E56: Constitution DAO, Rittenhouse trial coverage, private sector efficiency vs the government

0:00 Bestie intro 1:14 Constitution DAO: implications, shortcomings, how to move forward? 29:58 Rittenhouse trial media coverage 50:52 Ken Griffin plays heel (again), private sector efficiency vs. government inefficiency 1:07:08 Pete Davidson's pull, Sacks' taste in music, wrap Follow the besties: https://twitter.com/chamath https://linktr.ee/calacanis https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/18/constitutiondao-crypto-investors-lose-bid-to-buy-constitution-copy.html https://twitter.com/constitutiondao https://www.constitutiondao.com https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2021/11/19/constitutiondao-outbid-for-first-printing-of-americas-founding-document-in-sothebys-auction/ https://youtu.be/1TBa-9Lx3vc?t=8762 https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-closing-arguments-self-defense/ https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11/19/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1461372314424164367 https://www.wsj.com/articles/citadel-ceo-ken-griffin-outbid-a-group-of-crypto-investors-for-copy-of-u-s-constitution-11637352087 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/us/politics/biden-build-back-better-act.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/amazon-to-stop-accepting-visa-credit-cards-issued-in-the-uk.html https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1461007806333693959 https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/05/sam-altman-puts-375-million-into-fusion-start-up-helion-energy.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/bill-gates-terrapower-builds-its-first-nuclear-reactor-in-a-coal-town.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHZ4MfOiqm8 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/emily-ratajkowski-women-find-pete-davidson-attractive_n_618be849e4b06de3eb7dfbbe

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

• 0:00Jason Calacanis?

  It was very interesting going to Sax's kid's birthday party. Friedberg and I were there for about two or three hours. Sax showed up for the last half hour.

• 0:10David Friedberg?

  I think I was there for, I think I was there for two hours and didn't see Sax. And then I saw him on my way out the door.

• 0:14Jason Calacanis?

  But he had some YouTubers there who were pretty cool.

• 0:16David Sacks?

  Yeah, Papa Jake and Logan. Thank you.

• 0:18Jason Calacanis?

  Papa Jake was great.

• 0:19David Sacks?

  Yeah. You know, they have seven million followers on YouTube. Eat your heart out, J Cal. How many times bigger is Papa Jake than you?

• 0:27Jason Calacanis?

  Business and podcasting on YouTube is a new concept, long form. And long form is not what the algorithm is designed for. It's obviously designed for short form and people getting to completion. So getting to completion on a 90 minute video.

• 0:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Are we talking about lovemaking again? Sorry?

• 0:43Jason Calacanis?

  Oh God, Jesus. When I say completion, I, it's not, we need an HR department at all.

• 0:50David Sacks?

  I prefer the short form format for that, too.

• 0:56Jason Calacanis?

  Here's your cold open, folks.

• 1:14Jason Calacanis?

  Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the All In Podcast. It's episode 56. We've made it past 55. The show, the band is still together, coming to you every Friday night, far too late because the Rain Man obsesses over every edit in the podcast. With us again, the All In Scorsese himself, David Rain Man Sax, and the Queen of Kinwa, the Sultan of Science, David Friedberg is here. And

• 1:44Jason Calacanis?

  with a power sweater that cost more.

• 1:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Turtleneck, turtleneck.

• 1:48Jason Calacanis?

  I'm sorry. A power turtleneck that cost more than your mortgage payment this month. The dictator himself, Chamath Palihapitiya. I'm J Cal. It was a pretty incredible week. I think we have to pander to the cryptocurrency crowd because that's just making ratings go through the roof here. I am absolutely inspired by what we saw this week with the Constitution Dow forming in about a week and going from one or two million to $46 million raised through a Dow, if you don't know.

• 2:21Jason Calacanis?

  What these decentralized autonomous organizations are, it's basically analogous to a corporate structure, but that's written in code. So you can get a group of people together typically in a discord, then you create a smart contract, they collect in a wallet, a bunch of ETH, or it's typically ETH right now. And then you get some kind of governance written into the DAO where people get voting power. They brought this together to bid on one of 13 copies of the original constitution of the United States. And it was a very controversial moment last night, when 80% of the money was raised in the last 48 hours. And there

• 3:02Jason Calacanis?

  was this crazy auction going back and forth with two representatives of Sotheby's on the phone. It hit $41 million. Everybody thought that the DAO had won, which would have mean, would have meant that almost 20,000 people who participated in this would then vote on what to do with this $41 million offer. CoinDesk incorrectly reported that the DAO won, and then the DAO announced that they had in fact not. Some other statistics, their Twitter has 36,000 followers. The group reported they needed 14 million to participate, 30 million to be competitive, and 40 million to have a great chance of winning. They raised like, I think, six or seven million while they were on the air, you know, and the auction

• 3:46Jason Calacanis?

  had started. And the only downside to all of this is that there were huge gas fees. People were spending 30, 40, 50 bucks to donate 200, which was the average size of these.

• 4:00David Sacks?

  Yeah, they should have done it on Solana.

• 4:02Jason Calacanis?

  All right. So here we go. Talking our own book again. Now we got, somebody's gonna clip this out. There's a lot of pizzazz. Here we go.

• 4:10David Friedberg?

  Chamath, what are you gonna do with your copy of the constitution?

• 4:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You know what's so funny?

• 4:13David Friedberg?

  What are you gonna auction it back to the DAO?

• 4:15Jason Calacanis?

  What are you gonna burn it and make an NFT out of it?

• 4:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So it's funny. I did buy something at these auctions.

• 4:24David Friedberg?

  Yesterday's?

• 4:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Quite unique. I will, I will not comment on what it was.

• 4:28David Friedberg?

  Was it that turtleneck?

• 4:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, but uh.

• 4:31David Friedberg?

  Thanksy.

• 4:32David Sacks?

  Uh oh, uh oh.

• 4:34Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, no, I, I, no, no, no, no, no, but uh, I, I did, so, but I, I watched these auctions closely, I guess is what I'm trying to say and I was surprised at the US Constitution for sold so little. You know, for a, a basically like the Magna Carta of the best startup that's ever been created.

• 4:51David Sacks?

  Well, but there's 13 of them, right? So on a market cap basis, on a market cap basis, you gotta multiply by 13.

• 4:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, great. 13 times 40 is still not.

• 4:59David Friedberg?

  It wasn't one of the originals, it was the printing after the original was signed.

• 5:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We have a 20, we've created a $22 trillion a year startup that keeps compounding by four to five percent a year. I would have thought these things would be worth, you know, a couple hundred million each.

• 5:12David Sacks?

  Well, there's a lot of, there's a lot of US memorabilia, but yeah, I mean, but what I don't understand is.

• 5:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It means the US Constitution, David, is not as, is not worth as much as it used to be. That's.

• 5:21David Sacks?

  Well, you know, you got other, you got, you got the declaration.

• 5:23David Friedberg?

  It would sell, yeah.

• 5:24David Sacks?

  There's a lot of documents. You got the Declaration of Independence. You got, you know, the Gettysburg Address. There's. Time a dozen. The Tea Party memo.

• 5:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I actually think Citizens United, technically, guys, the Citizens United, if it was written not one time in one document, uh, by the Supreme Court, that would be worth much more than 40 million because it's basically invalidated most of the Constitution.

• 5:46Jason Calacanis?

  Well, here's one of the interesting things that happened here.

• 5:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, David, David, wait, David, acknowledge that what I just said is true.

• 5:52David Sacks?

  No, I don't even understand what you just said, but.

• 5:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I just said, if you had printed the Citizens United verdict from the Supreme Court on a piece of paper, that would be worth more than 40 million dollars.

• 6:01David Friedberg?

  It was, it was like Democracy 2.0 is what you're saying.

• 6:04David Sacks?

  I don't understand why people are getting so swept up in this thing. It's kind of my.

• 6:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Me neither. Me neither. That's the whole point.

• 6:08Jason Calacanis?

  What you guys are missing is this is a, a, a critical moment in the history of cryptocurrencies because the first three major use cases of cryptocurrency were kind of eh, you had money transfer, which is not as good as PayPal or Venmo or many other solutions.

• 6:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, Jason, I think.

• 6:24Jason Calacanis?

  Then you had store of value. Hold on, let me finish. Store of value, which is like, who cares? It's plain waste of store of value. And then NFTs got interesting, but these DAOs are absolutely game changing. The ability to have 47 million dollars show up

• 6:39Jason Calacanis?

  Prepared to be deployed in forty eight hours.

• 6:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That's not what he's saying.

• 6:43Jason Calacanis?

  ICO? ICOs were illegal and they've been banned and people are being- How is Dow any different? I mean- Because DAOs have governance, DAOs have governance and it's a programmable governance. It's a programmable corporate entity. It is huge.

• 6:57David Friedberg?

  If these things, if these things transfer ownership interest, they will be regulated like securities.

• 7:01Jason Calacanis?

  Of course they are. That is a very important point.

• 7:03David Friedberg?

  And in this particular model, the idea was it would all be kind of part of a nonprofit and it would not be kind of owned by anyone.

• 7:10Jason Calacanis?

  In fact, yes.

• 7:10David Friedberg?

  But they were donations. And so as soon as these DAOs, which they should, and it's an incredibly powerful tool, if it does actually become a security instrument, then it changes everything. And-

• 7:19Jason Calacanis?

  And it is gonna be that.

• 7:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  My, my whole thing is like, it's one thing to-

• 7:23David Friedberg?

  It will be that outside the US first, right? And then it'll be crypto, ex-US crypto investments that are gonna drive this. And that's why the US is gonna be left behind.

• 7:31Jason Calacanis?

  Here's what you're missing. These DAOs are pushing the envelope in the same way Airbnb and Uber did in terms of, you know, bending the rules about ride sharing or renting your extra room. These DAOs are kind of breaking securities laws. They were telling people we're buying the constitution. People who donated thought they were buying part of it.

• 7:49David Friedberg?

  We're not, we're not missing the point.

• 7:50Jason Calacanis?

  So, okay, but here's the thing. If they bend the rules like this, what they showed to the SEC is that there is a huge appetite for people to quickly form groups of capital at low dollar amounts to do something important or interesting in the world. And Americans now have a taste of that. They're gonna continue to have a taste of it. And I think it's gonna, it's gonna force the accreditation laws to change.

• 8:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I disagree. I think that what it showed is that this is yet another explanation of fractionalized ownership. That demand existed well before DAOs.

• 8:23David Friedberg?

  Totally.

• 8:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's, it exists today. It'll exist tomorrow. A DAO was just yet another on-ramp. But much like most fractional ownerships are terrible financial trades for crappy assets, so was this. So said differently, if you're gonna spend the time to open a Robinhood or E-Trade account- It still matters whether you buy a share of Lycos or a share of Google.

• 8:46Jason Calacanis?

  Right.

• 8:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Okay. And so whether you do a DAO or whether you have an LLC, to me, it's irrelevant. The underlying asset didn't make any sense, had zero chance, in my opinion, of any meaningful appreciation. And so if you really want to make something work, and if you want to prove the DAO, then I would have hoped that they would have actually asked a few smart people, "Hey, guys, people who buy art, people who know crypto, what are some assets that I should own?" Because if this thing does appreciate, you'll do more to prove the questions that you just asked.

• 9:17Jason Calacanis?

  Well, somebody beat them out on the... Obviously, the value is greater than what the DAO thought it was.

• 9:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Jason, you're speaking like an accredited investor.

• 9:23Jason Calacanis?

  This is non-accredited investors who are doing this.

• 9:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I know, and that unsophistication was clear. The stupidest thing you can do if you enter an auction, okay, is to declare how you're going to be an underbidder. So like, it's basically saying, "Hey, guys, you know, here's my top tick, and I'm willing to be..." And so now you force these guys to be the underbidder at a dollar over their best price.

• 9:45Jason Calacanis?

  That's a mechanical issue. Sax, what do you think?

• 9:47David Sacks?

  Well, I wonder if the reason...

• 9:49Jason Calacanis?

  Where do you stand on this?

• 9:50David Sacks?

  I wonder if the reason why they chose this particular type of asset is because it's a collectible and therefore is explicitly excluded from the securities laws. So basically, you know, maybe they're limited in terms of what they can go after because they don't want to be a security. But until... But if that's the case, then it does limit, I think, the applicability of DAOs, right? Because what you want is to create corporations that are programmable, that you can have shareholder votes through the tokens, things like that. You know, basically a digital version of what they do analog in the real world with, you know,

• 10:24Jason Calacanis?

  Share certificates.

• 10:25David Sacks?

  Shareholder meetings and stuff like that, that nobody ever attends. Yeah, nobody ever attends these shareholder meetings. And, you know, I get these notices of votes that are to be held. Nobody ever fills... Yeah, no one fills that stuff out.

• 10:36Jason Calacanis?

  And people have super share, super voting, and so you feel like you have no say, but in this case, you do have a say.

• 10:42David Friedberg?

  Depends on the rules, Jake.

• 10:43Jason Calacanis?

  And they're gonna do assets like, imagine somebody had 10,000 acres of rainforest, or a national, potential national park. And all of a sudden, you pop up a DAO, and if the SEC says, you know what? $500 or less, you can bet your money however you want. Hold on, let me finish. And they take that $500, and you get a million people to put $500 in, which is completely conceivable. Somebody could buy $500 million worth of national forest and say, I'm gonna make this into a public trust to protect the environment. This is on the brink of changing the world.

• 11:15David Friedberg?

  That was ICOs. You could have done the exact same thing before.

• 11:17Jason Calacanis?

  But ICOs had no governance. They had no governance. That was missing.

• 11:19David Friedberg?

  Okay, Jake, what you're saying?

• 11:21Jason Calacanis?

  For the benefit, hold on. ICOs were for the benefit of the scumbags who did those grifts and ran away with the money. This is an organization with a predetermined governance structure. This is like creating a new country or a new format for an LLC. That's what you're missing.

• 11:36David Friedberg?

  Okay, are you done?

• 11:38Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 11:39David Friedberg?

  What you're missing, you're painting the optimistic scenario of what these things could do, and you are correct. But what's always happened in the history of humanity is these scenarios have resolved to people figuring out ways to scam other people to make money.

• 11:55Jason Calacanis?

  Sure, sure.

• 11:55David Friedberg?

  And while this one looks altruistic.

• 11:57Jason Calacanis?

  Just like Theranos, just like Nikola.

• 11:58David Friedberg?

  Jake, you gotta let me finish without interrupting. Thank you. But just like, you know, this looks like a great altruistic action. We're gonna go out and buy the USS Constitution, US Constitution. The next deal will end up being some shitty art piece that's worth a hundred grand, as Chima points out. They'll buy it for 10 million, and everyone will lose their ass. And the next 500 will look the same, and that's why we have securities regulators and securities laws. Because in the past, when these sorts of structures that weren't digitally governed and all this sort of stuff, and people would go around and they would put together pools of money from other people and promise them the world, and then they would turn around and steal their money and walk away. We created securities regulators that could oversee and not have independent governance, but have distributed governance across a regulatory system to make sure that this doesn't happen. And that's the slippery slope of where this goes.

• 12:43David Friedberg?

  I'll say one more thing about the structure of this particular DAO, which I know can be resolved, but it creates... A problem in that everyone is betting or investing a fixed dollar amount without knowing how much equity they're getting. And so when you say, hey, I'm going to put in $500 and there's currently $10 million, or let's say there's $10,000 in this thing, it's like, hey, okay, I've got 5% ownership in this thing. If the next guy shows up and puts in $10,000, you now have 2.5% ownership in this thing and you've inflated the value of the thing you're buying. And that's effectively what happened in the structure of this particular DAO, where the more money people put in, the more they were paying and the less they were owning, and you couldn't adjust that. The correct structure in the future for people that do care about equity and ownership will be, I want to buy 1% and I'm willing

• 13:28David Friedberg?

  to pay a max of $500 to buy that 1%. And with that rule engine, which I know can be built into DAOs, people can then structure what they're willing to bid and how much they're willing to participate in, and the DAO as a whole can resolve what it's willing to pay to go buy an asset, and everyone can feel like they know what they're getting as they get into these things. And then the third problem with this particular DAO, as we saw, and I know it's kind of the first big one like this, was the obvious point that these guys were showing the world how much they were about to go bid on this asset. And if you take $46 million and you divide it by 1.13, which, you know, remember there's a 13% buyer's premium on this asset, they showed everyone what they're going to pay, and of course, they lost at a dollar over.

• 14:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  They were the under bidder. I'll say something else. The only fractionalized asset that has ever been proven to appreciate reliably are stocks. Every other fractionalized asset, where you take something and then you divvy it up, generally has been a trash burger. You need to either own the whole thing yourself, or if you're going to own it with a bunch of other people, the only thing that's reliable are equities. Now, that's just a historical artifact for how money has been made. So, I appreciate, Jason, what you're saying, which is, I think actually you care about the structure, because I think it has huge implications to people pursuing wealth creation for themselves, for people participating

• 14:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  in private markets. But I do think that you're overblowing this one example, because I don't think this showed any of that. I think that this showed how unreliable and useless Ethereum is as a transactional layer for these things. You know, the fact that these poor people now have money stuck in a DAO that they can't get out of because it would, the gas fees would negate their contribution. So, that didn't prove that.

• 15:10David Friedberg?

  These are all the bumps in the road.

• 15:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  One second, please. You gotta, hold on. It didn't prove governance because as David said, we had this inflationary outcome where all of a sudden I didn't know the equity that I owned. The transparency worked against them because you're bidding on an asset where you were clear about the threshold max price you could pay. So you had no pricing power and you had no opacity in your bidding strategy. So, so I think that this was a PR lark. And in fact, they said it started out as a joke and it took on a head of steam. And so I think they felt like they had to execute. What I would say is there are going to be some really amazing examples of DAOs. This proved none of those things that the amazing ones will prove, in my opinion.

• 15:52David Friedberg?

  And this will invite regulatory scrutiny faster than it will keep it away. Right? You will see, you know, more of these scenarios where people get screwed out of money like they did in this particular case. And I know a lot of everyone that participated in this DAO, I know that there's altruistic reasons.

• 16:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Who do they sue? Who do they sue? The people, who do they sue? Who do they go after now that they lost the $200 that they contributed?

• 16:12David Friedberg?

  Yeah, I mean, there's, there's, there's no structure. And I think that's part of the regulatory, you know.

• 16:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  How do they get the money back?

• 16:19Jason Calacanis?

  I can respond.

• 16:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Who's the person that, who's the person that, like, you know what, honestly, if that DAO had, if that DAO had called me, I could have actually bid for them and actually won that fucking thing for half the price. You know what I mean?

• 16:33Jason Calacanis?

  Sax, you got anything? You want to chime in?

• 16:36David Sacks?

  No. I mean, well, I don't know.

• 16:38Jason Calacanis?

  I would like to give a closing argument.

• 16:40David Sacks?

  Yeah, why don't you go for it?

• 16:41Jason Calacanis?

  All right. Number one, you're all speaking like a bunch of rich accredited investors. We need to think about people who do not get to participate. And what I see in my day job is people go to an equity crowdfunding site. It's too arduous to allow non-accredited investors to invest. It takes months and it's tons of paperwork. So then what happens is the best deal flow, which goes to the people who are on this podcast who are already rich, we get to sweep up all the best deals because people who are founders and who have opportunities in corporations do not bother doing equity crowdfunding because the SEC, in their wisdom to try to protect people and they have good intent, to your point, Friedberg, has made it so arduous and painful for people that they then.

• 17:23Jason Calacanis?

  Then don't do it. The founders I'm talking about. This then keeps people down. And when we were all poor, we got to spend our money gambling or doing whatever we want with it. But we all would have wanted to have, when we were non-accredited, the ability to place a bet on a startup. And y'all are forgetting that. And what's gonna happen here?

• 17:42David Friedberg?

  Now I understand where Jake's coming from.

• 17:44Jason Calacanis?

  All of what you're saying, all of what you're saying, Chamois, in terms of the problems here are absolutely accurate and valid. And those are what you need. You need to identify through projects like this, the gas fees are a problem. So people can move this to Solana. You need to find out that they don't know how to do bidding. And maybe they shouldn't say how much has been raised so that they can come in and bid more intelligently. And maybe they do need to pick a better target. But this is $200 per person. There, you guys are acting like these people are gonna lose their shirts.

• 18:09David Friedberg?

  We agree with you. I agree with you.

• 18:10Jason Calacanis?

  I don't think you agree with me.

• 18:12David Friedberg?

  I agree 1,000%. I'm a free market guy. I would love for there to be no regulation. And everyone will come in. And the problem is, society won't let that happen. And that's the point I'm trying to make. It's not me in my opinion.

• 18:21Jason Calacanis?

  Other societies have, other societies do let that happen. If you're in the UK, if you're in Australia, you can go gamble and you can go bet on startups. There are different accreditation laws. We have antiquated ones that need to evolve.

• 18:32David Friedberg?

  The United States regulatory regime will be invoked because people will lose money. And individuals will raise their hand and say, I put money into a DAO that I lost my ass on. And enough thousands of people do that. And then Elizabeth Warren and AOC will get on their, you know, their high horse. And they'll say, let's, let's fix this problem. Bernie Sanders will say, this is unfair. The billionaires are taking the money from people. And so I agree with you. We should let people take risks. We should let people lose money. We should drop all the regulatory burden. My point is really that I think structurally, what's gonna happen is there are gonna be more of these things that are gonna show up that will rip people off. And that will heighten regulatory interest. And people will come along and they'll start to clamp down on this stuff. And that's, that's my point.

• 19:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Okay. I also think this example has nothing to do with what you're talking about. I think what you're talking about, J Cal, is laudable. And we should all want that. Because I think that the broader number of people that get to participate in the wealth creation in tech, the better. But there are different ways of doing that. I don't think we have to run full force and embrace the DAO as the only way that that happens. And I think that structurally, the democratic norms inside of a DAO, in many ways, make it much harder to govern inside a regulatory framework. And it does set up a very binary decision by the SEC and US regulators, which unfortunately, they're not going to go and be supportive of, because the binary decision

• 19:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  to support them would effectively negate their oversight.

• 19:58David Friedberg?

  That's right. Yeah, they got jobs to keep, too.

• 20:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  They have jobs to keep and mortgages to pay.

• 20:04Jason Calacanis?

  I think it's a cynical and accurate prediction that they will fight it. But what you may not be aware of is that there is, in the Startup Act from years ago, they did allow equity crowdfunding, they put a lot of throttling on it, and now they're going to let you get accredited through taking a course, or like kind of having a driver's license or a gun permit. So it is conceivable that the next time a DAO happens and they're trying to buy...

• 20:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But can you stop conflating these things together?

• 20:30Jason Calacanis?

  Well, no.

• 20:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We've had iterations in the crowdfunding rules. You're just trying to tag this with a DAO. Can you just separate it?

• 20:37Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, because this...

• 20:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Wait, hold on a second. Can I just ask you a question? Can you please just describe and acknowledge that the crowdfunding rules have iteratively evolved in the absence of DAOs?

• 20:47Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 20:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Okay, so just separate the two. They're not the same thing.

• 20:50Jason Calacanis?

  They are two sides of the same coin, because the DAOs allow a global participation in this, and the capital can be formed instantly. This was done in days. That's what's so powerful about it. It costs tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars to do an equity crowdfunding. This costs nothing.

• 21:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Because it was for an ethereal, superficial asset with a name that people recognized. Let me, hold on a second. Now let me replace the US Constitution with, I don't know, Jason, you just sent a deal a day ago. What was the name of it? Let's just call it Acme.com.

• 21:24Jason Calacanis?

  Sure.

• 21:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Now, what are people supposed to do? It's not a known asset. They are not known founders. There may be turbulent issues inside the company that are still being hammered out. What are these people supposed to do? How are they intelligent?

• 21:38Jason Calacanis?

  Place a small bet. Place a small bet. Do some research. Vote on it. Do collective research in a discord. You're looking, you have a bunch of researchers working for you. You defended the GME. You have a team. Your team does research and they're smart people and they get paid very well. You were praising the coverage that Wall Street Bets did on GME on this podcast 40 episodes ago. You were saying how incredible their research was.

• 22:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It was incredible because they were analyzing public companies who are governed by securities law.

• 22:07Jason Calacanis?

  They can't do that with a private company?

• 22:10Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yes, because there are no rules that govern disclosure. GameStop had very strict disclosure rules because they were public. That was what allowed Wall Street Bets to understand what was going on under the hood of GameStop. It was the disclosure of the funds that the SEC's force you to make that allowed people to understand the long and the short book that was building against it. If, if that was in the private markets, that data is not obligated to be provided in the, in the wild, Wall Street Bets would have had no idea. So I, I think you're actually proving the opposite of what you intend, which is it's the regulatory framework that allowed the retail GME position to happen. Go ahead, David. And then.

• 22:50David Sacks?

  Yeah. Can I translate what J Cal is saying? I think what J Cal is saying is that we need to create some space here for innovation so that entrepreneurs can work out the kinks of these DAOs so that one day J Cal can run a syndicate on a blockchain and fundraise that way. Isn't that what you're saying, J Cal?

• 23:07Jason Calacanis?

  Or anybody. I mean, here's what I'll say, you know, when we do a syndicate amongst accredited investors.

• 23:11David Sacks?

  You're kind of turning your book here in a weird way.

• 23:12Jason Calacanis?

  No, no, no. I didn't mention the syndicate. I didn't mention the Syndicate.com once, except for this time.

• 23:17David Sacks?

  You saw ICOs as competitors to, to your syndicates, but now you're all on the DAO train.

• 23:22Jason Calacanis?

  ICOs I, I thought were too big. So I think you could solve this problem by looking at the bet size that people are allowed to make. So you can just say, hey, the upper limit is 5K. So now you've basically taken the individual cratering. Well, because if you wanted to create a regulatory environment, well, because it would get rid of the risk and ruin.

• 23:40David Sacks?

  No, I think that makes sense. You created de minimis exceptions so that.

• 23:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Honestly, guys, the first, the first principle.

• 23:45David Friedberg?

  That could be 100% of someone's worth and 1% of another's.

• 23:47Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, so make it a percent of net worth.

• 23:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, the first thing, principle of portfolio construction is you need to be concentrated in the things you know, and you need to stay away from the things you don't. If you cap the upside on the amount you can invest, what are people supposed to do? Peanut butter around 50 bets? And you know what will happen, Jason? Most of those will be losers because the mortality rate in startups is super high, and they'll end up with basically nothing.

• 24:08Jason Calacanis?

  How do they do in Vegas? How do they do betting sports?

• 24:11David Sacks?

  We're not arguing about how to invest. I mean, I think what we're saying is that, I mean, this is where I actually agree, is that the regulators should carve out enough room so that innovation can continue around this concept of DAOs, because who knows what they could become one day? And we shouldn't, we shouldn't kill this thing in the cradle.

• 24:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Hold on, we haven't killed anything because nothing exists and there are no rules about DAOs. The regulators haven't said anything. I think we all agree that crowdfunding rules should get much more expansive. That makes sense. And with that, private companies should disclose more. That makes sense, right? We all agree with that, so that you can have more disclosure and public available data. So Jason, to your point, communities can get into a Discord. Like today, if you said, hey, guys, let's go and analyze a late-stage investment in Stripe, what do you do? Blather on about it and just talk at each other?

• 24:59Jason Calacanis?

  In the early stage, what the DAO could...

• 25:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There are no disclosures. Answer this question. So now, are you supposed to, are you supposed to enter Carda or some other third-party platform and buy it at 120 billion? How do you underwrite that?

• 25:11Jason Calacanis?

  Very simple, very simple. In the startup DAO concept we're talking about here, you would do exactly what angel investors do, which is say, hey, okay, we had, let's say this constitution DAO was to invest in startups. Okay, 20,000 people put 200 in each, we have a $40 million pool. Okay, we're all going to submit ideas, and then we're going to ask and invite those founders to come pitch the DAO on a Zoom, and we'll all vote on which ones we like best. And instead of, you know, a venture capital firm getting access to this, now those 20,000 people could say, you know what, we're going to make 20, a half-million-dollar bets, and then we're going to pour the 30 million into the winners of that. And that is just what I do for a living, or any other angel investor, early-stage investor does. You invite founders to come and pitch you, and you place an intelligent bet, just like people bet on the Knicks, or sadly, on the Jets.

• 25:56Jason Calacanis?

  And lose their money all the time. And I like David's idea of saying, hey, maybe for the next two years, we'll have a Dow exception where you can raise, you know, from a thousand up to 5,000 people up to $10 million. And you just have to file that you're not a felon. And we have some basic framework to experiment with this because you could buy, you know, a building that was going to be torn down, like some movie theater for a community. You could do nonprofit stuff. There's all kinds of beautiful things you could do with this instant capital formation and government structure that is programmable.

• 26:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Okay.

• 26:30Jason Calacanis?

  And it does relate to capital formation in the startup ecosystem.

• 26:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Here's what I'll say. You made a great point about Uber and Lyft pushing the boundaries and forcing the regulators to react.

• 26:40Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 26:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You know why that happened? It's because Uber and Lyft worked.

• 26:45Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 26:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And it was successful. And this thing was not successful. And so maybe if it is, there's an on-ramp, but I would say that the energy is better served in not focusing on a PR lark and probably just focusing on trying to improve the crowdfunding laws writ large, which are already on the books and can be iterated upon versus an entire new body of regulation where nobody even has any idea what a starting point should be.

• 27:13David Sacks?

  I think it's very hard to get those crowdfunding laws expanded with the under the current regime. It's sort of a minor miracle that they even got what they got several years ago, right? Wasn't that?

• 27:22Jason Calacanis?

  Well, it happened under Obama when after the 2008, yes, the Jobs Act was in 2008 when the market crashed and we said, nobody's starting companies. We're screwed here. We need to get the economy going again. So we're just going to allow more capital formation. And so the 99 rule for LLCs went to 250 and they just kind of loosened things a little bit. And now they're, the mandate is the SEC has to have a certification test for people to do private market investing. And also people who work at VC firms, right? We have people who work for us who are not accredited. They don't get to participate, but they get an exception if they work at a venture firm, et cetera. So it's just.

• 27:59David Sacks?

  It's probably simultaneously true that this thing was massively overhyped, while also being the case that it's a worthwhile experiment that may lead to, you know, useful innovation in the future.

• 28:13Jason Calacanis?

  What I always look at when I see new technologies doing something is I just imagine if it 10x. And what that would look like and if it worked and then I just 10x it one more time. So what we're going to see, I predict is this $40 million Dow will turn into a 400 million one in the next two years and then a 4 billion one in the next 10. And people are going to do something extraordinary. They're going to do something so otherworldly changing. What if a million people or 10 million people around the globe decided they were going to put money in to do a solar farm or something that would help society? Can already do that, J Cal. I mean, that's like, like a manager can, someone's got to manage it.

• 28:49David Sacks?

  J Cal's fantasizing about how big his syndicate's gonna be.

• 28:52Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. My syndicate is too large right now. I can't accommodate everybody and it's also because of the laws. It could get bigger, right? Well, no, the problem is you can only have 250 people in it. That's the problem. We beat this down to death.

• 29:05David Sacks?

  Yeah, come on.

• 29:06Jason Calacanis?

  We beat it to death. Okay. Anyway, I'm obsessed with it. Fentanyl deaths in the U.S. are reaching a crisis point up. Fentanyl deaths? Is that really what we're talking about? I mean, we talked about it in the chat.

• 29:16David Sacks?

  Are you deliberately trying to like avoid the biggest news today of the biggest trials?

• 29:20Jason Calacanis?

  No, no, that was just, I get it. We're gonna, that's just a weird transition. I'm just going straight down through the docket, but if you want to jump the fence, okay.

• 29:27David Sacks?

  Well, I'm not trying to.

• 29:28Jason Calacanis?

  Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of all charges.

• 29:30David Sacks?

  It happened within half an hour of us beginning to record this podcast. I don't know how it's not topical.

• 29:35Jason Calacanis?

  I'm trying to keep the Friedberg ratio up. We had a nice, strong emotional moment from Friedberg. He obviously is going to have something to say about fentanyl and science, but okay, he's going to walk off the show now to talk, when you start talking politics. I'm not going to walk off the show. He did last week. He walked off. He walked off and went, you got a beverage, you left for like five minutes. I had to go pee. All right, fine. I mean, come on. It just happened to be during politics. Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty. That's usually when I take my break, yeah. Exactly. And a third of the audience, Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of all charges. A 12-person jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial reached the decision after over 26 hours of deliberation. He shot three people. He killed two of them and he was found not guilty. He was 17 at the time of the shooting.

• 30:15Jason Calacanis?

  He was charged with killing the two men and a third during the protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August of 2020. This was during the protests over the police shooting of Jacob Blake. He claims he traveled from Illinois with an AR-15 style rifle to help protect businesses and provide first aid. He didn't.

• 30:36David Sacks?

  He did not cross state line, he did not cross state lines with the rifle. That's one of the many. inaccuracies have been reported by the media over and over again.

• 30:44Jason Calacanis?

  Because his dad lived there, I guess?

• 30:46David Sacks?

  His dad lived in Kenosha. I think he went to school in Kenosha. He worked in Kenosha. You've got to understand, like, this is, they're a few minutes apart where from his mother's house. And he never, he never carried the gun across state lines. The gun was bought from by a friend who was 18, who could possess it, and it was kept at his house, which is in Kenosha.

• 31:05Jason Calacanis?

  Got it.

• 31:05David Sacks?

  He was apparently in Kenosha earlier that day. And, you know, cleaning up graffiti at the school and checking out the downtown. And then, you know, obviously, when he went out that night, then he got the gun, but he didn't transport it across state lines. So that was, that's, I think, one of the multiple inaccuracies.

• 31:22Jason Calacanis?

  What is your most important insight into this case and what it represents for American society and the justice system, Sax?

• 31:32David Sacks?

  Well, I think the case has become a little bit of a Rorschach test of how you see America. I mean, there's clearly a group of people in the, I'd say, dominated the mainstream media, now it's percolated down to celebrities and figures from LeBron James to, to, I'm spacing, but there's a lot of, like, celebrities who've come out putting forward this view that America, that this trial somehow is, that Calwritten House, a white supremacist, and that this not guilty verdict is an example of white supremacy in America. Somehow that became the narrative. And so that, I think it's become, I think there's like a couple of levels to it. One is the trial itself and what you think about the legal case.

• 32:14David Sacks?

  I don't think that is that complicated or interesting. You have here that the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not act reasonably in self-defense when three violent attackers came charging towards him. That was, I think, a pretty tough case to make.

• 32:33Jason Calacanis?

  One of them had a gun, Paul, too. I mean, this was.

• 32:35David Sacks?

  Right. And so all of them had long criminal histories. The first one who attacked him was daring him to, said that he was going to kill Rittenhouse. The second one was bashing him over the head with a skateboard. The third one was rushing towards him when Rittenhouse was on the ground, had a gun. Trained on him, looked like he was gonna bring it to his head, kind of execution style. I mean, all these, I think, cases, if you saw the video from, I mean, for the first time, it seemed pretty clear that he had a strong claim of self-defense. So I don't think the case itself was that legally interesting. The question is why it got blown up into being this like huge thing. And it's really because the media wanted this so badly to be, to feed into this narrative of somehow that this is,

• 33:19David Sacks?

  you know, a white supremacist violent attacker who was a vigilante who crossed state lines with this AR-15 to go seek out trouble, to confront people at the protest. And, you know, that case, that that narrative just completely fell apart at the trial.

• 33:36David Sacks?

  You know, it's, he didn't cross state lines for, you know, in that way. He didn't, you know, with the gun. When he went to this protest, he went there, it's interesting. I mean, he was a cadet, an EMT cadet. He was kind of in this like junior firefighter program. I'm not saying that he showed good judgment. I think it was poor judgment for him to try and insert himself into that situation. But I don't think he went there to kill anyone or to get into a confrontation. He bought a first aid kit. For, you know, for better or worse, he thought he was gonna help people.

• 34:10David Sacks?

  And so, any event, the, the story really is about the media constructing this narrative that fell apart so quickly as soon as all the facts came out.

• 34:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Freiburg, Jamal? Yeah, I think the, I read that there was an analysis of the media

• 34:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  and how they tried to portray this. And that, I think, I'll build on what David said, which is, was really concerning. Like the, there was, they really wanted this to be a white kid who killed black people during a BLM protest, which was, as it turned out, the furthest from the truth. I'll just tell you my experience. When I first saw it, that's what I thought I had read. And I'll be really honest with you. Initially, I was incredibly biased and my I had a violent reaction inside me of anger towards this kid. Because my thought was, my God, this white kid showed up at a Black Lives Matter rally and killed, you know, three of my brothers. You know, like, literally, that's how I'm feeling.

• 35:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I was so angry because they didn't really give the facts. There was an example where in Germany, it got so out of hand that the articles were written that Kyle Rittenhouse had actually killed three black men, or two black men. And I think that that's very dangerous because we need to have the truth and the facts so we can really figure out what's going on, so that we can address what's broken, we can hold people accountable, and then we can move forward together and heal it. But this, like, is the opposite of healing. It just froths people up to make a lot of judgments with misinformation. And I think that that's very unfair. I didn't, to be honest with you, after I saw the facts, I

• 35:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  stopped paying attention to this case because I literally exhaled, I would have been much more hurt and I would have probably paid more attention if this wasn't white-on-white violence, quite honestly.

• 36:10David Sacks?

  Right, right. And I think people, I think we've heard from a lot of people over when Rittenhouse's testimony kind of went viral and started getting reported on, there were a lot of people out there who were surprised to learn that all the victims were white, that this was an example of white-on-white violence, because it had been portrayed by the media as some sort of racial episode. And it wasn't. And it shows how the media is fueling this polarization and rage in our society by concocting these narratives, which aren't true.

• 36:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's really, that, I think, is the dangerous thing. I didn't follow the case to know whether this kid was right or wrong. But I do think if the media uses these opportunities to not just tell the facts, and then race-bait people on both of the left and the right, and gets them frothed up, they're doing a real disservice to America, because I think it takes good people. And it puts them in a state like me for a while at the beginning where I'm I was really angry and I didn't know how I felt and that's and I'm a lucid person. You know, ninety nine point nine nine nine percent of the time.

• 37:16Jason Calacanis?

  You're thoughtful, yeah.

• 37:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so it just goes to show you how dangerous this stuff is when they can take a narrative and run with it and then there's no accountability for it. Um, and we really have to stop and and check ourselves. It just speaks to this ongoing fact pattern where the media is at is at a point where they are at a very much a low point in their trustworthiness. Their ability to fact check, their ability to stick to the truth, um, I think it's been undone. Just this past week, you know, I think Elon even tweeted out like, you know, he in exasperation, he said, where can I find? Like thoughtful news, right? He was asking Twitter, like what websites and and the the the question wasn't

• 37:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  that bad, but if you read the answers, it was really sad. Nobody had a good answer. You know, one person was like, oh, there's a browser extension that will show you how, you know, how much lying is happening inside the article. And I thought to myself, my God, like there are browser extensions like a liometer, you know, like this is insanity that that in twenty twenty one, that's what we are faced with, which is very smart people, all of us. Everybody listening, normal people, just, you know, out on the street. We can all come to the right conclusion when given the facts and we're not given the facts anymore.

• 38:35David Sacks?

  Jake, do you think we're missing something here? Because um, you you I know you you thought that this whole Rittenhouse thing was crazy, right? Which it was, but are we missing something in your view?

• 38:47Jason Calacanis?

  I think uh, first off, violent protests and violence is immoral and all of these protests, whether it's BLM on the left, on the right, they should all be nonviolent. There's a reason why Martin Luther King and Gandhi. You know, said that's the rules. If you want to come to the protest, you have to be nonviolent. And then I think the rhetoric that was created during the Trump era and that he exacerbated and that he caused from a lot of his policies and the way he spoke as the leader of the free world and our country then polarized things. I blame him for a lot of that. And if you put a bunch of people who are on the far extremes into a situation like this, and then you insert guns and you insert young people who have

• 39:29Jason Calacanis?

  not developed their frontal lobes, who do not have long-term thinking, which a seventeen year old does not, your long-term, and Friedberg will back me up on this in terms of science, long-term thinking is something that develops in humans into their early twenties. And so, young people with guns in a violent situation with Trump on TV during this time, both good people on both sides, whatever, you know, the borders, all that stuff that he was stirring the pot on, all of that eventually resolves to somebody's going to get killed, whether it's on January 6th, or it's a BLM protest. And that is why he had such a failure of leadership, why he was so disgusting and horrible and loathsome, because he was taking all of this heat and rhetoric up, up, up. And the person who winds up suffering in

• 40:11Jason Calacanis?

  this are these stupid kids and their really dumb parents and mother who allow them to go to a protest, and she could have stopped them with a gun. Somebody needs to stop these kids from going to a protest with a gun. And I think there's a very difficult question here that can be asked. And it probably is true, I think, that it was an open and shut case, David, that, I mean, I saw the video as well, Chamath, the guy puts a gun on him, what are you going to do? You've got a gun, this guy's pointing a gun at you, whoever fires first survives, it is self-defense. And that's kind of undeniable, I think. But if he had-

• 40:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I would hope that the number of people that really focus on this case, look at the innumerable number of cases of black and brown people that have been killed. The Ahmaud Arbery trial is going on right now.

• 40:54Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 40:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm sorry, but I've seen one article in Ahmaud Arbery for every fifty about Carl Rittenhouse.

• 40:59Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 40:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I just really hope Ahmaud Arbery gets his fair trial.

• 41:02Jason Calacanis?

  And that was a straight up lynching.

• 41:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm sorry, and let me say again, Breonna Taylor, not a single thing has still been done, okay? So- I'm not that sympathetic to all of this talk right now. Because there are a lot of black and brown men and women who have been killed in this country.

• 41:17Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 41:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Where none of you guys care as much.

• 41:20Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, I care. And that was exactly where I was about to get to. The question I was about to ask you, Chamath, is if Kyle Rittenhouse had been a black man, and he had shot those three people, what would the outcome of this trial have been? Would it have been the same justice system? And I don't think that anybody can answer that question and say, it would have been fair justice. I don't think it would have been. I think the chance would be very low.

• 41:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It makes me, it makes me.

• 41:40Jason Calacanis?

  In this situation would have been true the same.

• 41:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Just you saying it makes me want to cry. Okay? It would not have been.

• 41:45Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I didn't say it for that reason, but I, it is the truth. And I think that's what, you know, we, in this country, race is something that is our biggest weak point. And we need to get.

• 41:55David Sacks?

  Well, I mean, you're creating.

• 41:56Jason Calacanis?

  Leadership to work on this.

• 41:57David Sacks?

  A hypothetical injustice. We don't know, because that's a hypothetical that we can't know the answer to right now. And you're ignoring the justice, the injustice that's right in front of your face, which is that this was a political prosecution from the beginning, fueled by a media narrative that was completely bogus.

• 42:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  This is why I think David is right, and we have to go to this root cause issue that we can all fix.

• 42:16Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 42:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You know, we can't, we shouldn't debate these hypotheticals because they're hurtful. Like even now, like you've seen me, I'm emotional. I can't.

• 42:22Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 42:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Think straight. So let's get the hypothetical off the table, because David, you're right, it's a hypothetical.

• 42:26David Sacks?

  I mean, this case probably should never, this case should never have been brought. I mean, as soon as you see the video, if you look up the definition of self-defense, okay? You, you just have to have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger, and then you're allowed to use force. And, you know, Rittenhouse was running away. These guys were attacking him. They were chasing after him. They had a gun trained on him. They were bashing on the head with a skateboard. I don't know how any prosecutor looks at this and says, we need to prosecute this. So the case should never have been brought, and then the media fuels this thing.

• 42:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, but this is what I'm saying. That's the thing that we can all change, which is our reaction to that media portrayal. The media can be held accountable for how they lied.

• 43:04David Sacks?

  But how?

• 43:05Jason Calacanis?

  Well, people are, don't trust them and they're tuning them out and they're going and finding their own answers.

• 43:09David Friedberg?

  But I mean, this has been my point. Like, I think we all get tuned up to what the media quote unquote is and isn't saying. I think that's like yesteryears and years. I mean, those, those guys have lost credibility. You can see it in all the peer research and all the Gallup research. That what used to be called, and it's still by a lot of people called the mainstream media. It's no longer mainstream and it's become kind of outskirts and where people are finding their, their sources of information is direct from the source. From people that they know to be reliable, trustworthy, speakers of the truth and speakers of facts. And they're getting them direct through social media platforms and other systems of self-publication. And that the idea of having centralized media systems.

• 43:52David Friedberg?

  That get to have their own editorial and narrative over whatever facts quote, they may be kind of gathering and presenting to us. That's an old school way of doing things and I don't think we have to worry about it too much anymore. Whether or not individuals will resolve to truth seeking or emotion seeking is the big question for the 21st century. Because as we've seen, the media that, the things that we do click on are the things that we already believe and that confirm our bias and that create an emotional incentive. Versus the things that may be not what we believe and not what we want to hear, but may actually be factual. And that's the big kind of challenging question here. I think it's less about these evil media people and it's more about where are individuals going to make choices?

• 44:30David Sacks?

  Yeah, I mean, I'd say alternative media voices have never been more important and you know, you can get a lot of them on Substack. People like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Antonio Garcia Martinez.

• 44:41Jason Calacanis?

  Call in the call in app.

• 44:42David Sacks?

  They're all three of them, we have to call in. Andrew Sullivan, Barry Weiss, I mean, they all have very.

• 44:47Jason Calacanis?

  Our podcast, our podcast.

• 44:49David Sacks?

  They all have very good coverage of this. By the way, I couldn't help notice that the same week that this Rittenhouse narrative collapsed. The whole Steele dossier narrative collapsed.

• 44:59Jason Calacanis?

  Okay.

• 44:59David Sacks?

  You had, and I don't want to get too political and drag it back to the Trump thing, but. You had, you know, John Durham is a special prosecutor unraveling. This whole phony fake Steele dossier with multiple indictments. And you now have retractions by the Washington Post and other major publications and that whole. Narrative that fueled like an entire year of media coverage is completely collapsing. And it's just another example of, you know, the media running with these narratives that turn out to be completely. I hate to use the word fake, but I mean, it is. I mean, it's.

• 45:31Jason Calacanis?

  Things in the dossier were fake, but Paul Manafort's conviction was not.

• 45:33David Friedberg?

  Again, I would encourage everyone to stop using the term the media or even the term mainstream media and just recognize that there are specific outlets that are on their way down.

• 45:41Jason Calacanis?

  Content companies.

• 45:42David Friedberg?

  That are dying. Yeah, these are content companies.

• 45:44Jason Calacanis?

  Content companies that need ratings.

• 45:45David Friedberg?

  They used to be the monopoly and they're no longer. And, you know, they're like yesteryear's news and it's just, um, you know, it's like complaining about. You know, whatever, pick any industry that's been disrupted, but they are and will be further disrupted by kind of direct to source. Fact gathering. The big ultimate question is what are consumers going to choose? Um, and that's the thing that scares me the most, to be honest.

• 46:06Jason Calacanis?

  I, I think the interesting thing.

• 46:06David Friedberg?

  It can go either way. You can either find better truth seeking. Or you can find better emotion, more emotion seeking, and that, that's going to cause more polarization and more ugly shit.

• 46:15David Sacks?

  Well, look, it's, it's happening right now. You're right that the, that, let's call it the corporate media, the big media corporations, their prestige and esteem in the eyes of the American people have no, and their credibility has never been lower. It's gone.

• 46:27Jason Calacanis?

  New York Times and CNN are crumbling.

• 46:28David Sacks?

  Absolutely. I mean, just gone. And, and people should be questioning them and stop listening to them. And you have to diversify your information diet and you've got to be subscribed to some alternative journalists. On places like Substack. But here's the thing that concerns me. You know, you've got the media narrative being dictated by MSNBC and then it trickles down to LeBron James and Chelsea Handler. Sorry, that was the name that I forgot earlier. Who, they were perpetuating this white supremacist narrative around Kyle Rittenhouse. By the way, there was, they looked at his phone, his text messages, everything. There is no connection. There's no proof whatsoever of a connection between him and white supremacy was completely made up by the media. And yet these major figures. In our culture who have this outsized impact, we're tweeting about this. And so the problem is.

• 47:12David Sacks?

  You know, like people like us diversify our information diet, but there are large parts of the country that are just receiving this information. And it gets basically passed down from the media to Hollywood to the culture.

• 47:23Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 47:23David Sacks?

  And it's happening.

• 47:24Jason Calacanis?

  From Tucker, from Tucker. Carlson to Scott Baio to the Pillow Guy.

• 47:28David Sacks?

  It is fueling, it is fueling tremendous diviseness and polarization in our culture. And I would say that, you know, J C brought up Trump and he was a polarizing figure, but I don't think he's the root cause of this polarization. I think he is a reaction to it. I think.

• 47:42David Friedberg?

  He is a manifestation of it.

• 47:43David Sacks?

  He's a manifestation of it. And ultimately, the root cause is the complete deterioration and collapse of journalistic standards in the media, in the major mainstream corporate media.

• 47:54Jason Calacanis?

  I'll disagree with you on that.

• 47:55David Friedberg?

  I think Trump's responsible for his own behavior. And I've made this point in the past, which is Sax, I don't know if it, you, you make it sound and other people make it sound like in a directed editorial initiative to take things in a direction. And I think that the reaction process is really about what do consumers want to consume? What they choose to consume is what they sell more of and what they produce more of. And that's the cycle that's driving this. And, you know, that doesn't mean that these folks are not complicit or not making good kind of ethical decisions. That could actually be argued either way, but at the end of the day, they're businesses that are selling content. And if consumers want content of one form, they're going to choose that form.

• 48:31David Sacks?

  Okay, look, I, I think you have a point that once a publication goes in a certain direction and starts getting subscribers, there's some positive reinforcement there that has them keep pushing in that direction. That being said, I don't think this is commercial in nature primarily. I think what's going on is fundamentally ideological. You saw, for example, the New York Times, they ran out Barry Weiss.

• 48:51Jason Calacanis?

  I've seen it. I've seen it. No, no, you're wrong on this. They did this because they wanted subscriptions. No, no, you're wrong, Sax. When the New York Times did this, they realized Fox picked a side, MSNBC picked a side, and they, they benefited from that by picking a side in the Trump era. So the New York Times picked a side. They went MSNBC's side. And they got rid of the right because the right people drove away the anti-Trump subscriptions. So I think Friedberg's right on this one. I will say another thing to build on what you were saying before Sax about the media's responsibility here. We also have to think about the, the cable news media's responsibility when they put these protests on wall to wall and they send people there, that then inspires people to go there. And, you know, when you do this wall to wall coverage across five networks

• 49:36Jason Calacanis?

  and you obsess over something, people are going to obsess over it. And they see people out there rioting and people model other people's behavior. And I think they need to. Think like, how much coverage do we exactly have to give?

• 49:48David Sacks?

  Right. Well, even now, even now, they're bringing out the National Guard in anticipation of possibly riots and protests in reaction to.

• 49:55Jason Calacanis?

  Could induce it.

• 49:56David Sacks?

  Well, in reaction, no, I don't know if it's going to induce it, but, but, but in, in reaction to this verdict and the Rittenhouse trial, they're bringing out the troops to basically quell any, you know, riot before it gets started. But why would that riot even happen? Because the people have been fed this narrative that is completely bogus. And in that sense, the media has been incredibly irresponsible and they're playing with fire.

• 50:18Chamath Palihapitiya?

  They really are. I'll say it again, and we've fallen into this same trap. Look how much time we've just spent talking about Cogrit. Now I've mentioned the Maude Arbery, and we've just glossed over it.

• 50:27Jason Calacanis?

  Is his trial being?

• 50:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's happening right now.

• 50:30Jason Calacanis?

  No, no, but is it on video? Because that is another major issue here is when the trials are on video.

• 50:35David Sacks?

  These trials, they should never do TV again on these trials. Just never again. I mean, allow reporters in the courtroom, but do not put it on TV.

• 50:42Jason Calacanis?

  Like Veronose is not allowing, uh, video in the courtroom and it's not getting covered to this extent. And I think the video in the courtroom does drive this.

• 50:50David Sacks?

  It makes it a circus.

• 50:52Jason Calacanis?

  Breaking news Citadel CEO Ken Griffin outbid a group of crypto investors for a copy of the US Constitution, according to the Wall Street Journal. So we knew somebody was trolling the crypto.

• 51:03David Sacks?

  Before this, but now.

• 51:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, my God. Exactly.

• 51:07David Sacks?

  He was the central villain, basically, in that whole Robin Hood fiasco for payment for order flow. And now he outbid the crypto crowd. He is going to be enemy number one.

• 51:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Basically, there is no more sophisticated market participant than Ken Griffin. And on a silver platter, this group of people unfortunately showed, showed them their strategy and showed them exactly how to become the underbidder.

• 51:28Jason Calacanis?

  He priced it right. He did the prices right. He put $1 on top of their bid.

• 51:31David Friedberg?

  You know what Ken Griffin knows? Ken Griffin knows that now this is an object of interest that people are basically willing to pay anything for.

• 51:37Jason Calacanis?

  Bingo.

• 51:37David Friedberg?

  He's going to buy it now and in one year he'll sell it for twice as much. It's a valuable asset. But by the way, I want to make a point on this.

• 51:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I disagree, by the way. He's a buyer. He is not a seller.

• 51:47David Friedberg?

  He's gonna hold. Okay. But look, markets don't work with this much transparency. Markets only work when people have different information than other people that are participating in the market.

• 51:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

• 51:59David Friedberg?

  If everyone knew everything that everyone else was gonna do. Same data, but if everyone knew what everyone else... Different opinions, but if everyone knew everyone else's opinion on what something is worth, the market doesn't work. And that's the problem that happened here. Yeah. So here's what I value an asset at. And now if you know that, you know how to play against me in the market.

• 52:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That's what I said.

• 52:17David Friedberg?

  Yeah, exactly. And one thing I'll take note of, that I kind of realized yesterday when I was thinking about this, which is this transparency in markets leads to this inflationary problem. Why do you think everything that the government buys inflates? Because everyone already knows what the government is gonna spend on that thing. When the government enters into a market like healthcare, or education, or defense, the amount that they're gonna spend is published in a bill. And then Congress says, here's your authorized budget, here's how much you're gonna spend. So there is no natural market force that says a bid and an ask, what are you willing to pay? And is there a walkaway price? There is no walkaway price when the government is told to go spend some amount of money.

• 52:59David Friedberg?

  And as a result, the price of everything inflates to that walkaway, to that price, to that budget.

• 53:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Can I build on that?

• 53:05David Friedberg?

  And by the way, that's, in my opinion, based on everything I've looked at, the primary reason for the increase in education costs, because the government funds all the student loans, the increase in healthcare, the increase in defense. All of it is because the government is the customer and they tell the person that's servicing them upfront, they tell the market what they're willing to pay. And so the market just inflates to that amount. And it's really the reason why the way that we budget things and the government, as opposed to saying, look, this is the ROI metric, or this is the IRR metric you need to be shooting for with this government spending. It's all based on a fixed dollar amount of a budget that says, here's how much you should go spend.

• 53:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, look, as I said, it's actually worse than that, because then the procurement process is the furthest thing from a free market, where you essentially have these licensed people that are allowed to provide services. And so if you actually have the key critical input to making something possible, you have to get bundled in through contractors and subcontractors and general contractors, who each take their five and 10%, and then that's what you would, that's when you have like, you know.

• 54:07David Friedberg?

  And their hourly costs all balloon just a little bit, just a little bit, just a little bit. And suddenly the balloon cost of everything matches exactly the budget.

• 54:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So the perfect example of this is the space program. There was a, there was a, there was a rant by Bernie Sanders yesterday, basically saying, how could we have allowed Jeff Bezos, Mr. Bezos and Mr. Musk, to basically take over our national space program?

• 54:29Jason Calacanis?

  The national space program.

• 54:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We need to take it back. And then somebody, hold on, and then somebody, and then somebody thoughtfully went,

• 54:37Jason Calacanis?

  I'll just hack it out, give me the transcript.

• 54:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Somebody thoughtfully went back and actually looked, because again, as David said, everything is transparently published.

• 54:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  They went back and they actually counted how much money NASA spent in like the last seven or eight years, and the number was 360 odd billion dollars.

• 54:54David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 54:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And then they counted how much money SpaceX had spent. And it was, you know, if you counted revenue between seven and 11 billion.

• 55:03David Friedberg?

  Totally.

• 55:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so you have this incredible disparity which speaks to this.

• 55:08David Sacks?

  Well, after the space shuttle, after the space shuttle was retired, NASA didn't even have a way to get to space until SpaceX had the rockets.

• 55:15Jason Calacanis?

  I mean. And think about how many people died on the space shuttle.

• 55:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Guys, what Bernie is saying, which is what's I think scary to me is if you take the difference between 360 billion and seven, so 353 billion dollars, and divided by the number of people in the United States, you're basically talking about a thousand person, a thousand dollars a person. Would you and I sit around a table and give Bernie Sanders a thousand dollars out of our own pocket?

• 55:40David Sacks?

  Hell no.

• 55:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  To go and basically implement a half ass space program? No, I'd rather, I'd rather give Elon Musk 10 cents, which, or one cent, which is the equivalent alternative, or a penny.

• 55:52David Sacks?

  This raises a really serious issue, which is who is the better capital allocator of, you know, resources society, private markets or the government? And let me give you an example. So today, the House is voting out that reconciliation bill. They've got it, they're spending 2.1 trillion. This is one example, this is one example that caught my eye, is they've got 2.5 billion dollars going to tree equity, whatever that is.

• 56:16Jason Calacanis?

  I'm sorry, tree equality?

• 56:17David Sacks?

  Tree equity, tree equity.

• 56:19Jason Calacanis?

  What is tree equity?

• 56:20David Sacks?

  I, I think it might mean that like some communities have more trees. I think it means that some, some communities have more trees than others. They've got to rectify that. I don't know. I mean, this is like the jump the shark moment for the word equity, because I think now everything is equity. But, but you know, what, what struck me about this $2.5 billion number, okay? Is that like craft ventures, which I've been doing for the last four years. We've raised and will be deploying a total of about $2 billion over, call it five years into hundreds of startups that, you know, will pave the way for the next generation of the economy. So $2 billion versus two and a half billion as one line item. That's just a footnote. That's an asterix in this bill. I mean, what is the better capital allocation decision?

• 57:01David Sacks?

  And what people have to understand is, you know, all this money that gets spent gets sucked out of the private economy somehow. It either, you know, comes from taxes or it gets added to the, the national debt. But either way, it comes out of the private economy and resources that could be allocated to the next generation of, of innovative companies. And to be squandering the money like that on all these programs that no one even knows what they do, uh, when we're almost 30 trillion in debt is just unbelievable.

• 57:35Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, the 1% are going to be going to space and taking away the moon from the other 99%. Here, roll the clip.

• 57:43Speaker 04

  Unbelievably, this bill would provide and authorize some $10 billion in taxpayer money to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, for his space race with Elon Musk, the wealthiest person in America. This is beyond laughable, and I will be introducing an amendment to strike this provision. Frankly, it is not acceptable. It's not an issue that we have discussed terribly much, but it is not acceptable that the two wealthiest people in this country, Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos, take control of our space efforts to return to the moon

• 58:26Speaker 04

  and maybe even the extraordinary accomplishment of getting to the moon. This is not something for two billionaires to be directing. This is something for the American people. To be determining.

• 58:39David Sacks?

  Yeah, all the people have to be able to go to the moon before two people can go to the moon. Is that the idea?

• 58:43David Friedberg?

  Yeah, if there was a go to the moon Dow, it would get more. Good callback. Look at you with the callbacks, Friedberg. You're learning how to entertain the audience.

• 58:50David Friedberg?

  Can you imagine? People would just plow money into a go to the moon Dow and give it all to Elon Musk. It'd be so. More people would do that than would vote to support the Senate bill.

• 58:58Jason Calacanis?

  Additionally, I would like to report that Starlink does not work at my lake house and Amazon Prime takes three to four days at my beach house on the Cape and that these two companies are oppressing the 3% of the top 3%, which I am not part of the 1%.

• 59:13David Sacks?

  And some people don't have enough trees.

• 59:17Jason Calacanis?

  And in my community, there's only small trees and we want the redwoods from San Francisco. Why do they or the hippies get the redwoods that are much taller?

• 59:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Do you guys remember one of our very earliest pods, I made a statement which is equity is this danger word that the progressive left uses to steal power?

• 59:37David Friedberg?

  Yes.

• 59:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That we should.

• 59:38David Friedberg?

  I feel unsafe.

• 59:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We should always want equality, but not equity because equity is zero sum, right? You know a cap table, when you give somebody else equity, it's dilutive to everybody else. But equality is infinite. You can have unbounded equality.

• 59:52David Friedberg?

  Yes.

• 59:53Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And when I hear these guys talk about this stuff, it's so scary. The second thing is I'm a little confused by what Bernie's saying because on the one hand, he wants to cancel the American government's effective, you know, support of these programs. On the other hand, he wants us to take back the responsibility for it. But I think he must realize that it would cost 50 times more or 100 times more.

• 1:00:18David Friedberg?

  He's he's not, he's not, he's not spending sensitive in case you haven't noticed.

• 1:00:22Jason Calacanis?

  I also think this is like virtue signaling, like he was attacking Bezos about like minimum wage and then Bezos came over the top and like doubled it and then gave people college education. That was Bernie Sanders platform for president was like, give people free college and give people like a better $15 minimum wage. Bezos has done more for Bernie's platform than anybody. He should be thanking, he should be telling people, all companies should be acting like Amazon.

• 1:00:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, but also actually to your point, can I build on that? Amazon is now doing more to actually unwind duopolies and monopolies in markets than the government and the FTC is. You know, you see this, see this thing that Amazon is now doing in the UK with Visa, where they basically shut Visa off. And people are speculating now that it's a step in this direction of Amazon. You know, in Amazon domestically in the United States, they just did this big deal with a firm. And so they are looking at, and they, there's a rumor that they may switch the Amazon credit card off of Visa rails and put them on Mastercard rails. But this is another example, Jason, to your point of like, you know, Bernie and the left, progressive left would probably rail against the duopoly practices of Visa and Mastercard.

• 1:01:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  They can't get anything done. Jeff Bezos has actually done more now. Presses a button and has done more now.

• 1:01:37Jason Calacanis?

  Here's another one to build on yours. Who's doing, I mean, Bernie Sanders cares about global warming. It's like one of his key issues. Who's donated more to global warming than Jeff Bezos? Nobody.

• 1:01:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Nobody.

• 1:01:47Jason Calacanis?

  Who's doing 100,000 electric vehicles for his delivery fleet? Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos took Bernie Sanders' platform that he failed to get into office on, and he made it Amazon's platform.

• 1:01:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Here's a third example. Nick, you tweeted this out, Nick, or you can find this thing that I tweeted out, but it was a little meme. And it was, it was, it was basically Tobey Maguire and Kristen Duss, right? There's a meme of like.

• 1:02:09Jason Calacanis?

  Famous upside down kiss.

• 1:02:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, they're looking at each other. And basically the joke is like, you know, every time you protested at, you know, to shut down a nuclear plant, the resulting effect 40 years later was another 100 megatons of CO2 was put into the air. And it just goes to yet again, another example of we were to signal nuclear reactors and nuclear power. We go and we get them all shut down. It turned out that we ingested or we, we put out as a result, an enormous amount of more CO2 than had to be put. And then, and now who's helping to step in and solve it? Another private citizen, Bill Gates.

• 1:02:43David Sacks?

  Look, if it weren't for these private companies, we couldn't even get astronauts to space anymore.

• 1:02:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Impossible.

• 1:02:47David Sacks?

  I mean, like the government has actually lost the capacity to do that.

• 1:02:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Impossible. It would, it would have been impossible.

• 1:02:53Jason Calacanis?

  And who are we up against for space? I mean. China? Not just China. Just China.

• 1:03:00David Sacks?

  It's such a dichotomy between, and this is like a recurring theme of the show, between what the private sector and specifically, and not like the Fortune 500, not those old stodgy companies that are in the process of being disrupted, but what the sort of entrepreneurial economy is able to accomplish versus like how stultified and calcified and incompetent the governments become.

• 1:03:26Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, to your point, Friedberg, I think Sam Altman led this, the fusion energy startup, Helian, like $500 million round. I mean, by the time these nitwits, you know, in these political office, figure these things out, we're going to have fusion reactors, aren't we? Is that real science? Is that coming close? What do you think, Rupert?

• 1:03:49David Friedberg?

  I mean, Bill Gates just did this, what's it called? TerraPower announcement this week. He's got a company that he's been funding for years and they're building a 500-megawatt fusion plant in Wyoming, I think.

• 1:04:07Jason Calacanis?

  In Wyoming, yes.

• 1:04:08David Friedberg?

  In Wyoming. And he got $2 billion from the government and $2 billion that was funded by the company and its shareholders, which I think is majority owned by Bill Gates. But it certainly feels and seems to me, I mean, look, this one, like we've said, a lot of these infrastructure deals, these big infrastructure deals for things like power and next-gen manufacturing and whatnot, you know, could use, could benefit from the boost of, you know, government subsidies or, you know, government shared costs to get these things off the ground. Over time, as you get scale and reproducibility of them, the cost per unit comes way, way, way, way down. And so, you know, it seems to be the case that there are enough of these programs. I think I know of at least half a dozen nuclear power companies that are, you know, in advanced stages of doing.

• 1:04:54David Friedberg?

  You know, first installation design right now. And so it seems like this is going to be a reality. I think it would be an incredible boom to clean energy in the United States and globally, if we can get more of these built. I mean, what was the staff? China's building 150 nuclear power plants? Did it commission 150 nuclear power plants? I mean, it's a no brainer that that's what we need in the 21st century. It's the best renewable source, very small footprint, very reliable, can run 24/7, doesn't depend on some, you know, sun or wind or what have you. So you can plug it into a grid.

• 1:05:25Jason Calacanis?

  And so the government literally does not need to get involved in this, aside from writing a check and chopping it up 50/50, split the pot with Bill Gates.

• 1:05:32David Friedberg?

  Well, I think there's an important role that the government can and should play here, which is, you know, if we want to talk about what infrastructure this country needs, I've said it on the last couple of shows, we don't need yesteryear's infrastructure. We don't need last century's infrastructure, new bridges and, you know, toll bridges or whatever nonsense is, you know, going to get inflated as a result of this recent infrastructure. But what we need is next gen infrastructure and not charging stations because the free market's already there doing that. And, you know, not internet because the free market's already there giving everyone internet. And we see a thousand examples of that. What we need is the stuff that the free market cannot afford to fund and stand up, like next gen nuclear power stations, like biomanufacturing, like large scale on-demand 3D printing systems. These are the sorts of infrastructure programs that the United States and our workforce could

• 1:06:14David Friedberg?

  benefit from government subsidies to help private force, the private markets get stood up. And as these things get stood up and the flywheel gets going and cash starts getting generated, they can self-fund and they can grow and they can install more of these and the costs come down for the next one. The things where the government is the only customer, the only person buying, the costs will only go up on over time. Whereas the things that the private market is building, the costs will go down over time. And in some of these cases where there's a big kind of hurdle to get over the first build or the first build cycle, you know, the government has an important role to play, I think. And so, you know, look, I mean, it's clearly not going to happen with this current infrastructure bill. There's a few nuggets in there that might be useful and helpful. But generally speaking, you're right. I mean, over time, we want the cost of things to come down, not go up. And

• 1:06:58David Friedberg?

  so we need the private market to play a critical role in being the majority driver, you know, of these kind of systems.

• 1:07:04Jason Calacanis?

  All right. Seems like a good place to end.

• 1:07:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Pete Davidson is now dating Kim Kardashian.

• 1:07:10David Friedberg?

  How jealous are you, Chamath?

• 1:07:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm not jealous, but I'm

• 1:07:14Jason Calacanis?

  What are you talking about? You've got a great one.

• 1:07:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I am shocked that Pete Davidson has dated some of the most incredibly famous, popular women.

• 1:07:23Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, so you aren't jealous? Okay.

• 1:07:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, I'm a little curious. I gotta say, I'm a little curious. I mean, if you put a picture of Pete Davidson, I mean, there's gotta be something happening there. Let's just put it out there.

• 1:07:32David Sacks?

  He's got the Kevorka.

• 1:07:33David Friedberg?

  I'm gonna send you a link to an article.

• 1:07:35Jason Calacanis?

  I don't know what a Kevorka is. I'm Googling it.

• 1:07:37David Sacks?

  Remember that from Seinfeld where Kramer was like, you know, dating all these beautiful women? And it's because he explained he had the Kevorka.

• 1:07:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  He's got a better finishing move, yeah.

• 1:07:45David Friedberg?

  This is an article that went viral this week. Emily Ratajkowski, how do you pronounce her name?

• 1:07:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah.

• 1:07:50David Friedberg?

  Breaks down why women find Pete Davidson so attractive. And so this was like, you know, I saw it all over Twitter this week, but it was all about, you know,

• 1:07:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And what is the answer? Just give me the headlines.

• 1:08:02David Friedberg?

  I don't know. It's some, he's got, uh, super charming, he's vulnerable, he's lovely, his fingernail polish is awesome, he looks good, he has a good relationship with his mom. I mean, I just think he comes across as a good guy, might be the appeal.

• 1:08:16Jason Calacanis?

  Also, they want to take care of him, I think, because he's got like, his dad died.

• 1:08:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think you guys are missing a more subtle, non-obvious point.

• 1:08:24Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I don't know what you're talking about, Chamath. Do explain. Maybe you could expand.

• 1:08:30David Friedberg?

  I'm just guessing. It's a family show, Chamath. It's a family show.

• 1:08:34Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, my God.

• 1:08:35Jason Calacanis?

  Uh, no, I think they want to take care of him. That's what I heard from a woman said. They want to like, rock on him and take care of him. But yeah, I mean, also, Kim Kardashian, I think, you know, she just got the Gen Z. I think she was probably going the way of Paris Hilton, like maybe aging out of her, uh, you know, celebrity. And now she went Kanye, kinda Gen X, right? And now she's going down to Gen Z. She's got a whole new I hate to be cynical about it, but

• 1:09:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm also, you know, I'm gonna take so much, I'm gonna take so much flack for saying this, but um, I was a little short Donda, but I've listened to Donda now a couple of times and my god.

• 1:09:15Jason Calacanis?

  Is it good?

• 1:09:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's pretty fucking good. I mean Kanye West is one of legitimately, one of the most incredible artists of of all time. I mean, the way his mind works, the music, the beats, it's outrageous. I think if you give Donda like two or three shots.

• 1:09:31Jason Calacanis?

  I was into Registration, College Dropout and 808 and Heartbreaks.

• 1:09:36Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Amazing. My Dark Twisted Fantasy was probably one of the best albums ever created.

• 1:09:40Jason Calacanis?

  Well, see, that's the thing is I think with his later work, like I didn't get into my beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy until I had listened to it 10 times. Then I was like, okay, I get it. The early stuff is so accessible, like Dropout and Registration.

• 1:09:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But Donda is pretty incredible. I mean, it's

• 1:09:54Jason Calacanis?

  Right now David Sacks is like, what are you guys talking about? I haven't listened to any of this. David, do you know?

• 1:09:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  He's like, is that like Paul Anka?

• 1:10:02Jason Calacanis?

  David's like, yeah, wow.

• 1:10:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Sacks, do you listen to music? Actually, this is a good question.

• 1:10:06Jason Calacanis?

  What's your favorite artist? What's your favorite band?

• 1:10:08Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Like if we found, like if we listened, like your, like your workout tracks, so like on your, like on, on, on

• 1:10:14Jason Calacanis?

  Barry Manilow?

• 1:10:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Like I, Apple, like what are you listening to? Like Spotify? Like what are you listening to?

• 1:10:19Jason Calacanis?

  Tucker Carlson?

• 1:10:20David Sacks?

  No, music wise. I don't listen to music when I work out. The only time I listen, the only time I really listen to music is when I'm like in a car or on a plane or whatever.

• 1:10:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But do you have music, for example, like downloaded on your phone? Like if he said, pull out your phone, huh?

• 1:10:34David Sacks?

  Yeah, I do.

• 1:10:34Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Can you just give a, give a couple of names here? Yeah.

• 1:10:37Jason Calacanis?

  Top three, yeah.

• 1:10:37David Sacks?

  Honestly, it's gonna be recent hits, cuz I just downloaded what my kids tell me to download.

• 1:10:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I understand, but just give me a couple of albums that you've downloaded.

• 1:10:45David Sacks?

  Okay, so, where's, um, recently added? Okay, so it looks to me like a recently added Khalid.

• 1:10:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yes.

• 1:10:55David Sacks?

  Okay.

• 1:10:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, good.

• 1:10:56David Sacks?

  Uh, there's a Gaga song, uh, Kid Leroy and Miley Cyrus.

• 1:11:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Okay.

• 1:11:03David Sacks?

  Kid Leroy and Justin Bieber.

• 1:11:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Great.

• 1:11:05David Sacks?

  Doja Cat. My kids love Doja Cat.

• 1:11:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  She's great. She's great.

• 1:11:09Jason Calacanis?

  TikTok queen. Yeah.

• 1:11:10David Sacks?

  See, my kids keep me current. You know, you think I'm like.

• 1:11:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  She's great.

• 1:11:13Jason Calacanis?

  Here's what I'm doing for my kids. This is my new parenting strategy. I was let, they love listening to the eighties playlist on Spotify, but now I was like, what, who are like great seminal artists? So I have them doing Tom Petty, David Bowie, Talking Heads and Bob Marley. And I get the whole greatest hits album and I explain to them every song and they're like totally getting into it. So basically. I want them to actually know what great music is.

• 1:11:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You're being self-indulgent. You're focused on yourself and you're trying to make them a loser.

• 1:11:40Jason Calacanis?

  No, I'm trying to get them to understand what actual music.

• 1:11:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You want your kids to walk into school and when somebody else is like, hey, do you like Doja Cat? They're like, no, but have you listened to Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers?

• 1:11:49David Friedberg?

  I've, I've been doing that. I've been playing my kids, my favorite artists and they, and he's become their favorite artist. Aphex Twin. You guys don't know who he is.

• 1:11:56Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, Aphex Twin. Yeah, yeah.

• 1:11:57David Friedberg?

  Aphex Twin has a great album called the Richard D. James album. Richard D. James album is, is probably one of the best albums of all time. And I play it and my kids go frigging nuts for it now and they ask for it non-stop. And I'm like, oh my God, I love you. You're my kids. It's the best.

• 1:12:11David Sacks?

  I try to get my kids into the, my favorite movies. And that's just too hard because movies were, they were so too slow back then.

• 1:12:19David Friedberg?

  So did you? Yeah. Getting my kids to watch movies is hard. They want to watch.

• 1:12:23David Sacks?

  Yeah.

• 1:12:24Jason Calacanis?

  No, they can't watch movies. They're too slow.

• 1:12:26David Friedberg?

  They can't watch movies.

• 1:12:26Jason Calacanis?

  They only watch a Marvel movie. They can't even watch the original Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark.

• 1:12:31David Friedberg?

  Totally. Anything where the scene doesn't cut every one and a half seconds, they can't watch. It's crazy.

• 1:12:34Jason Calacanis?

  Raiders of the Lost Ark, you're gonna love this. They're like, this is so boring. I'm like, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom are boring. They're like, this is terrible.

• 1:12:42David Friedberg?

  But then I remember watching like.

• 1:12:44David Sacks?

  Character development. They, they want to cut the first act.

• 1:12:46Jason Calacanis?

  Have you guys watched?

• 1:12:48David Sacks?

  You didn't watch, Jaws would be like unwatchable.

• 1:12:49David Friedberg?

  But I remember as a kid watching.

• 1:12:51Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, you can't watch it. She loved it.

• 1:12:53David Friedberg?

  Did you guys ever watch like AMC and you watch the old school movies of the thirties and forties? They are impossible to watch. Like they are so, it's like watching a play. And that was, you know, it's like gotten more and more kind of, um, short form as we've kind of aged, but you know, that's like, oh no, what happened?

• 1:13:09Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, sad each. Okay.

• 1:13:12Jason Calacanis?

  Aki.

• 1:13:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Holding a biscuit and Aki just came and took it from him.

• 1:13:15Jason Calacanis?

  Aki, not a good Aki. You don't take a biscuit. Aki, you eat a dog food. You don't eat a biscuit? Bad Aki.

• 1:13:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You know, those biscuits are cashmere. They're really expensive.

• 1:13:24David Friedberg?

  All right, I'm gonna, I'm gonna go get my booster shot. I'll see you guys later.

• 1:13:27Jason Calacanis?

  All right, everybody. This has been another exciting, amazing episode of the All In Podcast for Rain Man David Sacks. For the dictator.

• 1:13:37David Friedberg?

  Hi Nat.

• 1:13:38Jason Calacanis?

  Shamaapatiya and Sultan of Science, David Friedberg. We'll see you all next time.

• 1:13:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Saxifoo, have a wonderful time with Suarez. He came by last night.

• 1:13:47David Sacks?

  I'm hosting Miami Mayor Francis Suarez tonight. We're doing a cocktail reception fundraiser for him.

• 1:13:53Jason Calacanis?

  Hung out with him last night.

• 1:13:54David Sacks?

  And we got huge turnout. I mean, I tweeted this thing and we're gonna have, I think, at least 60 people at the reception, at least 20 people for dinner.

• 1:14:03David Friedberg?

  You're gonna have security.

• 1:14:04Jason Calacanis?

  You're letting randos in your house from Twitter?

• 1:14:06David Friedberg?

  You're gonna have security.

• 1:14:07Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, they have to pay five dimes?

• 1:14:09David Sacks?

  Yeah, they're, yeah, they have to pay. But also, like, we kind of check everybody out.

• 1:14:12David Friedberg?

  One of your enemies, one of your enemies will pay five dimes just to get in your house, so.

• 1:14:16Jason Calacanis?

  I think basically, like BuzzFeed paid to get in there. I'd be careful.

• 1:14:19David Sacks?

  We have to, we have to know who they are. We vet them.

• 1:14:21Jason Calacanis?

  Background check.

• 1:14:21David Sacks?

  There's a lot of people, I mean, look, if we wanted to let everybody in, there were at least 100 people who replied to my tweet saying, "I can't DM you, but I want to go and..."

• 1:14:31Jason Calacanis?

  Open your DMs for a day.

• 1:14:33David Sacks?

  Oh, you can do that?

• 1:14:34Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:14:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Francis came by yesterday with his team. He was in top form. He looks great. He's excited about the next term.

• 1:14:40Jason Calacanis?

  All right, we'll see you all next time. Bye-bye.

• 1:14:44David Sacks?

  We'll let your winners ride.

• 1:14:47David Sacks?

  Rain Man David Sacks.

• 1:14:51David Sacks?

  And it said, "We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it." Love you, Sacks. Queen of Kinoah.

• 1:15:04David Sacks?

  Besties are back.

• 1:15:07David Sacks?

  That is my dog taking a leash in your driveway.

• 1:15:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

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

• 1:15:22David Sacks?

  What your, the beak. What your beak. What your beak. Beak. What? We need to get merkeys are back.