too. Remember when he was in the fourth?

• 51:19Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I mean, profile and courage. People were like, this guy's a loon.

• 51:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, Rand Paul had a right.

• 51:23David Sacks?

  To your point about what does this mean for our democracy, I wanted to bring up the Semaphore article where they polled young people and young voters, they despair over US politics. They described the United States as a dying empire led by bad people.

• 51:37Jason Calacanis?

  I mean-

• 51:38David Sacks?

  Now, after what we've learned about COVID, and I would argue also the whole background to the Ukraine war-

• 51:44Jason Calacanis?

  They're not wrong.

• 51:45David Sacks?

  Is this right? Exactly.

• 51:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Their intuition is, their intuition is right.

• 51:48Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, from the mouths of babes. I mean, if bad is, I mean, if they covered this up in the way it's looking like, I would call this behavior not bad. I'd call it evil because it was premeditated.

• 51:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And then, look, the point is, we're supposed to have this check and balance from the media, but when the media is complicit because they like to be in those halls of power, that's where, that's where these feelings come from. I think the latest stat that I saw is, I think, more than 52% of Americans now believe that the mainstream media is untrustworthy. And that's a really terrible place to be, which means you're basically-

• 52:20Jason Calacanis?

  Where do you get truth?

• 52:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You're consuming something that's just fundamentally not true.

• 52:24Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, burn it down. I mean, that, that's the conclusion any logical person would come to, is just burn it down. This, it makes no sense that they would try and cover this up. The right thing for Fauci to do is say, hey, listen- We didn't do gain a function, you know, under Obama. We did do it here. It's obviously been a mistake. We need to never do it again. And here's the roadmap to make sure that we protect people from the next one. Thank God this one didn't kill children the way it's killing all people. And by the way, this is going to crack open. I encourage you all to be vocal about this and to watch on Monday. Because Dr. Fauci is scheduled to appear in a hearing for the same subcommittee. And that is going to be explosive.

• 53:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Live streamed on YouTube. We'll put the link in the show notes.

• 53:04Jason Calacanis?

  Since we're in the don't trust anybody and have your own sovereignty. And we're in libertarian moment. Let's go to our crypto correspondent. It's Crypto Corner.

• 53:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  With?

• 53:15Jason Calacanis?

  Chamath. It's part of my production company. I'm now doing Crypto Corner with Chamath. That'll be next week's call though.

• 53:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I thought it would be good to talk about crypto. For a couple of reasons. One. Is because we just had the halving at the end of April.

• 53:31Jason Calacanis?

  What did that happen?

• 53:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The halving is where, just for folks that don't know, the way that Bitcoins are created is by solving these complex mathematical algorithms that take a lot of time and energy and money. And when you solve it, you get rewarded with some number of Bitcoin. And roughly every four years, that reward gets cut in half. It's called a halving. And this week I saw somebody who reminded me all of this. And I just want to give this guy a proper shout out. So his name is Wences Casares. And Wences, in Silicon Valley, I would say, really was agent zero of Bitcoin. He was the one in 2010 that introduced it to me. I remember he reminded me of the story, actually. We were at Oran's Hummus. And he's like, he's Argentinian, he's a great, so I'm going to try to copy.

• 54:18Chamath Palihapitiya?

  He's like, "Chamath, you need to buy the Bitcoin." So I heard the story. I fell in love with it. I remember I called my family office. I'm like, "Buy me a million of these things." And he was like, or a million dollars worth. And he was like, "Are you crazy?" And I was like, "No, this is just a little appetizer. We'll get to the main course." Anyways, he has done a phenomenal job of understanding and prosthetizing Bitcoin.

• 54:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I want to thank him because he really put me on to this, but he mentioned something to me when I saw him a couple of days ago, which is you should really look at the pattern of Bitcoin after a halving. And so I was really curious. And so I had a guy on my team, Quinton, put this together. So Nick, let me just, let's go to the first page. So why is this interesting? So here's a little Bitcoin price analysis for you guys. So there's been a couple of halving cycles that have happened. And I asked him to go back and look at the price performance, one month after a halving, three months, six months, nine months, 12 months, and 18 months after a halving. And what you notice is that there are these moments,

• 55:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  initially, where essentially when you go through a Bitcoin halving, people are sort of reassessing what's happening. And they're trying to figure it out. That's sort of what I would say is happens in the first month and roughly what also happens in the first three months. But then within six months to a year and 18 months of these things, there are these crazy price appreciation cycles that happen. So that's what this page shows, which is, you know, 18 months after the first halving, the Bitcoin price returned 45x. After the second halving, it returned almost 28x. And after this third halving,

• 56:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  it returned almost an 8x, which is really incredible returns in such a short period of time. If you go to the next page. And so if you, if you graph that, this is what it starts to show, which is what is this price performance after each of these halving cycles? Now, why is that interesting? Well, it's interesting because on top of this halving, which theoretically, if history is a guide, we should see some price appreciation. Obviously, the other thing that's happened is we've commercialized Bitcoin and we talked about this sort of as my big prediction for 2024, which is these ETFs are really going to allow Bitcoin to cross the chasm and have its sort of central key moment, right?

• 56:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so if you apply the averages, and again, these are just averages, they're by no means predictions. Okay. So I just want to qualify that.

• 56:52Jason Calacanis?

  This is not financial advice.

• 56:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  This is not financial advice. These are just guesses. We took these and we applied it to the price of Bitcoin. And if you go to the next page, you start to see what could happen if you just take the average of the last few cycles, so because the first cycle was so extreme. And you start to

• 57:11Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, so you're just doing cycle two and three here, to be clear?

• 57:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Just the averages of cycle two and three. And what you start to see is some really meaningful appreciation. And when I talked to Wences about this, how he explained it, which I, which makes a lot of sense to me is there are a lot of countries that will never look at Bitcoin credibly, even if they support it. The US may be one of those, but there is an increasing body of countries that will become dual currency. And they will look at their local currency and then they will look at Bitcoin. And they will say both of these two things are needed. One, when you're transacting on a daily basis for random goods and services. And two, when you need to buy a permanent asset that needs to have residual value, you'll use something like BTC.

• 57:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And I think that's a very powerful concept. And if you look at what this price chart could indicate is that if this thing starts to get to these levels of appreciation, it is going to completely replace gold and start to become something that has transactional utility for hard assets. And I think if you marry that with this worry that some folks have about dollar debasement, you start to see some really interesting opportunities. So I just thought that this was a interesting thing that he, that he, here's our disclaimer. Interesting thing that he put me on. I thought I'd share that with you. I'll publish this on Twitter, but that's your crypto corner for the year, folks.

• 58:38David Sacks?

  I think it's really interesting how the crypto community is getting organized into basically a lobby to advocate for its interests because

• 58:46Jason Calacanis?

  It's the biggest lobby in America. Did you know that?

• 58:48David Sacks?

  They've been so targeted over the last few years because Gensler and Warren have been on a crusade to basically make crypto illegal or drive it offshore. Well, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And now the crypto people have basically had a political awakening and realized they have to get involved in the political system. This is a matter of defense, self-defense.

• 59:11Jason Calacanis?

  Shout out SBF. He's a pioneer.

• 59:15David Sacks?

  Well, not like that. I mean, that guy was a crook.

• 59:17Jason Calacanis?

  No, I mean, he was dropping money on everybody, yeah.

• 59:19David Sacks?

  Yeah.

• 59:19Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Did you guys hear this? Did you hear this rumor that?

• 59:21David Sacks?

  He was doing that to basically push for regulatory capture, remember?

• 59:25Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. I think it's a nuanced point.

• 59:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Did you guys hear this rumor? Did you guys hear this rumor that SBF was gonna put a billion dollars into the election and convince Tom Brady to run as a Republican?

• 59:36Jason Calacanis?

  And give, no, give the billion to Trump.

• 59:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, sorry, give the billion to Trump.

• 59:39Jason Calacanis?

  He was gonna give Trump a billion to not run.

• 59:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Okay.

• 59:42Jason Calacanis?

  And then get Tom Brady to run. I mean, this person had delusions of grandeur. He thought he was a Jedi knight and he's like literally in Jabba's balance right now. I don't know what this, I mean, what a lunatic he was. I mean, talk about delusions of grandeur, Sax. This guy thought he would just drop a billion dollars and convince somebody not to run for government. I think we're gonna, I think we're gonna get a regulatory, you know, back to the young people we talked about in the previous story. I think the reason they're attracted to crypto is because it doesn't have government control. And since if you don't trust the government and you see the government over and over and over again, cover things up or the grift or make decisions that are not in your generation's best interest, why wouldn't you opt out of their financial system?

• 1:00:24Jason Calacanis?

  And you know what? There's a lot of them and they have, and they're getting organized, to your point, Sax. I think we're gonna have a crypto framework and it's worth probably five points in this election. What do you think, Sax? How many points is being the pro crypto candidate worth in this election? One, two, three points of votes? Four points? It's gotta be some significant.

• 1:00:44David Sacks?

  No, it's hard to qualify.

• 1:00:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  If young people show up, it'll be, it'll be, it could be 500 basis points. I mean, young people do not show up to vote because there isn't an issue that they care about.

• 1:00:52Jason Calacanis?

  Correct.

• 1:00:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But there's 50 million Americans that own crypto, 50, five zero.

• 1:00:57Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, so if 10% of them are, like, let's say that's their single issue, that's 5 million votes.

• 1:01:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, no. There's a, there's a plausible case where 40 million of those folks show up because you're talking about a structural part of their wealth creation, right? So, for example, like, you know, Biden, President Biden talked about giving people a head start by eliminating their debt. That's a narrow issue. And the reason it's a narrow issue, there's just as many people that don't have debt and just as many people that paid off their debt and it creates a lot of haves and have nots, right? And there's all these rules around who will get the debt relief, etc. You end up touching four or five million people maximum. But if there are 50 million people who have now decided to have at least a hedge against the establishment and the traditional financial system,

• 1:01:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  and you are threatening to take that wealth away.

• 1:01:50Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:01:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I could see how 80% of those folks show up to the ballot box and say, all right, which one of you will just leave me alone? And if the answer is President Trump, then they're all going to vote for President Trump.

• 1:01:59Jason Calacanis?

  I think this is like such a great issue for political candidates to embrace. And it's such a simple framework, I've said it a dozen times. Create a sophisticated investor test. Let a thousand flowers bloom. People can make whatever crypto projects they want, but to buy it, you just have to take a simple test like a driver's license so that you don't risk your entire net worth or whatever. If you do, you're an informed buyer of crypto. Just make a sophisticated investor test and let's move on. Chamath, just since we're in crypto corner, before we leave crypto corner, when is my ape going to be worth money again? When will my ape go back up?

• 1:02:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Never.

• 1:02:34Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, so my ape's not coming back. Okay, so I guess I shouldn't have done that.

• 1:02:39Jason Calacanis?

  All right.

• 1:02:39David Sacks?

  Roy, how's Saxcoin doing? We had Saxcoin and we had.

• 1:02:43Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, gosh, my coin went crazy, but that was a pump and dub scheme that we had nothing to do with. I will never sell you a coin until I do. I just want to let everybody know that. If you get a TM from me, I am not selling Jcoin until you hear it first. I would literally do an angel investing coin immediately if there was a framework for it. It would be the greatest idea ever to have like a Jcoin and I could just like put it into startups and then people could buy and sell it and be like this ongoing evergreen venture. Where's my J Dow? I love Dows and I love, I love the idea of an angel investing coin, but man, a startup coin would be brilliant.

• 1:03:22David Sacks?

  Yeah, the Jason coin is basically at zero. It, man, it, it was worth.

• 1:03:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The Saxcoin is down to eight grand.

• 1:03:28David Sacks?

  Yeah. To be clear, I didn't have anything to do with Saxcoin either, but I was more amused by it than anything else.

• 1:03:33Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, well, my friend decided to tell everybody he was going to buy some and then straight to the moon.

• 1:03:41Jason Calacanis?

  It was pretty funny. It's hilarious. I have some, I've only, we've only bought crypto twice. We have some Doge, which I bought during like our Doge phase a couple of years ago. And then my wife presently bought Bitcoin, you know, at a very low price when everybody was talking around it around Thanksgiving. And my, my, Bitcoin went phenomenal and my Doge is at break even now. So I've spent two years just on the pendulum, but who knows? Maybe Doge will become a thing again. I love Doge. All right, we have a bellwether of sorts here. Salesforce dropped more than 20% after reporting earnings. We should talk about the state of SaaS, software as a service.

• 1:04:24Jason Calacanis?

  If you're not in the industry, Salesforce had its worst day in the markets in nearly 20 years on Thursday. And that's when we taped this. It lost about $40 billion in market cap, or as we say in the industry, two figmas. On Wednesday, Salesforce missed Q1 revenue estimates for the first time since 2006. Revenue was up 9.1 billion, 11% year over year, but about 40 million below Wall Street expectations. So they're doing great, but Wall Street is concerned for a reason. We'll get into what that is. Net income was 1.5 billion, 7x year over year because they've been doing a lot of cuts over there. Free cash flow, 6 billion, up 43%. Profits are up huge because if you remember, those activist investors came in and had Benny off,

• 1:05:06Jason Calacanis?

  really rethink the structure of the business and the footprint of the business. But guidance for Q2, down. Salesforce projecting 7% growth, relatively low for them. Free Bird, you and I were talking about this, like, what are your thoughts here on what's happening in the markets? And then we had the side discussion, which we didn't dock it, but I think it's worth bringing up here and dovetailing, which is, it does seem like the consumer, which this is an enterprise story, but the economy is cooling off. Consumers, I think, are running out of money. The YOLO economy is finally, I think, at its end. What does this say to you, Free Bird?

• 1:05:46David Friedberg?

  Well, I think the key question to your point is there a macroeconomic reason for a slowdown in their business? They're forecasting

• 1:05:55David Friedberg?

  For this next fiscal year, revenue growth of only eight to nine percent. And for this next quarter, it's basically a flat revenue quarter relative to the past quarter. So for this fiscal year, thirty eight billion of top line revenue, nine billion of operating cash flow. And with the market cap coming down by twenty percent, the stock's at a two hundred billion dollar valuation. So it's trading at, you know, call it roughly twenty times their operating cash flow forecast with sub ten percent revenue growth. And that's basically where treasuries trade, right? Because treasury yields for thirty year treasury, you can get four point seven percent today.

• 1:06:31Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I was about to say, almost five.

• 1:06:33David Friedberg?

  You know, that's about twenty X, right? So that's about where the multiple is on this Salesforce stock. So I think it really begs the question on, you know, is there a macroeconomic force where the enterprise is spending less? Because of, you know, a revenue slowdown in the economy, which we saw on the latest GDP report. That's number one, that could be driving this and will affect ultimately the multiple for all these enterprise SaaS companies. Or number two, is there a shifting underway in the SaaS business model? That the premium that SaaS companies were able to charge in the pricing model on a per seat basis and the dollars that they're able to charge per employee or per user is so significant relative to what that enterprise can build themselves now?

• 1:07:14David Friedberg?

  With the commoditization available to them under this new era of AI? And the ability to build tools internally? Or the ability for competitors to emerge with significantly underpriced alternatives? Because they can use generative AI to make software that can compete. And then there's this other question, because Salesforce has been leaning in heavily on the generative AI capabilities that they're offering their customers. And it seems like the question is, are enterprises waiting to see the value of that generative AI? Service capability, is it worth paying for today? Should I wait and see? Or is it actually indicating that there's a big commoditization in generative AI underway?

• 1:07:52Jason Calacanis?

  Okay.

• 1:07:52David Friedberg?

  Meaning, why do I have to pay Salesforce a bunch of money when I can use some open source, third party tool or some more freely available tool?

• 1:07:58Jason Calacanis?

  So Chamath Friedberg presented two options here. One of them, macroeconomic slowdown. The other one, hey, software. You know, belt tightening is happening inside the enterprise and it's cheaper to make. So maybe we have a deflationary kind of situation inside companies. I guess this is adjacent, that last part of his theory is adjacent to the 80, 90 mission you're on with your new startup. And maybe this, is this an or or an end in your mind, Chamath? Is it both these things?

• 1:08:25David Friedberg?

  But sorry, before you answer, the third point I made was that generative AI.

• 1:08:29Jason Calacanis?

  Generative AI might, yes. And the third point.

• 1:08:30David Friedberg?

  It may not be a product line. It may not be enough to charge for, given all the open source tools.

• 1:08:34Jason Calacanis?

  Yes. And there's a big question mark about the AI, new software, will people pay for it? So Chamath, take those three. What are your thoughts?

• 1:08:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think that if you look at what happened before, we had a cycle where very large monolithic software was replaced by these SaaS vendors. And Salesforce led that charge and they led the, in many ways, the definition of the cloud. So that was amazing. That was this one big cycle. And before that, that monolithic, those monolithic software vendors were replacing like mainframes and very archaic stuff. This is sort of this third disruptive cycle. We're going to go through a process of ripping and replacing these legacy products. And so Gen AI is just a, an enablement layer that allows you to deliver functionality to

• 1:09:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  people. And I think what you're going to find is that it allows you to deliver that functionality at much, much cheaper. To your point, that's the whole point of 80, 90. We, you know, we always joke, is Salesforce going to get 80, 90? Yeah, because you can deliver 80% of the features at a 90% discount pretty easily today. And what you can't deliver today will get much, much easier in a year and two years and three years, for sure in 10 years. So I think what the market is voting with their dollars is that these large, lumpy, monolithic software companies that need big 50, 100 million dollar customers.

• 1:10:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  They're not going to find them soon because those customers will realize that you could get, you know, what Friedberg said, what you need for 10 million, or 5 million, or 1 million, or 500,000, and in some cases, free. And so the cost structure of your organization makes no sense. And so you're going to have to go through this very complicated cycle of recycling, you know, the business model, which unfortunately will mean tons of layoffs. And that's not a today thing, but over these next five and 10 years, that's probably what's going to happen. And it doesn't mean Salesforce is a bad company. It's just that it is on the wrong side of the lifecycle. And the odds are overwhelmingly such that a bunch of small companies

• 1:10:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  will flood this opportunity and provides cheaper, smaller, more flexible capabilities.

• 1:10:53Jason Calacanis?

  Sacks, obviously you made your bones in the SaaS business over the last two decades at least. What are your thoughts here on the challenges? I just interviewed Owen McCabe from Intercom, and he says he thinks the seat model is going to change. And obviously, if there's less people at companies, there's less seats. And that may be a headwind that you just can't win against. So maybe a consumption model has to happen or a different pricing model. But what are your thoughts on what's happening at Salesforce? And then open the aperture there and tell us what you think is going to happen in terms of how corporations either decide to make that, you know, build or buy decision.

• 1:11:31David Sacks?

  Well, I think it's pretty amazing that Salesforce lost something like 40 billion of market cap because of a revenue miss of 40 million. You know, it's amazing how these relatively small in percentage terms misses in revenue or earnings drive such huge changes in market cap.

• 1:11:48Jason Calacanis?

  Quite a ripple, isn't it?

• 1:11:50David Sacks?

  Yeah. I mean, look, my view is that I don't have a strong view about the stock, but my sense is it's probably a buying opportunity. I mean, I think Salesforce is still a great company. Mark Benioff is a great CEO. He's always positioned the company to chase after whatever the current thing is. So obviously, he was one of the first to realize that software was headed to the cloud. Evangelize for the cloud, then when the social networking revolution happened, he launched chatter, which was a competitor to my product, Yammer back then. But he was ahead of the curve on on social and the enterprise. Then it was big data and they launched Einstein. Now they've got AI and they're going to be doing a bunch of different things there.

• 1:12:34David Sacks?

  So my guess is he's going to figure out how to take advantage of this. This AI trend for the company, they're not going to miss it. They're not going to get caught totally flat footed. So, Elok, I don't have a super strong point of view on it as an investment, but.

• 1:12:51Jason Calacanis?

  What about the bigger picture? Open the aperture there with the SaaS versus end pricing? And how many people will work at these companies? And then if the perceived model is the model and then people are going to have less humans working at companies and do more with less, how does that mean for SaaS writ large?

• 1:13:06David Sacks?

  I'm honestly not worried about the perceived model. I mean, the point of a pricing plan should be to align revenue expansion with ROI, meaning the more value that a customer gets from your product, the more they're willing to pay. And you just need some proxy for measuring that. Seats are a good proxy. It's a good way to measure how much value the customer is getting out of your product, because the more seats they're buying, the more value they must be getting. Yes, you could do it some other way. You could basically meter data usage, you could meter API usage. Sure, those models will work for other kinds of companies, but I don't think there's going to be a huge disruption to the seat model is my sense.

• 1:13:49David Sacks?

  Look, I think the bigger issue here is that their forecast was soft, right? They are forecasting what sub 10% revenue growth.

• 1:13:59Jason Calacanis?

  They're going to.

• 1:14:00David Sacks?

  And this is why the stock got punished. And I'm seeing that a bunch of SaaS companies are kind of hurting today now in the wake of this. They're down like 5%, not 20%, but. So I wonder if what the market is wondering is whether there's a more general slowdown that we're on the precipice of.

• 1:14:18Jason Calacanis?

  I don't think that that explains 40 to 20% drop in a day. I think typically these public market investors.

• 1:14:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Internalize a bunch of fears and they don't execute on those fears. And then when given an opportunity, they just barf it all out because it's like now it's acceptable. And so to your point, David, like it was such like a an insignificant revenue miss so as to not even be important, quite honestly. But the reason it's down 20% is I think folks have internalized a different set of risks. And then they've found an escape hatch where they have plausible deniability for selling. That's just what a lot of public market investors do.

• 1:14:56David Sacks?

  I don't think it's a coincidence that we just had the GDP forecast revised down for the latest quarter. What was it? It's down to like 1.4%.

• 1:15:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Something, yeah. We talked about this last week because it's this number's fake.

• 1:15:09David Sacks?

  The economy is looking pretty soft right now.

• 1:15:12Jason Calacanis?

  Which is, I guess, a good jumping off point, uh, which is, what do we think is happening here with the economy and then interest rates because the whole goal here was to get us under, you know, get us close to 2%, get rid of the three handle at least in terms of interest going up and maybe get the consumers to not be spending so much money, which is crazy to think about, or maybe get more people laid off and have the unemployment not so low.

• 1:15:36David Sacks?

  Remember when everyone was talking about soft landing?

• 1:15:39Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:15:40David Sacks?

  The reason why they were having that conversation is because the Fed jacked up interest rates really suddenly from roughly zero to five, five and a half percent.

• 1:15:47Jason Calacanis?

  And it worked.

• 1:15:48David Sacks?

  That has an impact on people's consumption because debt is much more expensive. So again, it's hard to buy a house, harder to buy a car, anything you need to finance gets much harder. It took a long time for this to work its way through the economy, but I think we're finally seeing it now.

• 1:16:03Jason Calacanis?

  I think we're, I think that's exactly right. I think we're here when you see that three handle, like, does it go down? You know, it's very interesting about the 2% target. I went down the rabbit hole to try to figure out that 2% target. Like, I was like, who came up with 2% as a number? Like, why isn't it 3 or 2.5 or 1.5 or 1? It's a guy in New Zealand who was, you know, came up with what he thought was a good target, 2%. The world adopted it. So.

• 1:16:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Going back to our conversation about experts.

• 1:16:27Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. And he just fairly admits it. He's just like, yeah, I just thought 3% seemed like the right number. It wasn't too high, wasn't too low, and it's kind of healthy to have things go up in price because that means like the economy is growing. It's, it's just a random target, 2%. It was his gut.

• 1:16:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Incredible, right? Incredible.

• 1:16:44David Friedberg?

  Yeah. I mean, if you look at this, we are at, what is it? 3.6% annualized CPI inflation?

• 1:16:53David Friedberg?

  And 1.3% annualized GDP growth and a 4.7% 30-year treasury yield. This is, I don't know what else is more definitional of stagflation. The economy is not growing, prices are going up, and the cost of borrow has gone through the roof.

• 1:17:10Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, someone's got to give. And then also, if they keep raising taxes,

• 1:17:13David Friedberg?

  Well, it's good.

• 1:17:14Jason Calacanis?

  Like their plans are, then affluent people are going to be trying to protect their assets.

• 1:17:19David Friedberg?

  Who's they?

• 1:17:21Jason Calacanis?

  I'm just thinking like a politician, like if a politician were to raise taxes dramatically.

• 1:17:26David Friedberg?

  But which?

• 1:17:26Jason Calacanis?

  I'm not picking anybody. I don't want to, I don't want you to have Biden derangement syndrome here, Sax, okay?

• 1:17:31David Sacks?

  Well, I can promise you this, I don't think Trump's going to raise taxes, but Biden will if he has the trifecta.

• 1:17:37Jason Calacanis?

  Absolutely, absolutely. That's why I'll see you Thursday night with my $50,000 check. I can't wait to be there. It's going to easily be paid for by my tax cut.

• 1:17:45David Friedberg?

  Just to jump back for a second on the Salesforce point. So, you know, Salesforce faces these challenges, but it's still led by Marc Benioff.

• 1:17:52Jason Calacanis?

  Absolutely. That dude's tremendous.

• 1:17:54David Friedberg?

  And if you look at the performance of the average public company, regardless of the sector that that business operates in, that is run by a hired CEO versus run by a founder CEO.

• 1:18:06Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:18:06David Friedberg?

  The founder public companies that have, that have gone public, achieved a $10 billion market cap, and are still founder run as the CEO from there, outperform nearly any index you look at.

• 1:18:20Jason Calacanis?

  Okay.

• 1:18:20David Friedberg?

  And this is, I think, like a really key point. You could probably put together, I think some people have done this, put together a founder portfolio, but I wouldn't count out Benioff just because of some of the stuff that we've talked about.

• 1:18:32David Sacks?

  That's my view.

• 1:18:32David Friedberg?

  Because founders, founders, founders can and will maneuver their way to success. That is the hunger of the entrepreneur.

• 1:18:39Jason Calacanis?

  Let's do our, uh, let's do our draft. The one, uh, founders you should not bet against. Which founder would you least want to short? Chamath, you're first in the draft. Who do you got? Who would you not want to bet against? Worst person to bet against?

• 1:18:56Jason Calacanis?

  Sorry, what do you mean? Like founders? Any entrepreneur in history.

• 1:19:00David Sacks?

  We already know what happened when people tried to short Elon. They got incinerated.

• 1:19:03Jason Calacanis?

  Barbecue sauce, okay. You got, you picked Elon in the draft then? That's number one. Chamath, who you got? Yeah, that's easy. I would pick him too. Okay, but we got to pick somebody out. That's why it's a draft. Here we took Elon, now you got to take the next person. It could be anybody. Doesn't have to be alive, doesn't have to be in position right now. Who would I, so sorry, what's, what founder would I? Least likely to short? An entrepreneur, you'd least want to short? Well, Larry Ellison. Okay, Ellison's yours. Hold on. Now, Friedberg, you get to go in the draft. What do you got?

• 1:19:32David Friedberg?

  I don't, I don't know the, I mean, all these founders, I don't know how to pick one. I mean, what are you, you're asking?

• 1:19:36Jason Calacanis?

  I'm gonna go with, uh, I'm gonna go with Bill Gates.

• 1:19:42David Friedberg?

  What?

• 1:19:43Jason Calacanis?

  I thought I was dogging his prime. No, I said it could be any period of time.

• 1:19:47David Sacks?

  Well, yeah, now that you know the stock performance, what are you talking about?

• 1:19:50Jason Calacanis?

  I just think even in the next coming, do.

• 1:19:52David Sacks?

  So your position, your position, you're, you're gonna go out on a limb, you're gonna go on a limb and say that when Bill Gates was doing his legendary run, I wouldn't have shorted it.

• 1:20:03Jason Calacanis?

  Absolutely. I also wouldn't short Michael Jordan or LeBron James. Steph Curry, definitely wouldn't want to get bet against him. All right, everybody, breaking news today in the law being fair, I'm sorry, today in lawfare, depending on your view, Trump was found guilty on all 34 felony charges. You can choose your own framing here. Some say it's election interference. Uh, some people are referring to this as the hush money porn star case. Other people are calling it the deep state lawfare case. The jury deliberated for about a day and a half. Trial lasted six weeks, included testimony from 20 witnesses. Key moment seems to have been Trump's CFO, Weiselman, who's, I think, in jail right now for other charges, outlining the terms of the payments to Michael Cohen,

• 1:20:48Jason Calacanis?

  the disgraced, lying attorney who recorded Trump's conversations. And that's, I think, all I can tell you about this, except for maybe the sentencing is, uh, coming up. It's gonna be July 11th, which is but four days before the RNC. Clearly a sad day for America. I'm not sure if anybody on the panel has any opinions on the Trump verdict, but let's just randomly start with you, David. Any thoughts on Trump being convicted of 34 felonies in this case?

• 1:21:23David Sacks?

  Well, first of all, in terms of understanding this case, I think it's important to understand that both Merrick Garland's DOJ and former Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, they looked at this case, they looked at these charges, and they passed on bringing this case. Alvin Bragg was a Soros-funded DA. He won a hotly contested race to succeed Vance by pledging to get Trump, and that's why he brought this case. And in order to bring these charges, he had to use a creative legal formula that turned a misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records, a charge that would have been passed to statute of limitations, into a felony by claiming it was in the service of a second crime, but he never named exactly what that crime was or proved that it happened.

• 1:22:07David Sacks?

  And I think it's safe to say that a case like this, which is novel and creative and torturous, would never have been brought against anybody but Trump. Now, there's about five different grounds for appeal on this. Number one, the judge is a Biden donor with a daughter who works for Biden. Number two, prejudicial and irrelevant evidence was admitted that should have been excluded, including Stormy Daniels' testimony. Number three, Trump was not able to call his expert in election law, former head of FEC Bradley Smith. Number four, the prosecution never named the second crime. And then number five, the judge let the jury pick from a range of options for what the second crime might be, including tax crimes, which no evidence was presented, and federal

• 1:22:51David Sacks?

  election crimes, which the court had no jurisdiction. So my guess is that at the end of the day, this case is going to get tossed on appeal, but that's probably going to happen after the election, after November 5th, and Democrats now have what they wanted. They wanted to get out of this case four words, Donald Trump convicted felon, and you're going to be hearing that phrase convicted felon repeated ad nauseam from now until November 5th, and I think that's the whole point of this case.

• 1:23:17David Friedberg?

  Friedberg, your take? No, I mean, it felt like this was always a win-win trial for Trump if he gets...

• 1:23:25David Friedberg?

  Convicted, then, you know, the conversation that we're hearing now, you know, this was an unfair conviction, how could they do this, this is lawfare. And if he doesn't get convicted, they tried to burn him at the stake, how could they try and do that, clearly he's innocent, he was made innocent. So, you know, it never really struck me as being a smart, I'm not a political guy, but the political calculus just seemed off on this entirely. It certainly wasn't clear what they were trying to accomplish. Either way, Trump looks good, and I think we saw tonight, reports that his website for making donations crashed. A lot of people started making public statements on Twitter that are not typically Republican

• 1:24:08David Friedberg?

  donors, that they're donating a lot of money to Donald Trump coming out of this. And so it is clearly infuriating a lot of people, that as Sacks points out, you know, something that some people are considering to be, you know, a bookkeeping or accounting crime, has turned into 34 felony convictions. It feels unfair, it feels like the wrong decision, and it's going to infuriate people because people worry about the quality of the justice system. Anyone who's sitting in the middle, as an independent or an undecided, I think it is much more likely that they are going to have sympathy for Donald Trump coming out of this, not admonishment.

• 1:24:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Schumacher, your take? I think that if you went into this looking to confirm your hatred of President Trump, you were the one that was given red meat. And I think that if you were undecided or pro-President Trump, you probably found more reason to support him for all the reasons that Reebok said. The thing that's unique about this specific trial, that I found rather interesting, was the diversity of people who just couldn't understand what this trial was about. Whether it was Bill Barr, who worked for him, but was not a huge fan of his, nor was,

• 1:25:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  you know, Trump, or vice versa, right? To an Alan Dershowitz, to Cyrus Vance, you had Democrats and Republicans and independents.

• 1:25:34Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Legal scholars, legal experts, some who like President Trump, some who did not, some who got along with him, some who did not, some who fought with him, some who did not, some who got fired by him, some who did not. And they were all categorically confused about what this whole thing was about. I'm not legally well-versed enough to understand what it was. So as a layman, you then tend to go to this next obvious thing, which is you have to bucket this decision as here are some experts and what they know is better than what I know. And we talked about this earlier on the pod today when it came to Fauci, and it turned out to not be so true. Or you go to this other place where are there systems of government

• 1:26:18Chamath Palihapitiya?

  that can be convoluted and turned in the favor of the majority who's in power against someone that they feel is a threat? And we've talked about that as well with respect to how some of these governmental institutions have targeted some of our friends. So I think that we're in a very precarious moment where

• 1:26:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  the systems of governments in the United States are a little bit more fragile than they were the moment before.

• 1:26:45Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, if people are wondering what the case is actually about, falsifying business records, this is a pretty serious crime in New York City. Basically, when people don't keep correct records, when they're committing crimes, this is taken seriously in New York because it is the financial capital of the world. They've got a long history, whether it's, you know, Bernie Madoff, Enron, et cetera, of pursuing these. I don't know why this didn't get communicated well to the public, but there were obviously tons of business records falsified here. And they basically admitted to it. Michael Cohen had pleaded guilty to it already. And so it really feels like a misdemeanor. And then to understand what happened after that,

• 1:27:31Jason Calacanis?

  there is a law in New York, as Sacks correctly pointed out, on top of the falsifying of business records, which New York takes deadly seriously, and they put this in every indictment when people do it, because they want the accountants, lawyers, CFOs to behave themselves and not cheat the public.

• 1:27:48Jason Calacanis?

  The election interference, also taken very seriously in New York. There's been tons of cases. Again, typically minor things, but people who do things like try to stuff ballots, et cetera. And so you put those two together. If you do falsifying, if you falsify business records and you do it as part of a second crime, which he did, which he was convicted of, then you get these penalties. So that is the explanation of the case. That was why he was found guilty. It's pretty easy to figure this all out. If you don't know all this, it's because you didn't take the time to read anything about the case in terms of the basic heuristics of it, which I think is because people are burned out on this.

• 1:28:29Jason Calacanis?

  Trump has committed so many misdemeanors and crimes over time that we're kind of used to it. And, you know, my personal take on it, and I'll just leave it at this, is I think it's going to be a speeding ticket. I do think it's going to get overturned. I think Trump has done this his whole career. I lived in New York. All these real estate guys were doing all these kind of like little tiki-tacky cheating things. And I do think that this was politically motivated.

• 1:28:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What was the second crime, J.K.? You, if you understand the case.

• 1:28:58Jason Calacanis?

  Election interference.

• 1:29:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But what does that mean?

• 1:29:01Jason Calacanis?

  You're not allowed to interfere in elections. So the theory here, which the, you know, the jury unanimously voted in front of in over these six or seven weeks, election interference was because Trump was in dire straits. He, after the Access Hollywood tape came out, that weekend, when he admitted to assaulting women, the grab them by the blank came out. His team, in this case, admitted, including his assistant, Michael Cohen, Allen Weisselberg, and of course, the guy from the National Enquirer, Pecker, all of them agreed, testified,

• 1:29:43Jason Calacanis?

  and just were completely honest that this payment and the reason they bought these people off was because they were scared that it would reduce his chances of being elected. They were in panic mode. They all testified. To that, the jury found that they committed these crimes, the falsifying of business records in order to save his election chances. So that is the legal concept. This legal concept was available to everybody for the last, you know, since it's been filed in the New York Times. Anybody who doesn't read these basic things and comments on this case is just a partisan who doesn't want to accept the reality that these are actual legal concepts that are completely valid.

• 1:30:26Jason Calacanis?

  Now, I do think despite all of that and me making it abundantly clear to anybody that you don't want people falsifying business records and you also don't want anybody interfering in elections, I do think it was politically motivated. So you've got to keep two things in your mind at the same time. It's politically motivated, Trump commits crimes regularly, often, but they tend to be ticky tacky.

• 1:30:48David Sacks?

  You just said it was going to be reversed on appeal. So if you're so confident it's a crime, then why do you also say it's going to get reversed?

• 1:30:54Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, because I think, well, I, I, I'll let me restate that. I think he's going to get a speeding ticket. I don't think the case is going to reverse. I think there's going to be some sort of a pardon. Now, this is a state kind of situation, so it wouldn't be Biden who would pardon it. It would be the, the governor. And I think what's going to happen is somebody like Trump, Teflon Don, he's called that for a reason. He gets away with it every time. He's rich, he's powerful, like all rich and powerful people. You have to really do something heinous to wind up in jail. So I think it's going to be a speeding ticket. I do think the, the documents cases, that one is a pretty legitimate one with obstruction. And I do think the election interference, those are the two he should be really worried about because if he is found guilty on those, those are legit. But I do think this country is going to need to come together.

• 1:31:37Jason Calacanis?

  I hate to be the bigger person here, but I do think the company, the country needs to get together and get us two new candidates and we can't be having this lawfare and politically motivated lawsuits every time somebody loses or they're afraid of losing an election.

• 1:31:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But let me ask you a question, Jason. You're a, you're a, you're a famous, successful person and over the next 10 or 20 years, the odds are pretty good you'll be more famous and more successful.

• 1:32:03Jason Calacanis?

  Say more, Chuma.

• 1:32:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Do you feel, do you feel the less, the same or more? Okay, you have to say less, same or more. If somebody in government doesn't like what you're up to, after today, are you less the same or more in terms of the risk that the laws could be used to fight you?

• 1:32:22Jason Calacanis?

  I think we're kind of in the same area. I think there's always been politically motivated prosecutions that have occurred. That's part of, you know, the flaw in our legal system. And I do think appeals pardons exist as the relief valve for those things. And I think for rich and powerful people with great representation, they always get off unless they've done something incredibly, incredibly heinous. And I don't think this is incredibly heinous. And so when it's framed as simply, oh, it's a porn star. He banged a porn star. Who cares? It was consensual and she got a payoff or maybe she was extorting him even, you know? I don't know if those details were ever determined, if you could frame it as extortion or not.

• 1:33:07Jason Calacanis?

  I think none of that matters. Like this, this falsifying business records thing is just

• 1:33:13Jason Calacanis?

  something they did. They should just own it. They should have just pled it out. And it should have probably never been escalated to the next level with the election interference. I thought that was a little bit of a stretch, but not that much of a stretch.

• 1:33:25David Sacks?

  Escalated because Alvin Bragg got elected to pursue this case.

• 1:33:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And that's the only way you could get it from a misdemeanor to a felony.

• 1:33:32Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, exactly. So I think that is part of the lead in the case.

• 1:33:36David Sacks?

  I know you're really giddy about this, Jake. I can hear your voice.

• 1:33:39Jason Calacanis?

  No, I'm not. No, I'm not.

• 1:33:40David Sacks?

  But all you're doing is repeating your-

• 1:33:43Jason Calacanis?

  Nope. Sorry, Sax. You don't get to say I'm giddy. I'm not going to tell you how you feel. You don't get to tell me how I feel. I actually am sad for America. I'm sad for America that Trump and Biden are our choices.

• 1:33:54David Sacks?

  Okay, great.

• 1:33:54Jason Calacanis?

  So speak for yourself, not for me.

• 1:33:56David Sacks?

  Okay, great. Well, maybe I'm just detecting enthusiasm in your voice. I'm not quite sure what it is.

• 1:34:01Jason Calacanis?

  Not at all.

• 1:34:01David Sacks?

  You're presenting these documents on the screen that are basically from Alvin Bragg's case. It's all you're doing is repeating his theory of the case, which I must say is extremely tortured. And it's novel. I don't think a case like this has ever been brought. And if you are going to bring a case against a former president, it should be for something more than ticky tacky type stuff. Stuff that you yourself admit is politically motivated. It's obvious Bragg was out to get Trump. This is a campaign strategy. You have to bend the law into a pretzel to create the case that you're describing.

• 1:34:36Jason Calacanis?

  Listen, you know, I think Trump will continue to do these. He's had these long before he was in public office. He got tons of speeding tickets like this. He'll get them after he's out of office. He's always committed crimes. He's always done these minor things.

• 1:34:47David Sacks?

  What this reminds me of is, you remember Ken Starr and what they went after Bill Clinton for with the whole Monica Lewinsky thing?

• 1:34:53Jason Calacanis?

  Sure.

• 1:34:53David Sacks?

  And when that Starr report dropped, you know, and then hundreds of pages of legalities and they described all the prurient behavior and, you know, amazing amounts of detail. At the end of the day, the American people looked at it and decided that maybe there's a tawdry element to this, but it's personal behavior. And after some period of time, Clinton's popularity rebounded and he actually gained seats in the midterms because the Republicans overplayed their hand.

• 1:35:19Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, totally.

• 1:35:20David Sacks?

  And I think in a similar way, it's very clear to me, and in fact, you've already said this is politically motivated, and they basically have taken some sort of bookkeeping error that was a misdemeanor that was past the statute of limitations, and they've combined it again with this very novel legal theory about somehow committing fraud in the election, which by the way, was not actually proven in the case. And as part of the jury instructions, again, the judge allowed the jury to have a multiple choice on what the second crime was, which is what a lot of legal experts think will become the basis for appeal. So again, this whole case was tortured. It was politically motivated. I would go so far

• 1:36:01David Sacks?

  as to say it's a sham. It's an outrage, and I think people are reacting as though it's an outrage. And again, if you're gonna bring a case, not just against a former president, but the current frontrunner to be the next president, it better be something important, not this ticky tacky thing that the way you describe it as being ticky tacky. Why even waste the public's time with this? Why even spend all the money pursuing this?

• 1:36:26Jason Calacanis?

  I think the answer would be, yeah, no, I think the answer would be...

• 1:36:28David Sacks?

  As Donald Trump convicted felon, that's the reason why. The media wants that talking point.

• 1:36:32Jason Calacanis?

  They may.

• 1:36:33David Sacks?

  And by the way, if you want to make a switcheroo and get a different candidate than Joe Biden, that's not gonna happen now because Democrats in the media think that this is their salvation. They know they're running a candidate.

• 1:36:44Jason Calacanis?

  It's not gonna be. The obstruction case and the January 6th case, that is, those are legit cases. They should have just gone after those because those are the ones that are completely legit. But here we are.

• 1:36:54David Sacks?

  The Democratic Party knows the running candidate who can't debate, who can't put two sentences together, who can barely find his way off a stage, whose policies are coming home to roost, the economy, like we talked about on the show, is slowing down very rapidly. His foreign policy is a disaster, but they think that somehow this is going to be his salvation, is, is being able to say that Donald Trump is a felon. That's their plan.

• 1:37:18Jason Calacanis?

  Yep.

• 1:37:19David Sacks?

  And I think at the end of the day, this is probably not going to work.

• 1:37:22Jason Calacanis?

  All right, there you have it, folks. There's your quick hot take around the horn with your bestie on Trump being convicted by a jury in New York today. He'll be sentenced on July 11th, and we'll see what happens there. The market also, after we talked about Salesforce, a bunch of the SaaS companies took a dive in the after hours. Friedberg, any thoughts there? As we quickly wrap up.

• 1:37:45David Friedberg?

  Not just SaaS, but also Dell. And in particular, Dell reported their stock is down 20% after hours. So I do wonder if there is a slow reckoning underway right now in technology. That's, as we talked about in the show, a function of both kind of an economic slowdown, so enterprises making fewer investments, but they clearly called out the increased cost associated with AI. So they are spending quite a lot and their, their COGS on AI systems is much higher. And so they're showing a lot more cash burn. And I think this is to Chamath's point. Chamath's been talking for a while.

• 1:38:19Chamath Palihapitiya?

  This is unsustainable, guys. I've been saying this now for a month, so let's just be precise again. You cannot spend this kind of money and show no incremental revenue potential. So while this is incredible for Nvidia, the chicken is coming home to roost. Because if you do not start seeing revenue flow to the bottom line of these companies that are spending $26 billion a quarter, the market cap of Nvidia is not what the market cap of Nvidia should be, and all of these other companies are going to get punished for spending this kind of money. Now Dell is a unique example in the sense that I actually think it's a beneficiary of spend, and I think that it will build data centers and it will actually do well in the move to AI because it's a very smart.

• 1:39:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  be positioned pick and shovels provider. But the threshold question is, where are all these new fangled things that we're supposed to see that justifies a hundred billion dollars of chip spending a year? Two hundred billion dollars of energy spend, a hundred billion dollars of all this other stuff, guys, this is. We're now spending seven hundred and fifty billion dollars. This is on the order of a national. Transfer payment. And we've seen nothing to show for it, except that you can mimic somebody's voice. And you can make like a cat jump on another cat.

• 1:39:36Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, making a developer thirty or forty percent more efficient, that's actually legit, but I will say I did a tam.

• 1:39:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That hasn't happened yet either.

• 1:39:42Jason Calacanis?

  No, that's totally happened. No, no, that's happening in startups right now. I'm seeing startups with. Four developers do what just a couple of years ago, they would need eight to do there. And that's the premise of your eighty ninety company, isn't it?

• 1:39:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think.

• 1:39:53Jason Calacanis?

  That developers can go faster with these tools?

• 1:39:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But these are, yes, but these are aspirational things. When you take a, for example, a thirty thousand person. Company. It is not true that those engineers now are now all of a sudden as productive as a hundred and thirty thousand employees. It's not even true. That a thousand employee company is as productive as a four thousand person company. And the reason is for one very specific thing. Even as all of these next generation, next generation models get released. The practical threshold problem is when you introduce. A completely new way of doing things. Into an existing workforce, what happens is people push back. And even in the companies that I own, where I could theoretically mandate, you must use these tools because I am the owner of this company. It doesn't happen.

• 1:40:36Jason Calacanis?

  It's a mixed bag.

• 1:40:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so I think, I think what you're really seeing, Jason, is a few people embrace it. Those people may be fifty to a hundred percent more productive. But when you blend that into the entire workforce, it's still a single digit percentage, which means the overall productivity gains are nominal.

• 1:40:52Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I, I think that's a fair point because I'm.

• 1:40:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You're being forced to spend.

• 1:40:55Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:40:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Again, seven hundred and fifty billion dollars a year. It doesn't. All hang together yet.

• 1:41:01Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I agree. There's going to be a bit of a gap there and I am biased because I see startups, which are always looking for the most resourceful way to do things. And you're talking about large enterprises, which are slow to adopt, right?

• 1:41:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And to your point.

• 1:41:13Jason Calacanis?

  Both could be right here, yeah.

• 1:41:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You get around the innovators dilemma by saying, guys, you need to be AI first from the outset, which a startup can do because they can recruit people that, for example, with 80, 90, same thing. You must use these tools. For example, we are not allowed to have any administrative staff. Everything is done by an agent or workflow. But that's because we're a new company and we can make those decisions. But somebody who is at an established company, I suspect that these gains are nominal at best, yet the spend is outrageous and it gets

• 1:41:45Jason Calacanis?

  Okay.

• 1:41:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And when it catches up with you and you report, I think the market is sort of like saying.

• 1:41:50David Friedberg?

  Well, I think the first, you know, the general statement might be made that perhaps the first AI mini bubble is bursting a bit. And particularly with respect to the accelerated expectations that public market investors had for public market technology stocks, that perhaps now is the time for a bit of a reckoning. That perhaps this isn't going to happen at the same margin level or the pace that folks had modeled. And this is going to cause a bit of a setback.

• 1:42:16Jason Calacanis?

  I think pace is a very good point you're making.

• 1:42:18David Friedberg?

  I also think that with the GDP slowdown that we've seen, report that just came out this week, with a sub 2% US GDP growth, we are seeing an economic slowdown underway. There is going to be reduced spending. There is going to be reduced conversion of enterprise customers to buy anything. And so that is going to dramatically affect the market. We're looking at 5% 30-year treasury rates, which means that you are going to see multiple compression that's going to happen across the market for tech stocks. So this could be the beginning of what I think might be a slow contraction.

• 1:42:47Jason Calacanis?

  One thing I just want to make sure.

• 1:42:49David Friedberg?

  I'm not a market guy.

• 1:42:49Jason Calacanis?

  One thing to me, I do have some information on the Dell stuff. One thing to keep in mind is they had like a 30% run up or 20% run up at least since Nvidia CEO praised them and like, I guess all these meme stock people has just jumped in. So I think it's just like a little tiki-taki correction back to the tiki-taki. Sax, any final thoughts here on AI before we all leave to go to our, you know, Trump celebrations and or? Yeah.

• 1:43:23David Sacks?

  Maybe the market doesn't like the US becoming a banana republic.

• 1:43:26Jason Calacanis?

  There it is, folks, the banana republic.

• 1:43:31Jason Calacanis?

  I can still be friends with you guys. All right, everybody. Four.

• 1:43:35David Friedberg?

  Who's you guys?

• 1:43:37Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, you guys. I was talking to those guys. All right. Four Chamath's. Two missing buttons. Would like to encourage everybody to enjoy their summer. Three buttons are coming. We have

• 1:43:48David Friedberg?

  I got short shorts. You want to see my, I got my short shorts on.

• 1:43:51Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, oh, God, that's so pasty white. I gotta get my sunglasses. The over, under on when Chamath goes for the third button is Jan, is June 25th. So June 25th in the betting markets right now for the third button.

• 1:44:03David Friedberg?

  Love you guys.

• 1:44:04Jason Calacanis?

  We'll see you all next time on the world's greatest podcast. Bye bye.

• 1:45:06Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, last year at the All In Summit, we had a wonderful talk by Jenny Just, and they have a very cool program called Power Poker. They're holding a 2024 Summer Boot Camp and Tournament for Women Only. So for the ladies out there, if you want to learn how to play poker, just like the besties and Jenny Just, you can join this four-week training class. You get unlimited playing time. You play in a tournament. I'm going to come and play in one of the sessions. But here's the great part. We donated a ticket because we think it's worth encouraging women to join the poker community. And so there's a $7,500 all. Summit 2024 ticket at stake. There's only 80 spots. Go ahead and join at pokerpower.com/summer-Bootcamp.

• 1:45:47Jason Calacanis?

  Pokerpower.com/summer-Bootcamp. It's going to fill up quick. I know a number of the women who work at my venture firm launch have joined and they're looking forward to learning poker again. 80 spots. I think they charge a hundred bucks just to make sure you show up and there's an All In Summit ticket there for you. You can actually see the video of this podcast on YouTube, youtube.com/AtAllIn or just search All In Podcast and hit the alert bell and you'll get updates when we post. And we're going to do a party in Vegas, my understanding, when we hit a million subscribers. So look for that as well. You can follow us on X, X.com/TheAllInPod. TikTok is all underscore in underscore talk. Instagram, TheAllInPod.

• 1:46:28Jason Calacanis?

  And on LinkedIn, just search for The All In Podcast. You can follow Chamath at X.com/Chamath. And you can sign up for a Substack at chamath.substack.com. I do. Freeberg can be followed at X.com/Freeberg. And Ohalo is hiring. Click on the careers page at ohalogenetics.com. Three, two. Okay, everybody. Follow Sax at X.com/DavidSax and check out Sax's Slack killer, Glue, at glue.ai. I'm Jason Calacanis. I am X.com/Jason. And if you want to see pictures of my bulldogs and the food I'm eating, go to instagram.com/JasonInTheFirstNameClub. You can listen to my other podcasts, This Week in Startups, just search for it on YouTube or your favorite podcast player.

• 1:47:10Jason Calacanis?

  We are hiring a researcher. Apply to be a researcher doing primary research and working with me and producer Nick, working in data and science and being able to do great research, finance, et cetera. AllinPodcast.co/research. It's a full-time job. Working with us, the besties. And really excited about my investment in Athena. Go to athena-wow, athena-wow.com and get yourself a bit of a discount from your boy J. Cal. AthenaWow.com. We'll see you all next time on the All In Podcast.