20VC: NVIDIA Bonanza: Buys Poolside & Invests in Mercor and Perplexity | Anthropic's $30TRN Revenue Assumption & OpenAI Confirms IPO | Why Customer Service, Defence and Robotics are Overinflated

AGENDA: 00:00 NVIDIA Launches a Three-Deal Blitz Across the AI Stack 04:31 NVIDIA's $12BN Poolside Deal Exposes Frontier AI's Capital Wall 15:39 NVIDIA Moves to Back Mercor at $20BN and Perplexity at $30BN 26:55 OpenAI Confirms 2027 IPO as Anthropic Seizes the Lead 40:42 Hugging Face Draws $13BN Takeover Interest as Open Models Boom 44:56 Citadel Cashes Out 80% of Its Leopold Aschenbrenner AI Trade 51:51 AI Boom Is "Less Than One-Third Over"—But Token Addiction Has a Price 01:04:07 Stripe Reaccelerates to 41% as AI Reshapes Software's Leaderboard 01:07:45 Instinct Security Scare Exposes Why AI Agents Still Cannot Be Trusted 01:23:55 VCs Name AI's Biggest Bubbles: Support, Defense, Humanoids and Roll-Ups

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

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Nine billion doesn't clear the bar for seed investing in 2026.

• 0:04Speaker 01

  Let me tell you one thing I guarantee, if you get 15x on your failures in venture, you'll die a rich man. The VC money went out on Anthropic and OpenAI long ago, which is why no VC owns more than 1% or 2% of either of them.

• 0:17Speaker 00

  What if it all goes right? Entry price for any of these winners doesn't matter.

• 0:21Speaker 01

  They'll go at whatever price they get in 27 because they can't wait any longer. If danger can be described as the absence of choice, they were now in danger. It's all about code. That's the only sentence that matter. Your TAM is the entire US GDP. Thanks. Thanks a bunch, Dario. Good to know.

• 0:36Speaker 00

  I think you have to believe we're less than a third of the way through this cycle. Jesus Christ, if 30% of my company leaves to go work for Harvey, I'm dead in the water.

• 0:44Speaker 01

  Silicon Valley forgets every three years that the average American is not trying to be efficient.

• 0:49Harry Stebbings?

  Welcome back to another week with the trio. This is my favorite 20 VC of the week. So we have Jason Lemkin, Rory O'Driscoll and me discussing the biggest news that happened this week. And hell, Nvidia are going fast. One, they're buying Poolside for $12 billion. Two, they're investing in McColl's $20 billion price round. Three, they're investing in Perplexity's $30 billion price round. Then we move to OpenAI, where CFO Sarah Frye says, hey, we're definitely going public this year. Well, they had no choice. Thanks to Anthropic, also doing the same. And then we discuss a really tough week in the public markets for a lot of the biggest AI names, what to expect moving forwards and whether this is a short term or a long term, and how to think about that moving forwards.

• 1:33Harry Stebbings?

  But before we dive into the show today, when you're building a company, you learn that trust is what closes deals. You may have the best product, but no buyers will sign these days without proof of your security. Here's what happens if you're not prepared. A prospect asks for proof of compliance. The deal stalls when you scramble. Your engineer gets pulled off the roadmap to audit prep. Every enterprise conversation turns into this horrible fire drill. That's where Vanta comes in. Vanta is the leading agentic trust platform that not only gets you compliant fast with frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA and GDPR, but keeps you compliant by continuously monitoring your controls. So your deals keep moving and your engineers really keep building.

• 2:13Harry Stebbings?

  Now, access to Vanta agent everywhere you work, even if your team lives in Claude or Cursor. And that's why Vanta is trusted by more than 16,000 companies like Ramp, Harvey and Writer. So prove you're ready for business and get $1,000 off Vanta when you go to vanta.com/20vc. That's vanta.com/20vc. While Vanta keeps compliance covered, Deal helps you hire globally. We get it. Global IT can be a headache. New hire in Tokyo, but the laptop, well, it's stuck in London. Someone left the company last week. Wait, is that access already revoked? Deal IT handles hardware, software and access to across 130 countries from one system.

• 2:57Harry Stebbings?

  You have the right to be impressed. Brands like Eleven Labs are already managing their global IT at scale with Deal. It's one system, one source of truth with zero vendor gaps or manual workarounds. So build your global team with Deal. Visit D E E L dot com slash 20vc and start expanding your business today. While Deal builds the team, Framer builds the site. When a new landing page turns into a pile of tickets and handoffs, Framer helps your team move faster. Here's what I love. Framer is the pro AI website builder for creators, teams and businesses that really care enough to get every detail right. The agents close the gap between AI-generated ideas and production-ready website work

• 3:41Harry Stebbings?

  because it all happens where the site actually lives. It lands on the canvas, it stays editable, and it can be published when the team is ready. Build custom code components, create and manage CMS content, optimize SEO settings and ship everything all in one place. The agents bring speed and scale. You bring taste, judgment and control. It's an enterprise-level solution, premium hosting, enterprise-grade security and 99.99% uptime SLAs, which is why the world's leading brands like Perplexity and Miro build in Framer. Learn how you can get more out of your site from a Framer specialist or get started building for free today at framer.com/20vc

• 4:19Harry Stebbings?

  for 30% off a Framer Pro annual plan. That's framer.com/20vc for 30% off. Framer.com/20vc. Rules and restrictions may apply. You have now arrived at your destination. Guys, I am so excited for this. It's so nice to be back. I feel like locked in when I'm in the studio. I have my big table, I have the agenda, and we're going to start with Nvidia, moving across different layers of the stack. And we're going to start with the model layer, where Nvidia is paying $6 billion to license Poolside's model factory and investing $1 billion more at a $12 billion pre-money valuation, moving 109 engineers over to Nematron to help build it.

• 5:04Harry Stebbings?

  Pretty big news, especially on the American open model front.

• 5:08Speaker 01

  Agreed.

• 5:08Speaker 00

  Man, the one that gave me the feels or that hit me was that letter that was, you know, the investor letter that was published on X. Thanks, Leaking VC or whomever it was, but basically saying, you know, we couldn't raise the $2 billion to buy 40,000 GPUs. That deal that maybe we talked about half a year ago, it seemed like they were going to build their own massive data center. They couldn't get the money and they wouldn't have compute going to next year. So they had no choice but to fail up for $6 billion, plus topping off a billion, a $12 billion. But it read, it read almost depressing. It's also maybe a reminder that despite Nvidia seemingly funding everyone on planet Earth, that, you know, the gravy train, the VC gravy train can only last so long. There's only so much funding, right, from big funds. Maybe Rory sees it differently,

• 5:51Speaker 00

  but it seemed like tough. They couldn't raise the $2 billion in this environment. Not being critical, but it just showed that infinite capitalism is infinite it looks even in the age of AI.

• 6:01Speaker 01

  First of all, I thought it was an excellent letter. I mean, I read it and I reread it. And there were some really good phrases in there. One of them I want to pick up and it said, you know, we have found ourselves on the right side of prediction in a market which has scaled exponentially in terms of capital intensity, which is nicely. But what they're basically saying is we were right three years ago that there was a market for a US open source model and we've built that model. We've done everything we said we'd do and the capital intensity for the next turn of the model crank is just, as you said, way beyond us. Nicely phrased. A couple of things that you could look at that and go, I mean, they did something that, they took on a task they weren't able to do with the capital. Oh, that's a negative. On the other hand, they made money for themselves and all their shareholders.

• 6:43Speaker 01

  And I think the lesson here is, and we talked about it last week, in a market that's exploding, sometimes bets that on a standalone basis really just can't get to a positive DCF. You know, they just couldn't make the math on a standalone basis, still have pretty significant value to the acquirer. Because from the perspective of Nvidia, they looked at exactly the same facts and said, well, we have capital. Turns out we have access to GPU because we make GPU. And you've kind of carried the ball down the field this far. We'll take it from here and frankly, we'll give you a pretty compelling return. I mean, I know you're a small Poolside shareholder, Harry. So all those guys made really good money and the company gets to go standalone and continue on. So in one kind of negative way, the lesson is it's almost impossible to compete now at the frontier.

• 7:26Speaker 01

  And by the way, that has positive implications for OpenAI and Anthropic, we should talk about in a second. So the negative lesson for everyone else is it is almost the next smartest people who are really going for it, just hit the capital wall. So probably all the other people behind them are going to hit the same wall. That's the negative implication. And the positive implication is sometimes trying and moving the ball in a hyper-growth market, you can still get a very compelling acquisition. In a different market, if you'd run out, quote unquote, run out of money, if you had reached the next generation where you can no longer finance the company in a time when the capital markets were depressed and there was some feeling that the overall buoy around equity, sorry, around AI wasn't as strong, you might have had a very different outcome there because your fate was outside your control.

• 8:10Speaker 01

  But I think in this market, it pays to take risks. It's what we're talking about last week in Cursor and I'm sorry if I'm rambling a little. Even when you have this kind of, oh, on a DCF MBA basis, it's not quite great. It turns out if you're moving in the right direction and you execute and build a product that's valuable, right now you're getting great exits. I think there's going to be a ton more. I think I said last week, there's going to be a ton more of these kind of exits. I read that and I thought, as an investor, if all the time you're saying is you, sometimes doing things where there is a fair amount of capital raising risk can still pay off in a nut market. In a very different market, it wouldn't have, but here it did.

• 8:44Harry Stebbings?

  The additions that I'd have is like, I'm wavering the common thing that I see across all investors that I engage with, friends, people we have on the show, is like Neo Labs just going out of favor and next generation model providers and companies going out of favor too. And I'm not surprised that Poolside found it challenging to raise as much as they did. That's universal from everyone that I speak to. Second, founders are going to make a billion each. And then third is that for me as an investor, I don't know if I'm allowed to say this, but I get in trouble, whatever I say these days, so fuck it. You know, it'll be like a 15x for us as a seed ambassador. Pretty great.

• 9:16Speaker 01

  Absolutely. Pretty amazing. Agreed. I think I was very uncrisp a few minutes ago. When you're in the direction of travel, even when you're wrong, you can make a ton of money because you've created something of value to the acquirer.

• 9:28Harry Stebbings?

  Does this really move the needle for Nvidia in their ability to make Nematron truly competitive?

• 9:34Speaker 01

  There's two questions within that. One is, is this additive to Nematron? And then the second question is, does Nematron, even if it is competitive, does it move the needle? But if you zoom out a level, right now, there's a whole bunch of Chinese open source models that are getting a lot of the token volume, which means they're doing a lot of the compute, even if they're not getting a lot of the margin. And if I'm the maker of compute, it's awesome for Nvidia if there's a viable US open source model running on Nvidia chips, taking market share away from the frontier models at the margin. So I totally get why they're doing this. An open source model is a compliment in the economic sense of the word for Nvidia, because the more open source market share there is,

• 10:15Speaker 01

  the more money goes to chips relative to the money that goes to foundation model builders. So they're like, yay team.

• 10:21Speaker 00

  I don't think 15x is good enough for a seed investor in Poolside. Listen, first of all, let's step back. Seed has a weird definition today. Seeds could be at a billion or two billion pre or post, right? You know, 15x sounds good for a later stage investor, and I know it scales scale. That's a good outcome, right? But for a true seed investor, it's not, you're not going to get a fund returner out of a 15x. Listen, if you're a personal investor, it's fine. But if you've got a seed fund and you're investing, just a reminder, if you're investing at some of these valuations, it may not be enough. You need your, you're not going to get your 50 or 100x out of nine billion.

• 10:55Speaker 01

  But Jason, play it back. I hear you, Matthew. But what we're really saying is, you made a bet and it didn't work. It was not viable and you still made a 15x.

• 11:05Speaker 00

  No, I'm saying nine billion isn't enough of an exit for seed investments today.

• 11:08Speaker 01

  I agree, but.

• 11:09Speaker 00

  So nine billion doesn't clear the bar for seed investing in 2026. That's the irony.

• 11:15Speaker 01

  So there's two things in that. I'm going to push on it because I often use this as a way that we find my own thing. One, it is weird that you can have an exit at nine billion and only make 15 times your money, which by definition would imply a 600 million pre-money, right? So yes, it turns out if you do a seed deal at 600, not 60, your return is.

• 11:32Speaker 00

  Also, the dilution is epic these days too, right?

• 11:35Speaker 01

  Effectively, it's what your point, it's ex post facto. Ex post facto, the effective price was 600 because you took all the dilution. You're exactly right. Jason, I'm going to go back to, is 15x a great return on your best deal for a seed fund? No. But if you're doing a series of bets, one of them is a, hey, I think I can build an American open source model and you can raise enough capital to do it. And it turns out that thesis is not correct and you can't raise capital to meet the capital intensity and you still get a 15x. Let me tell you one thing I guarantee. If you get 15x on your failures and venture, you'll die a rich man. And that's what happened here. And I don't like calling it a failure because I know Jason, I think they're awesome. I actually love the letter they wrote. I

• 12:19Speaker 01

  love the kind of vision they talked about, what they want to do in terms of open source. I think they just ran into economic reality of the capital intent. And remember, we say the VC's, the VC money went out. The VC money went out on Entropic and OpenAI long ago, which is why no VC owns more than 1% or 2% of either of them. The only people capable of financing a state of the art frontier model in the United States of America has been the hyperscalers themselves. The only reason Entropic and OpenAI exist is because Microsoft, Google and Amazon gave them enough money to play because no one else on the planet has enough money. And the only other person who now has enough money is Nvidia. So they're doing the same thing with an open source model for the obvious reason that open source is good for them. There are only four or five companies in the world that

• 13:04Speaker 01

  can finance a foundation model and they are doing it. And the VCs have been along for the ride and to provide an occasional piece of pricing discipline. These are financed by the five largest companies on planet, except for Apple, who sticks their money in their pocket and just has the stock go up.

• 13:18Speaker 00

  Obviously, if you can get 15x out of your, Poolside, of course, was not a failure. It's a big win, right? But if you get 15x out of your failures, you're going to be a wildly successful investor. Just, the only point, then let's move on, is it's just interesting. I do think unless it's a hyper concentrated investment, your best investments still need to do 50x as a seed investor to make the math work. If Poolside returned 15x with further dilution, what exit price would it have to be to be a good seed investment to return 50x? Help me do the math, Rory. I think it's, I think it's about 7x. So it would need to exit at about 63 billion with dilution.

• 13:52Speaker 01

  If you think about it, Jason, the answer to the question is actually very noble. You're paying in the frontier model game. The two winners in that game in closed source are both worth a trillion. The two or three kind of ostensible open weight winners in China are each worth 50 to 100 billion. So it was a rational act. The win, if you could have done it, was in fact large enough to be, you could have had a 100 to one return on a seed investment if you'd been able to be, possibly if you'd been able to be equivalent to the Chinese open source players and definitely if you'd been a winner like OpenAI or Entropic. So my point is this, the potential was there for that bet, which is why, you know, at the time, it was a rational bet. And then the capital markets were such that you couldn't

• 14:33Speaker 01

  get it and you still got a 15x. That's the movie. So it was a good bet because it had, it was one of the few businesses on the world. I mean, there's only going to be one or two trillion dollar outcomes per decade and likely going to be all concentrated for now in, you know, frontier models. And this was a play at a frontier model. And basically, the aha is if first prize is a trillion dollars, turns out fifth prize is still nine billion. It's like the guys, you know, in golf on the last day, when you don't win, you miss a few pots, you don't even come in second in the US Open, you come in seventh and everyone goes, oh, poor you. And then you think to yourself, oh, it's five million bucks. I'll take it. Onto next week. That's what happened here. You basically placed, you know, high, but not in the top three in the US Open and you get a bunch of money.

• 15:16Harry Stebbings?

  I land in the bunker and I don't get out, so.

• 15:19Speaker 01

  You land in the bunker and you chipped out. You got out. You got out. You took two extra shots. Remember, this is a win.

• 15:25Harry Stebbings?

  Jason, you said, how big does it have to be? Next layer that Nvidia is in talks to be playing heavily into is Mercor's new funding round. I'm an investor in Mercor. I never thought this would be as big as it has got as quickly as it has done. Crossing out two, two and a half billion there are. They're doing a new round led by General Catalyst at 20 billion. And then there's rumors, suggestions, reports that Nvidia is joining that round in a significant way. How do we think about this? Next layer of the start for Nvidia.

• 15:54Speaker 01

  I think one of the things we saw with Intel back in the, the closer you are to having 100% market share, the more you spend your time trying to move the whole ecosystem along. And clearly that's where Nvidia is now. They're using their capital to, you know, fund the Neo Clouds, fund OpenAI, fund, as we just discussed, Poolside and for whatever reason, also fund Mercor. I will admit, when I think about all the things that Nvidia should be doing with its money, it wasn't obvious to me that funding Mercor made as much sense as some of the other bets, because the other bets are all about TAM expansion. If I fund the Neo Cloud, they can buy more chips. I'm happy. If I fund Poolside, I can sell more open source. I'm happy. I don't get why if I fund Mercor, they can do more

• 16:39Speaker 01

  training, but my, probably my, unless there's some kind of strategic deal around needing that training information, from a purely financial perspective, it doesn't directly lead to more chips being sold. So it wasn't as obvious to me as the others. And maybe it is as simple as we think it's a good business at 20 billion and stop thinking about it, Rory.

• 16:56Speaker 00

  There's an investment bank called Kroll. I'm embarrassed to say I don't even know them. Do you know them?

• 16:59Speaker 01

  No, I thought they were a detective agency.

• 17:01Speaker 00

  No, different one. They published their report this week, looking at all M&A and big transactions over the last six months of the year. And I guess this is not that, it's a micro point to your point, but the analysis they basically made is gross margins above 30% don't matter anymore. You don't get, you don't get any benefit in M&A or other exits, like for an agentic stock. They're not looking, like there is a penalty if you look at all deals below 30, but there is no penalty. So if you can value Mercor at eight classic multiples for 80% gross margins and growing, it's, you know, it's not expensive. I don't know why Nvidia would do it per se. They've got massive strategic goals here, right? But the tactical basically kind of seems to me, we'll spend all our free cash flow on our ecosystem.

• 17:42Speaker 01

  Yep.

• 17:42Speaker 00

  This is our budget. Jensen says there's a budget. Our free, I don't know what it's going to be, 70 billion this year. Maybe I've gotten that wrong, right? And we're going to spend it all on our customers and ecosystem. And the strategy and the top VPs probably get around a room and they decide what's our best ideas. And there's some guy that thinks data labeling is important and his best idea was Mercor. And so they've put a few billion of the 75 billion. And you think I'm kidding, but I'm confident they go around the room and everyone has their best ideas and the budget's 75 billion. And you know, OpenAI and friends are going to get a big chunk of it and there's going to be off balance sheet guarantees. But I think they've decided to just spend it all one for one. And I would do the same. If you can get away with it, adding cash to the balance sheet, other than being defensive, does nothing for you as a CEO of a profitable

• 18:25Speaker 00

  company, right? If Wall Street lets you get away with spending it, I would spend 100% of my cash too.

• 18:30Speaker 01

  First of all, I think you're totally right, Jason. It is as simple as that. It's like, you know, because, by the way, Nvidia will have reported between the time we make this video and the time we distribute it on Thursday. So there could be a data point that makes us like total buffoons by Thursday and that's just life. But on the basic assumption that the trend continues apace, which I think it does, which is, you know, strong growing quarters, you know, 60 or 70% up last quarter and similar quarter last year, wildly profitable because the demand signals are still strong from the hyperscalers. So let's just assume on Thursday, the hypothesis of Tuesday continues correct. Then Jason, you're right. They're kicking off. I mean, I just looked at it, you know, they make huge operating margins, one out of 100 billion of gross cash flow. And then you have, they

• 19:13Speaker 01

  do a lot of buybacks. We'll talk about that in a second. So they have young some money to invest every year. And you're right, they just make a list of what can we do to move the ecosystem along. Now I make two negative comments on that. You know, one, it's worth remembering that only four years ago, their cash flow was 1/10 of what it is today. And I think the free cash flow after capex and everything is something like, and I think some of the capex is really investments. So it's a little misleading. It's kind of gone from 4 billion to 50 billion. You know, the gross profitability is well over 100. It's wildly profitable. But you know, you say to yourself, and you do, you're right, Jason, you get no points for cash on the balance sheet, but they only have only 50 billion of cash on the balance sheet, right? Cash and investments. There's a little part of me that says I might keep more for a rainy day than just doing share buybacks. But

• 19:56Speaker 01

  I agree, you do have to do something with it. And they're clearly, the best use for it is to spend the money with people who will in turn enhance the ecosystem, which is why, you know, which is why OpenAI gets a big watch of their money all the time.

• 20:09Speaker 00

  If you invest right, it's brilliant. You get a customer. Not only do you get circular revenue, but you but you ensure the success of your ecosystem, the viability, you get a two for out of it. So you just have to play the game really well. But if you play the game well, it's a lot better than making 3%.

• 20:23Speaker 01

  Yeah, it's interesting. They're doing such a lot, thinking in real time here because the Poolside acquisition is TAM expansion via buying an adjacent product. The Mercor acquisition is, I think, as you say, Jason, straight investing. It's kind of just, hey, it's a related space. We know something. Here's some money. And then something like perplexity investment or OpenAI investment is literally, especially the OpenAI, is vendor financing, where you as the vendor of the chips are choosing to give your customer money. It's not like that's a nefarious, because a lot of, oh, my God, it's circular. It's not like that's nefarious. It's just exactly what you said, Jason. You got to get it right. If you overextend credit and underwrite projections that aren't realistic, that stuff comes back to you and you look like an idiot in two years. And we all remember the telecom crash in 2000. Well, we don't all remember,

• 21:07Speaker 01

  but some of us remember the telecom crash in 02, where all those 99 deals unwound. And the bet that Nvidia is taking here is it's not going to happen this time. You know, you're not going to find that the OpenAI is the Anthropic's. If they don't suddenly need $100 billion worth of compute, you might regret some of this vendor financing, but right now it looks smart.

• 21:26Harry Stebbings?

  I think it's a good investment. I consistently regret not putting more money in over time. I think your largest data providers will be $200 billion companies. If you think about OpenAI and Anthropic being two to $5 trillion businesses, is it crazy to think that the data provider that provides them their core data assets will be a 10% of their market cap? I don't think so.

• 21:45Speaker 01

  I don't know. I mean, I think you have to think about it in terms of revenue rather than market cap. And then you start saying to yourself, you know, what's the training budget for the frontier models at scale if they're doing, I mean, what's this? And I let me give you the negative math. We know that, you know, OpenAI is running at 18 billion H1s, call it 25 billion, 30 billion years, Anthropic's at 60 billion year. Together, let's call it 100 billion, round up, right? You know, most of that spend goes on, half of that spend goes on compute and inference. What's the training budget? Is it 10% of revenue? Is it 5% of revenue? So, yeah, it's a $5 to $10 billion market.

• 22:22Harry Stebbings?

  Way more, way more.

• 22:24Speaker 01

  Do you think it's?

• 22:25Harry Stebbings?

  Oh, I know it's way more because Serge is doing 3, 3.5. Mercor are doing 2.5. Handshaker doing 1. Micro One are doing half.

• 22:33Speaker 01

  But the question, you're right. So my point is, so it's predicated on, if that 100 billion spend this year goes to 400, 500 billion, then you're right. Then 5% of that is 25 billion divided four or five ways. I don't think you get 10% of the market cap of the frontier models, but you still get a healthy 20 billion a year revenue spend. Divide that up three ways. And then, as Jason said, it actually turns out the most important question is the one Jason asked, which is what multiple do you attach to that? Do you attach the AI multiple or do you attach the lower gross margin multiple? That's really what will swing it.

• 23:05Speaker 00

  The related thing I was thinking on that Kroll data, you know, if you go back to Cursor, right? 60 billion, we talked about last week. This was one of the classic ones where the VCisms were right. It worked itself out. You started off with something with negative gross margins. You started off with something that radically subsidized its cost. I forget what Cursor cost initially, 200 bucks a month for unlimited use, right? But it didn't have, but it didn't, it had no way to defend that, right? And so then it had to cap it for, and then it had to stop doing it. And then it had to develop its own models and then it had to do, it had to do. But the VCism is, these are some of the smartest kids ever. They have a strong market position. The wind is at their sails. They'll, the kids will figure it out. They know you get a gross margins. And more or less they did, and they got to the 60 billion.

• 23:48Speaker 00

  And so it's kind of freeing for models like Mercor that we maybe, we made fun of, right? Okay, this is a commodity, low margin business. But the kids are figuring it out, man. The kids are figuring it out. So guns a blazing.

• 24:01Speaker 01

  Yeah, no, I, I think there is a bit of survivor. First of all, I agree with you, and I think it gets to the, when there's a venture investor, you're doing in some, you're investing in something that has troubling gross margins. It is rational to say for certain bets, the gross margins will come right over time. And you're right, Cursor is an example of that. Just in the interest of completeness, I don't know why I'm the Debbie Downer today. Not every negative gross margin company makes it. And in the end, I think you want, and strong gross margin companies are the best investments. So don't, don't just look at the sample of deals where you started with negative gross margin and it all worked. I can think of plenty of deals, including some we've done, where you started with shitty gross margins and you ended with shitty gross margins and you were just wrong. I think, Jason, to your point, the thing is, having negative gross margins is not a reason,

• 24:45Speaker 01

  clearly not a reason not to do a deal. I mean, if every part of the financials were pristine, they wouldn't need venture capital because they'd be profitable. It's a question of in which cases is it rational to underwrite massive improvement? And it has been for the foundation models themselves. I mean, Anthropic went from negative 91 to positive 30 in a year. It has been, as you say, Jason, for Cursor. It'd be interesting to see what the sustaining long-term margins for something like Mercor are. I don't know if they have the same dynamics in terms of the ability to approve those margins that, say, Cursor did, because the training companies only have three to five big customers, whereas the Cursor has literally hundreds of thousands. So I'm not as convinced those margins go as well as the Cursor ones. But you're right, the Cursor, Cursor beat the margin trap.

• 25:30Speaker 00

  And Rory, and as I tell my partners and subordinates on Monday meetings, what if it all goes well? What if it all goes better than we expected? What if it all goes right? And I challenge my team, what if it all goes right? Entry price for any of these winners doesn't matter. What if it all goes, what if it all goes right, guys? That's, and I've coined that term, and I've noticed many, many of my colleagues in the industry have copied it. What if it all goes right? You know what I mean?

• 25:53Harry Stebbings?

  It goes back to the optimists make money and pessimists are right, that we often say.

• 25:57Speaker 01

  And the only reason I say it is because I admit that I can be naturally a pessimist. So I actually, I'm trying to learn to retrain the model to do that more. And Jason, I love the sentence, and what if it all goes right?

• 26:08Speaker 00

  I'm not the first to have said it.

• 26:09Speaker 01

  The, I know, I know that, of course. But the ancillary point, interesting, going back to Poolside, is it turns out even, what if it all doesn't quite go right, but you're in a great market? It turns out that can be okay, too.

• 26:21Harry Stebbings?

  If enough goes right, you can all do fine. There's been a lot of cynicism, skepticism around Aravind Shrinivas and perplexity. It's a company that actually people like to dislike for whatever reason. We've done shows with him. We're a small investor in the company. So Nvidia is actually propping up most of my portfolio.

• 26:38Speaker 01

  My portfolio this week.

• 26:39Harry Stebbings?

  Yeah, thank you. Our friends at OpenAI, never a dull day at OpenAI. CFO Sarah Frye told employees at OpenAI, we will be a public company in 2027. This is when AI trades cracked. I don't know if it's interesting timing. It's kind of what we expected, to be quite honest. They've got pressure on them from Anthropic, who are obviously going public in reportedly the next few months. Is there anything surprising here about Sarah Frye's statement to the team?

• 27:04Speaker 01

  I think they had no choice but to make those statements, and I'll tell you why. If you look at Q1 and Q2 for them, now I can't remember, it's like 5. something billion to 6. something billion, which was a Q1Q growth rate of 18%, which would have turned into an annualized growth rate of slightly under 100, depending on compounding. And it would have meant that they went from 12.5 billion last year of GAAP revenue to roughly, probably under 30 this year. If that Q2 number was sustained, it would put them, obviously, A, would put them so far behind Anthropic at 60 billion run rate mid-year. And again, we haven't seen GAAP numbers for Anthropic, but clearly bigger and clearly growing faster. That A, it would be terribly bad for OpenAI and kind of how, because anyone would run that math and go,

• 27:49Speaker 01

  oh, two more years of this and you're in relevance, you're perplexity too. And then the second thing that didn't happen, but would have happened is all those people like Broadcom, Nvidia, that were expecting to sell $200 billion worth of chips to OpenAI might suddenly go, hmm, maybe if they're not growing quickly, they won't need 200 billion worth of chips. So that, so that's kind of what, if all you had was the Q H1 numbers, that was a conclusion you could draw. I'm not saying it'd be correct. If, in fact, OpenAI is massively accelerating in early Q3, they had no choice but to share that information with the world, because otherwise everyone would assume the worst. What they're not going to do is sit on their thumbs and say, well, I'll give you your Q3 update in three months. Meanwhile, you should just sweat it out.

• 28:29Speaker 01

  So I really detected a very concerted attempt to tell a Q2 is an anomaly, Q3 is exploding story. You could see it in the comments that they made to their internal team. You can see in the stuff that's coming out, and there's been a whole, you know, massive re-acceleration story. And again, I know nothing, except until you see it in GAAP numbers, it's hard to be sure on it. But to me, the reason for pushing that agenda was you had no choice, because otherwise you were just going to be left behind. If you're growing 2X, it's amazing. Growing 2X at 12 billion is amazing. But if your competitor is growing 10X or 8X at 60 billion, you know, you're staring at, you know, relative market share of 20 or 30% in two years if that continues.

• 29:11Speaker 01

  So there's simply no way the Q2 trend could stand unchallenged and still leave OpenAI as a credible, close number two, which is where they are now, to Anthropic. That's why it leaked, because it's existential for them. I mean, I was stunned when I saw the 18% GAAP revenue numbers, because I go back to my comment. At one level, if I had a company growing, Eighteen percent Q on Q doubling a year at, forget it, I want 10 that size, two and a half, I'd be ecstatic. But that level of growth relative to expectations would have disappointed massively everyone, including all the people planning to sell them, chips to them for a much higher growth rate.

• 29:49Harry Stebbings?

  If Anthropic goes out at two trillion, what price does OpenAI go at?

• 29:53Speaker 01

  I have no clue, Harry, but the most important point you have to say is this, it will be lower than the other guys now. At the high level, in terms of report card, you know, there's a concept in math, I can't remember what it is, where you, where you can't do accurate grading, but you can rank things. The big picture fact is the ranking has changed and you're now number two. So you would go out later then on a lower price than the other guys, unless you change the trajectory massively. What that is, I don't know.

• 30:16Speaker 00

  I, I just think it'll be interesting by the end of the year to see where OpenAI is positioned in the platform, the enterprise versus Anthropic, because at the beginning of the year, there were two choices, right? There was Anthropic and OpenAI for the most part, and you had a default choice and then, but people wanted to be, to have multi-models. They wanted to have at least two, but, but you'd often use the cheaper version. You might use Sonnet and Opus or whatever it was. Now, people, we, we definitely want different L L Ms. Everyone wants multiple L L Ms in their stack, one way or the other. But i- if Anthropic is number one in platform, which it clearly is, you can't argue with the numbers, Perri's point. Now the number two could be, it could be, there could be, there's five choices.

• 30:57Speaker 00

  So OpenAI position in a sense, and we'll see, there's so much change, guys, but it could be at, no matter what the numbers are, it could be getting perpetually weaker because there's so many choices for number two. There's so many choices. There's so many open weight models where the performance is close. And obviously we've talked about open router, we've talked about other routers, you can use 78 models if you want, but it's tough when there's seven choices for number two. It's just tougher, it's just tougher, right? Especially if you're a premium product, right?

• 31:25Harry Stebbings?

  And you're saying then the material impact on the E V of OpenAI then is considerably less because of the.

• 31:30Speaker 00

  I think there's more pressure on them, be, merely be, bad being number two, there's more pressure on you from, from open weights and open source competitors than there, than there was otherwise. You're just battling out for that second spot. You can't compete on price and you can compete on brand and security, but man, you want to just, you want to at least be the, be plugged into, to every workflow, right? You want to at least have, but that would be the nice thing if you had Claude and OpenAI and then, and then you just get a nice oligarchical bake off. Sales team, then you hire a bunch of folks from Salesforce that walk in for the oligarchical thing and they put up a PowerPoint slide and it's just us versus them. They know how to sell that. It's Anthropic versus us, you don't want the, the crazy guy who, you want the guy the government trusts, that's us.

• 32:11Speaker 00

  But with 11 competitors or 12 competitors running on open source, running, running inference on, on new platforms, man, it's just, it's a hyper competitive world for number two.

• 32:21Speaker 01

  I mean, I, I, I think that even if they are number two, I don't think they get pushed into that compared with all the open source. I don't think it's quite as dire as that, but I do agree, you're right, there was a push from underneath from that. But I think to your question on what quote unquote.

• 32:35Harry Stebbings?

  Sorry, just interrupt, just going on that, do you not, when Vercel obviously opened their data, 68% open weights increasing. I mean, it shows the tidal wave moving towards what Jason's saying.

• 32:46Speaker 01

  Agreed, I, yes, I think that the vast predominance of tokens process will be open weight. And obviously, yes, keep reiterating, the significant majority of revenue will still be frontier state of the art because it can command more value than just the price of inference. So, yeah, and so I suppose at some level, Jason is correct, because if there's five or six, and I don't see them as being peers, but I think if there's five or six open weight companies dragging down everyone's gross, you're basically trying to steal gross margin away from the closed frontier models. Especially if one of those, reminder, if one of those open weight companies is now funded by Nvidia, so it gets rid of all the, oh, they're all Chinese comments, right?

• 33:24Speaker 01

  Jason is right, in a situation where a low cost competitor with nearly equivalent functionality is attempting to enter your industry, you would far prefer it to be number one than number two. Cause number one can say, you gotta just buy us because we're number one. But you're right, Jason, number two has to say, please buy us as well and don't buy the cheapo guys. I'm, I'm recanting my position and agreeing with Jason. It would be okay, bad enough to be number two in an industry you invented, right? Which is where they are now, but to be number two with a whole bunch of ankle biters on top that you have to deal with, that's a total pain in the ass. Which gets back to your question, Harry, I will answer your question on what price do they go out in 2027? They'll go out whatever price they get in 27 because they can't wait any longer. It's as simple as that.

• 34:05Speaker 01

  If Anthropic goes out this year at the scale they're talking about now, I can't imagine the world, OpenAI says, we're going to hunker down and get the cash flow. Right, and then we'll go out in 2028, but they have to go out. So to some extent, again, it's a destiny outside your control comment. If Anthropic trades at two, then they might get one and a half. If Anthropic trades at one, they might get 700, but they'll do what they have to do. I mean, it's a great quote in that, what was it, come on, the, the book, the, the, the Storm, Sebastian Younger's book, super book. But when the guys finally realized they're going to die at sea, right? And it said something like, if danger can be described as the absence of choice, they were now in danger, right? And I think for OpenAI, what you're seeing here is the absence of choice is starting to pile up.

• 34:48Speaker 01

  The other guys are ahead, the other guys are profitable. Correctly, the CFO says they're not going to write the only narrative, but to some extent, your narrative is getting written. You've got to get profitable because the other guys are profitable, you got to get public because the other guys are profitable. So they have less options than they did a year ago by a lot, and that will translate as in 2027, we're going to go public. And if the markets are slightly down in this year, we'll take our medicine and keep moving.

• 35:12Harry Stebbings?

  Don't you love that book, The Storm, Jason? I, I loved it, my, my favorite.

• 35:16Speaker 01

  Super writer, kind of sad, obviously, but wow, that line always struck with me, absence of choices, that's how you know you're in danger.

• 35:23Speaker 00

  I think, listen, we can move on to the next topic, the other thing, when I, when I'm listening to Rory in the IPO, the other thing, maybe it's minor, we can move on, but I, I'm getting confused today. What OpenAI's differentiated mission is? Why OpenAI? I mean, we can all look at evals and we can read what Ramp says and what Rippling's report says, and we can view this as just an L L M paying top of market, right? Paying eight figures per engineer, but these were companies on, on very specific missions, right? When we started this pod, I don't know what OpenAI's mission is. I think Dario is nutso a lot of the time, right? Now, apparently interviewing folks today, asking them if they'd be happy joining Anthropic if it all went to zero. Cool question, actually, but, but nutso. I think Sam is a much more approachable CEO now.

• 36:05Speaker 00

  He got through all the, the scam Altman crap and, and he's got the sweaters out and he's the more likeable guy, but I don't know. What is the differentiated mission of OpenAI today? That I would rally around as an employee, as a shareholder, or is it just a piece of, just a piece of infrastructure plus some software? I just don't know what is special about the mission vis a vis Anthropic or now all these strong competitors, I just don't know. Or is it just an eval? Is it just three lines on an eval? I honestly don't know. And these have been very mission based organizations from inception, right? The most we've ever seen in our lifetimes, right? This mission, this crazy missions.

• 36:41Harry Stebbings?

  For me, the astonishing thing is the consumer brand that ChatGPT has and the penetration it has in audiences that no other L L M has to most of actual, the general population in large majorities of the world. AI is ChatGPT. I am in awe that Sam is not going, we are the next Google. Our business is going to be advertising and we're going to see Jevon's paradox like never before. When we have a consumer hardware device that actually partners with consumers and you see usage.

• 37:14Speaker 00

  But that was the plan, he just got outraced, he just got lapped. It was a good plan and Sora was in it and cool videos. It just was not the highest ROI for, for limited compute, it just wasn't the best use of it.

• 37:26Speaker 01

  Up until then, it was all babbling stuff yourselves, guys, but Jason nailed it. It turns out, I mean, you're right, OpenAI is the name and ChatGPT is the name Evan associates with AI, right? They have massive consumer market share. And at some point intuitively you say to yourself, that turns into a pretty big business, we can circle back on how much. But Jason's right, it turns out, again, I repeat, it turns out that it wasn't the highest ROI used for compute. And I often believe, I believe this is, sometimes when you look back at outcomes, you realize, oh, only one sentence matters. And if you just internalize that sentence, you've been rich. Example I always use is if you've been on the board of Yahoo and for 10 years, all you've done is screamed, it's all about search. You could have made them a hundred billion dollars. Today, what Anthropic goes, it's all about code. That's the sentence, that's the only sentence that matter.

• 38:11Speaker 01

  Because to make it concrete in what Jason said, coding is the fastest adapting market, it's the highest ROI market, it's the mother load. You know, it's as simple as OpenAI was focused here and Anthropic focused there.

• 38:22Speaker 00

  But it could end up being even worse, we'll, we'll see in the financials, right? But the problem with the consumer business is for OpenAI and Anthropic is they're, for power users, they're massively subsidized, right? You, you can spend $200 on Anthropic or a hundred and some odd dollars on OpenAI and get eight to $12,000 worth of tokens. And that, that's fine for, for when ChatGPT was a proof of concept for a platform. Like, we talk about OpenAI being a consumer company, but it's not where it started. ChatGPT was just a proof of concept app, right? And Claude was just the same, but it worked much better for Anthropic, right? Anthropic can lose, you know, a couple thousand dollars on some consumers and it won't impact them, but um, it's tougher for OpenAI. It's a crappy business, the consumers, selling $10,000 worth of tokens for $200 is one of the worst business models of our lifetimes, right?

• 39:07Speaker 00

  If that was the only business, these guys would be dead in the water, it's a pretty bad business.

• 39:12Speaker 01

  I mean, look, on the other hand, I'm just going to argue, Google is one of the best businesses on the planet because the cost to serve is low. And it may well be in the, just to put it out, I, I kind of, I don't want to kind of veer from, you know, OpenAI love them, hate them to, yeah. It may well be over the next five years that if you can continue to be the dominant consumer brand in AI, as a cost to serve goes down, as you manage that cost to serve, as you build an advertising business, I could totally see a business, you know, plus or minus, you know, 50% to the same size as the Google consumer business, maybe over the next decade. So it's not like it's nothing. It's just that the S curve in the adoption sense for coding was super high. The S curve of adoption for consumers was super high for ChatGPT.

• 39:56Speaker 01

  But unfortunately, the propensity to pay was almost zero, you know, relatively zero. Whereas on the coding side, the propensity to pay is high. And you know, I'm just going to say it because I just saw the thing come true as I was, as we were talking here. To dump on the other side, I just say Anthropic in the Wall Street Journal, they believe their TAM is 30 trillion. And then I say to myself, oh, I remember everyone, when they're doing really well, gets slightly delusional. Your TAM is, you know, the entire US GDP, thanks, thanks a bunch, Dario, good to know. It's, it's one of those overreaching statements that you get at this time of the year.

• 40:25Harry Stebbings?

  Well, he, he needs it to be a pretty big number, he's got 2%, so.

• 40:30Speaker 01

  Let's take you. If you're claiming a TAM that's the size of the US economy, yeah, that's a high bar. Let's just go with that.

• 40:37Harry Stebbings?

  Do you want to go up a layer into Publix and actual performance of a lot of the core AI names falling off, worst run since April, erasing 820 billion of value? Or we can go back down to Hugging Face potentially being bought? And what that does in terms of a neutral platform suddenly becoming potentially biased?

• 40:57Speaker 00

  Let's not do Hugging Face because I'm not smart enough to understand why anyone would pay 13 billion for it. I, I just don't get it. I'm just not smart enough.

• 41:04Speaker 01

  No, I hear what you're talking about for precisely that reason. I, I agree with you, Jason.

• 41:07Speaker 00

  Praise me in the comments, friends, if you're watching, because I, I am not smart enough to, to understand why it's worth 13 billion, but I guess.

• 41:15Speaker 01

  It's kind of a muchness with frankly, the pool side and the open router thing, which was everyone's, I mean, look, I think it all goes together. Everyone's looking at a world where, I mean, I might think it's delusional, but OpenAI and Atropic are claiming TAMs that are larger than the entire US GDP. And if I'm running in an IT company in the US, I'm saying, let me get this straight. They're claiming they're going to take everything. Shit, I better get me something. And therefore I want to be relevant in models that aren't closed source frontier models. So you get in this whole trend for enterprise, having their own models, you know, starting with open weight models and then adopting and Hugging Face is the place where you can access loads of those models. Revenue was relatively light at the moment, well to a $15 billion outcome, I think it's roughly 150 million.

• 42:01Speaker 01

  But if you think of strategic assets that an IT company might want to own if they were trying to build a counterbalance to the closed weight frontier models, this would be a super interesting asset. Now, I don't know if it'll sell at that price. I can't make head and tail, I'm with you, Jason, I can't make head and tail of the price. But if you think about assets, you know, if you were Microsoft, IBM, you'd love to own to be relevant, this would be one, absolutely one.

• 42:28Speaker 00

  I don't get it, other than it seems intuitively to me if, right now, and this is open router too, right now is the moment in time to benefit from the lift of open weights, right? The demand is so strong, just like Eliot Gill said, sell if you have an AI asset right now, right? I think even better, if you have an AI product that's benefiting from the transition to open weights, there can't be a better time to sell than plus or minus 90 days from today. It's just a phase transition and your numbers are going to look amazing for 90, like, they said open router was growing 15% and 150 million, right? The information said when Stripe bought it.

• 42:58Speaker 01

  50%, yeah.

• 42:59Speaker 00

  Breath taking if that 15% accelerates and scales, right? But it might not, right? This is the moment, but all of a sudden, every, you know, open weights and, and these models went from experiments to mainstream, sell, baby, right? If you can get north at 7 billion, 10 billion, I'd probably sell. I mean, even if I only got 15X, I'd probably sell. It's not going to last. This transition's gonna, it's not going to be a transition anymore.

• 43:21Speaker 01

  I agree. It may well be that, remember, you have to remember the founders of Hugging Face also have mission objectives beyond financial enrichment. So they may choose not to sell because they may have angst about that. But yes, from a valuation peak perspective, I mean, it started with the Satya comments on every enterprise needs to have its own knowledge and not give it up to the frontier, to which you want to say, no shit, Satya, well, thanks for funding OpenAI for three years. But yes, everyone in IT has woken up and realized that these two frontier models could steal a lot of their TAM. And everyone is saying, we better have a different story. And the enterprises are saying it, Palantir is saying it. And you're right, Jason, if you are an enabling technology for open weight models, now is peak moment.

• 44:02Speaker 00

  On the Hugging Face thing, I don't think it's so early. For what it's worth, to Rory's point and the mission thing, I would say one small thing. If, if someone does buy Hugging Face for, for whatever reason, the deal's got to be, you don't touch it. Because if you touch it, you break it, right? If you promote, it's a much bigger version of the TNPN challenge. If it becomes an OpenAI commercial, TBN has no value. I know we're probably the only people that are going to compare TBN to Hugging Face, but if you mess with this marketplace for 10,000 models, you know, even if, even if you put a little ad at the top, you, you destroy it. So it's, it's never fun to get acquired, but I can, I'm almost confident if anyone actually spends 3 billion, let alone 13 billion, they're going to 95% leave it alone for 24 to 36 months, right?

• 44:42Harry Stebbings?

  Why Hugging Face could suffer like TBN, doof, doof, doof, and then lay it out.

• 44:47Speaker 01

  I, I, it's too obscure. Because as Jason correctly says, no one other than us is tracking that anymore.

• 44:52Harry Stebbings?

  You know, my favorite news from the Publix was Ken Griffin's, "Cinnadel unwinds 80% of Leopold Aschenbrenner's Four Soul book." I'm like, man, never fight with Ken Griffin. Man will come out on top. 80% sold already. Again, I don't think it's surprising, but.

• 45:07Speaker 01

  No, it wasn't. I mean, yes, they're not in the business of holding those kind of assets long-term. Yeah, they're a market maker and a short-term trader, and this was a great short-term trade. Exactly. It's funny because about a month or two ago, he had kind of did something about starting to add to their kind of stable of investment options, you know, longer-term, you know, multi-month holds. And clearly that was a conceptual idea, but it turns out when you buy a bunch of stuff at 10% below market and then that market jumps an extra 5% or 10%, just because you've put the assets out of weak hands into strong hands, then the correct response is to take the money and run.

• 45:41Speaker 00

  Look, it's great. It's just you can't do that every month. So to me, it's not that, it's impressive, it's incredibly impressive, it's just not interesting, because you just have to have the balance sheet and the cojones to wait so that every couple of years, like Warren Buffett used to do, you could pounce on one of these special situations, right?

• 45:56Speaker 01

  Yeah. Every few years, someone gets confused about how leverage works in the public markets. They screw up and you're ready to price and buy. And yes, on top of your nice business, which is still earning good money, every three years, some idiot gives you three or four billion of free money and you politely take it and put it into real estate in Miami. It's good to be Ken, right? Exactly right, Jason. That's how I read. There's nothing surprising in there. And, you know, by the way, it does get to the, it's kind of going to circle back to Nvidia and all their investment and vendor financing, because in both ways, both of situational awareness and Nvidia, the aha here is, when you're dealing with money and leverage, you don't just have to be right in the long-term, you also have to be right every step along the way, right? If you don't have leverage, all you have to do is be right in the long-term and hold.

• 46:39Speaker 01

  And it's probable that situational awareness was right in the long-term, but when you put four to one leverage on it, you have to be right every step along the way. And the same is true about vendor financing. As long as you're in the business of selling chips, all you have to do is right in the, in the end, people want to buy chips. If you choose to lend against those chips, then you're basically saying you got to be right all along. The company's got to grow next year, they got to pay their debt back next year. So leverage does that. It raises the return from being right and raises the importance of being right all the time. And situational awareness just got the other side of that. Because remember, he doesn't try in his business to be right all the time. He's not trying to make five-year bets. He's like, stocks are worth 10% more today than yesterday, we should sell, moving right along.

• 47:18Speaker 00

  The other thing on the other side of the stocks, for what area, I know this is Captain Obvious, but if we look at Cosby as sort of like AI and steroids, right? With risk, accretion's change, it's still up 56.46% for the year. I'm, I'm not a day trader. I, I pull up my Goldman and Morgan Stanley accounts and look how they're doing. I'm still feeling pretty like I'm some genius in my public market stock, because overall, plus 46 is pretty good. It's just, boy, whatever, Leo got just trapped in a dagger when I look at the chart, right?

• 47:45Harry Stebbings?

  Sorry, you can laugh at me, tell me I should know. What is in Cosby? What is driving?

• 47:49Speaker 00

  All Korea, memory, Samsung.

• 47:52Speaker 01

  A rounding error now, Korea now equals, you know, two memory providers with a bunch of other stuff attached, right?

• 47:58Speaker 00

  Yeah. And it's a very volatile market, so it's on steroids, but it's still, just like NASDAQ is tech on steroids, Cosby's like, uh, all the components of AI on steroids, right? And the peak was, um, 9,000 in June, and then boom, poor Leo, the dagger, 5,600 in July 29th, and the guy had a generational loss that, if it were even bigger, might have brought down our financial ecosystem, but it's, it's, you know, it's rebounded 20 something percent since then, is up 56% of the year. Cry me a river if it's up 56.46% a year. I mean, you got to be a day trader or whatever to, to not love up, being up 56% a year. It's okay. But all these headlines are like, oh, Cosby's down 6% today. And it just, it's just hyper volatile. The growth and margins, we've never seen margins like this in semiconductors, so the

• 48:43Speaker 00

  volatility and expectations. There was an article, I think it was in the Wall Street Journal, where in Korea, now the, the most eligible bachelors are Samsung engineers. They want to, they all, everyone wants to marry a, a, a memory guy. It's the first time in the history of the nation when being a memory guy was like, made you one of the most eligible bachelors in the country.

• 49:03Harry Stebbings?

  Did you not see there, like, 50% of Nvidia employees are now worth over $25 million?

• 49:08Speaker 01

  Yeah, pretty inevitable.

• 49:09Speaker 00

  I see it walking down the block when nothing's for sale. Yeah. Well, I think it's a, I mean, we could talk about, I just think overall AI inflation and craziness is, uh, yeah, it is what it is.

• 49:18Harry Stebbings?

  What happens there? Is that like a persistent, continued new world? Or is that a temporary moment of inflation?

• 49:26Speaker 00

  Rents in the mediocre apartments just in Dogpatch are $10,000 a month now. Mediocre apartments down the street from YC, the Avalon. I used to work in Dogpatch pre-YC and it was gritty and fun. And I remember when they built this Avalon and, you know, you didn't really want to live there. It was new and now it's over $10,000 a month and you gotta wait. You gotta apply and you're not allowed to run your startup out of it. You have to sign a document that you won't run a business out of it. Two blocks from YC. If it's $10,000 a month to rent a, you know, one bedroom at the Avalon, how much do you have to make to feel rich? A lot. That's $120 just in a rent to not, to just have an apartment at the Avalon in Dogpatch. You need $240K in California pre-tax to pay the rent. You probably need $480 to feel good about yourself, right?

• 50:09Harry Stebbings?

  It's just so interesting for me sitting in London though, because the money's not here. I hear you and I hear you say that. And yes, there are some fortunate people like me in venture who are thrilled to be doing what we're doing. But it's just not here. That dispersion of wealth is just nil.

• 50:25Speaker 01

  Yeah, because it's tech wealth and it's all kinds. I mean, look, I saw it. California didn't just outperform everywhere else. It got three quarters of the total dollars. Now that's inventory. That's skewed by the fact that Anthropic and OpenAI together got probably 60% of the total dollars. I'm doing it math in my head and everyone else got 15. But yes, this is a wall of money flowing into a very small area where, you know, reminder, the population of San Francisco is 750, probably 780,000 people. It's a teeny tiny town. London's eight, nine million. The whole Bay Area is only seven million. This is a wall of money falling into a tiny place that's a peninsula with sea on three sides and a little bit of mountains and a tiny valley called Silicon Valley on the fort side. Property is not plentiful and it's hard to build.

• 51:10Speaker 01

  What's going to happen is prices are going to go up. Most everyone else are going to get priced out. When they get priced out, they're going to get pissed off. So probably it doesn't last at this level because, you know, I've been around in 99, 2000 and 2007. Yeah, there will be some kind of correction and there will be some kind of reset. But it's not going back to where it was because it never does. It ratchets up. You know, fast forward five years, at that point, you know, the AI boom has been digested. It's not as crazy as now, but the base level of prices has gone up and the cost. What it means is that the cost for anyone else to live in San Francisco goes up. The cost that you pay, you know, anyone in your organization, the cost that you pay anyone that you interact with. All has to go up because the cost of living here is going to be higher.

• 51:51Harry Stebbings?

  I genuinely appreciate doing the show with you guys so much because I learned from you and it's the first time for me seeing cycles like this. Does the floor fall from our feet in this AI wave or for the next five years? Do we just continue to see more money, more up and to the right, more mega exits?

• 52:07Speaker 00

  I think it's just more concentrated. We need fewer people to generate more revenue than ever for a variety of reasons. And it's going to concentrate exit size, it's going to concentrate wealth. It's going to allow, you know, the salaries at Anthropic and OpenAI seem crazy, but some of it's normalizing now because if you can do it with half the people or a third of the people, you really can pay them two to three times as much, right? So eventually, of course, and Rory can pick the date like Babe Ruth, this will end. But, uh, you know, I think you have to believe we're less than a third of the way through this cycle.

• 52:39Harry Stebbings?

  Ooh.

• 52:39Speaker 00

  Even that little tiny cloud thing lasted nine years. We're just getting going here.

• 52:44Harry Stebbings?

  Will the companies make enough money, Jason, fast enough to keep the cloud cycle going? If the revenue train stops?

• 52:51Speaker 00

  Nvidia will keep spending $100 billion a year to keep the ecosystem going. Honestly, that will help.

• 52:56Speaker 01

  Let me try because I'm trying to figure this out too. Because obviously it is actually the only question in common. My mental model is this, on the supply side, no one's going to blink. Nvidia's not going to blink, the hyperscales aren't going to blink, OpenAI and Anthropic is going to blink, right? Not going to blink. That's why I think even though we're recording this on Tuesday, Nvidia is reporting on Wednesday, it's going to appear on Thursday. It's possible, but I think highly unlikely that Nvidia gets on tomorrow and says, "Compute the man to slow down." That sentence is not going to happen. So to your question, it's going to keep on going on the supply side because it's not likely to blink and no one's going to blink. So the only two things that stop it are, you know, you run out of capital or you run out of demand. When you say capital, my gut is until the public markets get in on the game, you kind of haven't exhausted all the money that's there, which is why in many respects,

• 53:41Speaker 01

  these two big IPOs have to happen. Typically, financial crashes go when you run out of marginal buyers. There's still a whole bunch of untapped demand to play in the AI game because these companies haven't gone public. You've clearly on the capital side got one more turn of the crank, which is when Anthropic goes out and OpenAI goes out. That's going to keep it going. And then the other thing is demand for the actual end product. I think that's the real question is can corporate America spend the kind of money quickly enough to feed the beast, to make these guys revenue numbers for 27? I think somewhere in 20, I mean, Anthropic is talking about 200 billion of GAAP revenue in 2028. Interestingly, by the way, that in itself is a significant slowdown, which makes sense from where they are now.

• 54:22Speaker 01

  It's not 10Xing anymore, but is there 200, 300, 400 billion of demand for this stuff? That to me is the question that will determine, you know, when the train stops. I don't have an opinion yet on when that is because right now the demand is there encoding. But that's what's going to be the weight limiting factor. It's not going to be, you know, the CEO of Google waking up tomorrow and saying, maybe we should be more cautious. Or the CEO of Nvidia saying, maybe we should take less risks. That's not a thing.

• 54:46Speaker 00

  I do think at a meta level that next year will be the year. And I think this, this is why I think we're in at least a five year cycle where we reckon with the fact that we are addicted to tokens. We're addicted. And so we went, we started this year on token maxing, prove yourself. We started this year with performative AI. Guys, the more tokens you spend, the better an employee you are, right? Then they did it and we all got whiplash because we started to get these $20,000 bills per employee, right? So then we said, oh, we've got to manage our budgets. Let's look at open weights. Let's cap it. Let's cap it at $200 for, $500 for non-engineers and 10,000. We're going through this, this token balancing thing. Next year, there's going to be backlash. I can see it in my best portfolio companies where we can't go back anymore. We can't go back in time.

• 55:28Speaker 00

  I need my 10 subagents running 24 hours a day to do my job or I quit. I would quit. Take away my agents, I quit. So I do believe as businesses and in society, we are token addicted. We will have to find a way to feed that addiction over the next five years. We don't even realize how addicted we are to tokens.

• 55:46Speaker 01

  Agreeing with you on the addiction, but disagreeing with you on the management statement. And I'm going to cite some, I thought this, I read the Stripe letter and I know it was really, really good. And those guys are smart, right? And it's not just because they're Irish, but that helps. But the comment they made was that near the end of the letter, they made a comment that we've internalized, I'm paraphrasing here from it, we've internalized that intelligence is like capital. It's fungible, there's demand for, and it has to be managed and allocated. In other words, what they're saying is seat-based SaaS, I sold five seats to Harry's organization. I'm done and Harry's done allocating it to. There's no follow-on work required for you within your organization. You either buy five seats or you don't. But to Jason's point, if you're buying intelligence on an uncapped basis, in theory, your employees could go on spending that forever and you're going to have to manage it.

• 56:31Speaker 01

  And that's why the analogy of saying it's like money. You have spending controls on your money, but you also recognize money is the lifeblood of your business. So you can say to your employees, don't spend money because that's stupid. I think that what they were saying and why they bought OpenRudder is people are going to have to control intelligence in a way that's more like how you control money and less like how you think about software licensing. And that really resonated with me because you can't just cut it off, but you can't just let everyone go. And it's going to be the big systemic problem for enterprise. I agree with you, Jason. 2027 is the year when enterprises are going to have to say WTF? Do we just let this thing rip and hope the ROI is there? We can't go back to where it was before. How do we manage it?

• 57:12Harry Stebbings?

  So can you just drill one layer deeper for a layman like me? What does that mean then? If we control intelligence as we control money?

• 57:21Speaker 01

  It means you're going to have to price it and allocate it. To Jason's point, Jason is wildly productive. If you're running an organization, you should give them all you can. But you give everyone all they can and they're ill-disciplined about it. You could spend a lot of money. I mean, remember, one of the amazing things right now is the kind of money that we're talking about as revenues for these two companies are an appreciable percentage of total US corporate profits. You can't say as the CFO of, pick a mid, a US midstream bank, hey, we make a billion a year. I'm okay with running up $100 million token bill. I just decreased EPS 10%. That's not a thing.

• 57:54Speaker 00

  I've changed my mind because of the addiction. When a society is addicted to something, even if it's a positive thing, right? Like caffeine, we're addicted to caffeine. It's not destroying our society, is it? Right? You cannot go back. We cannot go back.

• 58:07Speaker 01

  Yeah, you can't go back, but if you're going to allow them to spend $100 million, 10% of your budget of your profits on tokens, you're going to have to say spend 10% less on something else.

• 58:15Speaker 00

  Yeah, we may, we may have fewer employees, but the back half of this year is managing the budget for sure. It's already happening. It will dribble into next year. And next year will be the backlash. Next year will be, I need to run five to 10 agents 24 hours a day or I quit. I quit. I won't do my crappy job. I won't edit your goddamn podcast. I won't write your code. I won't fix your endless bugs. If I can't have 10 agents running 24/7, I just won't do it, Rory. I won't do the job.

• 58:44Speaker 01

  We're doing a CFO event this evening and I think you're exactly right. And you're with a high-performing employee, right? But you've got to put yourself in the CFO's shoes. He's going to say, I get it. I don't want to lose Jason. I'm going to give him this. And by the way, he's productive, but this is why the Stripe letter is so smart. Then I got to say to myself, hmm, before we had these tokens, we were doing all this stuff and we had 10 people. Now Jason's doing the work of four people. Who are the other three people we need to let go? Because what you're not going to do is say, we've invented this new automation device that's making us wildly productive, Mr. Wall Street. And the net result of our wild productivity is our EPS is going down 10%. Because Wall Street is going to Going to say you're a fucking moron. We'd like to hire someone else to run your bank or your industrial company. You can't introduce automation and say the net result of automation is reduced profits.

• 59:28Speaker 01

  So if you're spending more on automation, you have to spend less on something else. And someone's going to have to make that decision. And that's what I think Stripe was saying. It was very clear. And I say, the analogy of comparing it to capital was really good to me. It's like, if you're the CFO, where do I invest? Do I invest in Jason's token budget because he's a winner? But do I cut off Harry's token budget because all he's doing is asking dumb questions to close? I don't know.

• 59:49Speaker 00

  Well, look, I'm glad you're having a CFO dinner. I want you to ask them a second question because this is what I hear. This is, and this is the challenge today. The CFO challenge for the first going into summer was my God, these teams spending so much. Every CFO under budgeted for tokens. What the hell are they going to do? But, but we didn't go out of business. So that was, that was the discussion of the last scale CFO summit going into tonight. I bet you're going to hear a second conversation. And this is about addiction, retention. The CFOs I talked to talk about nothing but retention, at least the empowered CFOs. They are terrified that our stock price is down and we can't retain employees. They are terrified that the AI leaders have so much stock-based comp, so much other sources of comp, that all of their best people are going to be sucked up by the companies we spent the first two thirds of this conversation talking about.

• 1:00:33Speaker 00

  CFOs are terrified about this because they're often responsible for that KPI, even if they're not doing it. And so there's this massive tension, which is if I don't give these people what they need for AI, I'm going to lose all of them. And it is true. You'll be just be stuck with the folks that are still AI skeptics. Your organization will be full of the moldy oldies of SaaS. That's what you'll be end up if you don't retain them. And so, yeah, the CFOs have to manage your token. But Jesus Christ, if 30% of my company leaves to go work for Harvey, I'm dead in the water.

• 1:01:03Speaker 01

  No, I think this is, you're exactly right. But I'm going to edit the statement to tell you what I agree with you more precisely. If the long 30% of your company leave, then you're screwed. And you're right.

• 1:01:12Speaker 00

  But it's all the best people. It's not even 30%, it's 90% of the ones that matter.

• 1:01:16Speaker 01

  But I think what you're not, we're saying the same thing, but you're not confronting the nasty bit. But you normally are good at confronting the nasty bit. If Jason is the best employee and he needs three X's spend in tokens and there's five more like Jason, and we give them more than, then that money's gone there, right? And my revenue might not have gone up by that much if I'm a, not if I'm a software company, but if I'm a mainstream US corp, but I'm probably not going to double my revenue because of this. So I just got to find a way to pay for that. And Harry, this is going back to what does intelligence allocation look like? This is what it looks like.

• 1:01:45Speaker 00

  I just think, listen, we can move on. I think the Stripe thing is great. And I think before we want to talk, we want to talk about the re-acceleration. I think it's super interesting. But I do think to use Rory's term, they're talking their book. And Stripe wants to think about intelligence as this asset that flows through routers and flows through things like finance. And of course it's true, but both the best and the worst of us are addicted to tokens. The worst of us are just, ChatGPT, we think is alive in our therapist and we talk to it like a human. That's what the worst of, the air quotes, the worst of us, do we think it's alive? I used to fall victim to that maybe a year ago. And the best of us want to run 20 agents 24 hours a day. And so you have, you have to feed them. This is the bull case for everything, including Mercor and everything is we're addicted.

• 1:02:24Harry Stebbings?

  You say we're addicted, we're addicted, Jason. I mean, I mean this in a nice way. You are and small numbers of people in Silicon Valley are the majority of the population. I don't think are quite as addicted, just the caveat.

• 1:02:35Speaker 00

  Only because they're, I'm just, I'm just 12 months further along. It's, everyone's going to end up doing the same crap that we're doing. What if you can just talk to your agent and say, I want a fully edited version of 20 VC ready in one hour? Jason talked way too much about this goddamn addiction thing. Take that out. Rory rambled about this one a bit of it. Give me more of me and you don't even need your team. And it's magical in an hour, you're going to be addicted in, in, after this.

• 1:02:58Harry Stebbings?

  I can't tell you how shit AI is for media and content today. And it was a year ago and it's still, it doesn't even do the most.

• 1:03:05Speaker 00

  And a year ago, Higgs still couldn't work and today it's at 700 million in revenue.

• 1:03:09Harry Stebbings?

  Pause, pause, pause. What I'm, I'm actually agreeing with you because I had this conversation with my girlfriend last night who uses Lagora. And she said, six months ago, I was like, what a joke. This will never do. I'm a law student, graduated, I work at one of the best. Now she's like, I just verify documents.

• 1:03:24Speaker 00

  Yeah, she, as long as she has options, she will never go back. She's addicted.

• 1:03:28Harry Stebbings?

  Never, never. But, but my point is, look at how large markets are now, the numbers that we're seeing. This is basically just on coding. Imagine if that translates into your CFOs, FPNA and legal and.

• 1:03:41Speaker 01

  And the question is pace of diffusion, right? If it happens everywhere as quick as coding, we're in one world. If it takes 10 years, we're in a different world. You have to know which, which world you believe you're in impacts almost everything.

• 1:03:52Harry Stebbings?

  I think it's hit the tilling point in legal.

• 1:03:55Speaker 01

  Probably next. Look, there's no doubt that it's the next dense adapter.

• 1:03:59Speaker 00

  Andreessen had their chart of the day of the week that it was the fastest growing year-over-year segment, which is obvious, but, but it, but it was verified, right?

• 1:04:06Harry Stebbings?

  Jason, you said it, let's dig on it. Stripe accelerates to 41%. Accelerating to 41% at Stripe scale is a phenomenal achievement. What do you want to unpack that?

• 1:04:16Speaker 00

  And billing's up 71%, so it's getting better. The only thing to say is it's, it's just, it's just becoming a derivative of AI like the others. We, Stripe scale is so massive, it is a little bit like a chip manufacturer, right? It is benefiting so much from every agent, every agentic product using them. You really literally have to argue with an agent to get it not to use Stripe. You have to like argue, please, I just want to try, I just want to try adding to something else. No.

• 1:04:40Speaker 01

  I see random comment on that, you know, the use of my Stripe is, I kind of half agree with you in the sense of all the differential growth is coming from AI. What's attractive about that, if you think about owning that stock, which I don't because it's private, is it's lovely because you have a core business that's much more diversified than just AI. And then you get in this growth lift from AI. So it's kind of a, if this was a public stock, it would be killing it. Because it's a safe way to get some kind of AI factor lift on growth. While at the same time, you're able to say to yourself, shit, if it all goes to crap and they slow down to 10% because the AI stuff peters out, they're still going to kick off cash like crazy. No, it's, it's in a wonderfully advantageous position. Kind of the best of the kind of cloud economy with a nice AI acceleration on top, which is why they've been able, it's noticeable.

• 1:05:23Speaker 01

  They've been able to use that stock for their acquisition. It sounds like some of the open rider stuff with stock. So, yeah, they're in a golden place.

• 1:05:30Speaker 00

  You know what else I think it does? I'd be curious to get your guys' thought. I, I don't want to talk too much about the past, but I, I think it will be the nail in the coffin for almost every public software company. And what I mean is when Stripe and data, like, okay, there's OpenAI, there's Anthropic. We can put them in a different category, right? They clearly are on many levels. When OpenAI and Databricks go public at 80% growth and, you know, Stripe accelerating 41% and 71% billings, nothing except Palantir approaches these, right? Even Cloudflare isn't this good, right? And so you, you almost just want to take everything below the line and just almost erase it as just a distant memory of the past. Because these are slightly more traditional companies, but massive AI tailwinds, right? That are, have growth rates like almost no public comp.

• 1:06:14Speaker 00

  They're just going to rework the leaderboard.

• 1:06:16Speaker 01

  I think the two documents I most enjoyed reading and prepped for this were the poolside letter and the Stripe letter. And they reiterated at the end, at one point in the letter, we're really happy being private was the summary, right? Thank you for sharing, but we're doing what we're doing. But I think Jason's also correct, and it must be frustrating to be a public investor. When you, if these assets were public, they would be so far up the rankings of good that you're right, everyone else would just get pushed down. It'd be great to get that over with for what it's worth. Because I think then you could start really figuring out what 300, 400 million dollar revenue companies, can they exist in the public markets? But right now it's got the promise and it's hanging out there kind of the, if you're a public, small and mid-cap investor, these are the unattainables that you just don't have in your portfolio yet, which is why some men in my doing crossovers.

• 1:07:00Speaker 01

  It's a funny world and no obvious reason to change it. The imperative for OpenAI and Anthropic to go out is the vast capital needs. But Stripe is, I mean, another stunning fact on the Stripe letter, their share count is down on three years ago, four years ago, which means they've been buying back stock. They're like doing everything a public company can do while private. They're like, we have so much money that we're just going to buy new fun things. We're going to reinvest in the business and we're going to buy shares back.

• 1:07:23Speaker 00

  I'm going to email that to some portfolio companies to be a thoughtful board member. I'm going to email them that quote.

• 1:07:28Speaker 01

  Yeah, I know, exactly, yeah.

• 1:07:29Speaker 00

  Please get your share count down, that would help me.

• 1:07:33Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 1:07:34Speaker 00

  I don't want no 15X guys, get that share count down, but blow out the number.

• 1:07:40Harry Stebbings?

  Guys, you can choose. We have the GitHub buckling under AI agent commit tsunamis. We have Base44 really saving wicks, hitting over 200 million in AR, our stock up 100%. Fractal reportedly raising new round at six and a half billion, recently following Etch round at 20 billion, which we discussed last week. Schmorgas Board of Options.

• 1:08:01Speaker 00

  I like Grokbot and Instinct leaking everybody's information and

• 1:08:05Harry Stebbings?

  I knew you'd like that.

• 1:08:06Speaker 00

  I like that one.

• 1:08:07Harry Stebbings?

  Instinct is the kind of, it kind of reminded me of Clubhouse in the early days, like seeping out over Twitter through like VC inner circles. And Instinct, for those that don't know, is an AI assistant that many VCs are tweeting about, and it got a lot of attention because one investor basically shared, and then another person, Alex Cohen, shared how there were data security problems with giving access to everything.

• 1:08:32Speaker 01

  The sentence alone is laughable. We phrase it that, there are data security problems by giving it access to anything. Well, duh. You know, there's data security problems by giving anyone access to anything. You're right, but that's just

• 1:08:46Harry Stebbings?

  It's like passwords.

• 1:08:48Speaker 01

  I mean, you're right, that was just moving snide. I'm going to defer to Jason more here, yes, but to your, I interrupt you, but yes, so as listeners or listening, think of this as a next generation agent that was kind of stealth launching, raising a VC round, rather than focusing on just the negative. The idea here is obviously that this is an agent that can look at your email, do your work on your behalf, and if you give it lots of authority, it's kind of like having your own chief of staff, and that's the idea. And Jason, what did you think? Because you've lived the OpenClaw experience.

• 1:09:17Speaker 00

  I just think it's interesting, I don't think, this shouldn't be a surprise to anybody working with agents, but these aren't a set of issues that have been solved in the last year. They weren't solved with OpenClaw leaking everybody's confidential information. Now we have better guardrails, we have better harnesses, it's not solved with Grokbot, which looks like it may be wildly successful, right? Because it's part of Grok. Wasn't solved with Instinct, so it is the flip side of its addiction, but we can't, we still can't trust agents today. We can't trust them with anything. And it's just very interesting that the next generation, OpenClaw 2.0 can't be trusted either. It's not a surprise, I mean, we all have, we all have these issues, but I would like to invest in the Instinct that actually can honestly solve these issues. That one I would do at 600 pre, but it's got to actually solve existential issues

• 1:09:59Speaker 00

  that no one else at the moment can solve, including Grokbot or them or anybody else.

• 1:10:04Harry Stebbings?

  Do you not, do you not think this is inevitable? Do you guys remember, you guys remember when it was like, we'll never put our credit cards online, we'll never put our credit cards online? It was unthinkable. I think it will be very obvious that we will trust agents with credit cards, financial data, passwords. Sure, there's guardrails, this feels inevitable.

• 1:10:21Speaker 00

  Smarter people than me will explain when it's solvable, but it is interesting that it isn't well solved with guardrails today. We've had so many incidents, I've had multiple incidents, everyone's had incidents, and we lived through the Mac mini OpenClaw drama, and the new entrants can't solve the goal seeking nature of the LLMs they're running on. The open weight models have fewer guardrails, you can just figure out how to like build bombs and how to do illegal acts on these models. So we're also have a vector that's having fewer guardrails and limitations. And these goal seeking probabilistic LLMs are, the truth is, it's not that they just make mistakes with your data, just like a junior engineer, just like people on your team would make, just like if you had a personal assistant, he might give out your

• 1:11:06Speaker 00

  credit card to the wrong person. You know, when I was running the dumb molten book thing, it attempted to buy six AP watches for the team, right, for $360,000, it just didn't work. So it's just the nature of the beast. They're going to do what humans do too, but they could do it 1,000 times more. Is it solvable? In theory, yes, but what's interesting, interesting is that in practice, not as of today. As of today, you can't, you still can't trust these agents. Maybe, maybe in a year.

• 1:11:30Speaker 01

  I'm kind of with you. I think the direction of travel feels correct, but I think the question is, is an individual's kind of idiosyncratic workload the best place to apply agentic technology versus the boring ass corporate jobs? Like, you know, my idiosyncratic calendar management and email replies, yeah, I would love to automate that, I would love to have people go through it and get it right, but is that the sweet spot to spend money versus on the other hand, an enterprise automates loan processing where there's much less discretion, there's much more expense, and there's much more budget around it. So yes, I think, but look, Silicon Valley in particular, we all fall in love with personal productivity tools, we love them, because we're all hyper personally productive, right? And I think Ben Thompson at Starekery has one great comment, is Silicon Valley forgets

• 1:12:15Speaker 01

  every three years that the average American is not trying to be efficient. No one wakes up in the morning and says, I need to grind down my to do list in the heart, and they're just living life. Yeah, they're doing their job and then they're going home and they're done.

• 1:12:25Speaker 00

  Solve my inbox, I have too many founders reaching out to me every day.

• 1:12:28Speaker 01

  I shouldn't, my wife doesn't clear her inbox, she has like 30,000 inbox, and she's over it, she doesn't care, move on. She just checks the stuff and searches the stuff she needs, right? Not everyone wants to be productive. So it's an interesting market, but you've seen in Evernote, you've seen in a bunch of other things that it's, it's real, but it's fairly nichey and it's hard to get right. I mean, reminder in other companies in this space that are, and I, wildly interesting and I love them, right? You've got Superhuman, you know, which is now part of Grammarly.

• 1:12:54Speaker 00

  Yep, Harry and I are proud shareholders there, yes.

• 1:12:56Speaker 01

  You've got Calendly, right, which is an interesting product too. A whole bunch of attends the person, obviously, the air table and Notion discussed, but Notion did a good job of getting more corporates, right? The whole productivity suite, and then you say to yourself, your AI can do something interesting there. I mean, it's always there, but always just a little bit out of reach. It's a tricky market. I mean, look, I want to believe in it, but the two things that worry me are, one, can you get it quite right? You know, to this day, I find my Google recommendations to be fairly mediocre. Now, obviously, that's the lowest of the low, and you can do a lot better. And then secondly, even when you can get it right, what's the market size for this kind of product? It's real, but it's mid. And that doesn't sound negative, we found that category super interesting, but I'm just saying, it's very challenging.

• 1:13:39Speaker 01

  I mean, you asked a question, is it inevitable? It's inevitable, but it's not as low hanging of fruit as some of the other areas where you just go, we'll automate this, it's repetitious work, we'll take away 10 back office steps, we'll save a bunch of money, move on.

• 1:13:55Harry Stebbings?

  Guys, any that I have missed.

• 1:13:56Speaker 00

  Well, let me ask you each a related question before we close, if you want, Harry. What do you think is the dumbest category of investing we're doing in the AI era? Like, we're just, we're just throwing cash at a category that we'll look back on and just say, why, why the hell are we doing this in the AI era?

• 1:14:08Harry Stebbings?

  I think a huge amount of money is going to get burned in customer support.

• 1:14:11Speaker 00

  Because it becomes a commodity? Because support doesn't exist as a unique surface? Why do you think that?

• 1:14:16Harry Stebbings?

  I think one or two players will win a large portion of the market. I don't think it'll be as distributed as prior generations. Two, I think actually for the majority of the most sophisticated providers, they're building their own systems. Every large technology company I know who's sophisticated in any way has their own systems.

• 1:14:31Speaker 01

  You might be correct, obviously, we have a number of investments in that space. I think even if, I think we'll do fine, and I think even if not, it won't be the biggest mess.

• 1:14:38Speaker 00

  It's a good, it's a good answer, though, I like, just to moderate, to be flip it around, I like the answer, though.

• 1:14:43Speaker 01

  And I'm going to answer it in the negative, it's a super good question, though. An area where despite it being amazing for America and important for the world, I think the eventual returns of the margin might be tough, will be defense, not because we don't need all these products, but because I think there's an element of that business that you have to have a count control, and I think the two or three largest companies like Andal will end up doing a bunch of scooping up over the next two decades, because unlike tech where a single product can kill it, I think in these markets, I think it's a portfolio of products that it takes to survive the interaction with the Pentagon and just have enough diversification to make it. So I think you'll see a bunch of consolidation, not negative, not losses, but I think there'll

• 1:15:26Speaker 01

  be two or three companies that get critical mass and public at huge scale, and they'll hoover up the rest of us.

• 1:15:31Harry Stebbings?

  I'm going to add one more, which is, I think, robotics.

• 1:15:34Speaker 01

  Yes, humanoid in particular.

• 1:15:36Speaker 00

  Why do you think they're so, VCs are so excited about it, Harry? Do you think it's the VC productivity thing? They think robots are cool?

• 1:15:41Harry Stebbings?

  Well, listen, the visionary TAM is exciting. If we replace X, and it's, it's super exciting, the vision that they sell, but I think the vision and the reality and the requirements and dexterity and touch and

• 1:15:53Speaker 00

  It's a good candidate, it's a good candidate.

• 1:15:55Speaker 01

  No, it is, because look, we have a bunch of successful, I mean, I'm on the board of Locust Robotics, we have 15,000 robots in the field, but it's a specific purpose robot. It's the best example of that, and I totally agree now that I think about it, Harry. There was this video over the weekend, there's two videos on robots, one of them, the one where the robot blew up, which was kind of funny, he ran and then disintegrated it too, that was cute. But the one that said, you know, here's a robot running faster than you say in Bolt, right, and he does the 100 meters really quickly. And I'm looking at going, you know something, if I want a machine to do 100 meters really quickly, I'll get a fricking Tesla. To your point, Harry, I think the humanoid use case is real, but I don't think it's nearly as big as people think. So I kind of agree with you, I think that more focused robotics, there's a ton that's

• 1:16:38Speaker 01

  going on as positive in that space, but overreaching on human is, I think, will be a tough slog. I could be wrong.

• 1:16:42Harry Stebbings?

  Jason, you go, final one, you got to, you got to join the crew. Great question, but you got to throw your hat in.

• 1:16:47Speaker 00

  I'll answer mine, I will say first, I didn't think of expression at the way you did, Harry, but I, but I agree, customer support software is dead, and I think even a lot of CX is dead because it's merging into other categories. It's agents, surface area changes so much. It's not that there won't be dollars in CX, but a classic CS and CX won't even exist in 24 months. There's, there's really, there'll be commodity cheap products, but we won't even need it. It's, it's already dying and merging into marketing, sales, everything's becoming one agent. But I guess the one, one I just, listen, you guys have the better ones, I like human robotics and the CX, CS, but I still just don't believe, and I guess I'm not a PE guy, as I was, I was pointing out the last show or made fun of, which is fine, I just don't believe you can throw a bunch of venture money into accounting firms or law firms

• 1:17:32Speaker 00

  and magically turn them into the next Mercor or Hugging Face or any of these things. I believe that there's an element of craziness in the business model where you're creating these sister companies, where, where some of the folks have ownership in them, it's too convoluted, it makes too much sense on a spreadsheet, and I'm waiting to see the $20 billion outcome from turning a bunch of, you know, Ivy League grouchy grads working 100 hours a week into an AI driven services. I'm not saying it's not possible, but this is the one that I think is just going to, going to lead to no exits.

• 1:18:07Speaker 01

  It's funny, I'm just going to admit something that makes me feel like an idiot, but I'm not going to say it, because going back to something you said earlier, what if it works, right? All these categories, we've angsted about and talked about internally, and I kind of share some of the opinions articulated, but in every case, I do find myself looking at an individual going, maybe this is the deal that can acknowledge those issues and transcend them and work. And I think it just speaks to the nature of the job. And going back to what if it works, right? In every one of these categories, I kind of have the mental model you guys articulated, about this defense, all the kind of a mental model I have, and as yet, I am, I'm just saying, I'm open in every one of these categories, and some of my partners have come in and said, you're just goddamn wrong here. I hear you, Rory, this is the issue. But this is how this team is going to get rounded.

• 1:18:52Speaker 01

  And I think I've learned enough to have my biases, but to be absolutely overcomable by, you know, a combination of facts, great entrepreneur, and frankly cynical comment and portfolio construction. So you just don't have one of them and nothing else.

• 1:19:06Speaker 00

  Well, we are in an area of unbounded creativity like we've never seen in our careers. It's AI created it, you know, defense budgets enhanced it, Elon Musk is part of it, but we've never seen the type of creativity from founders like we've seen today. It is two orders of magnitude bigger. So if you are going to rewrite the rules and make things that didn't work four years ago work today, now is the moment, man. We're just, we're just epic creativity. The shots you could take at these models were right a few years ago. We don't know, we don't know today.

• 1:19:34Harry Stebbings?

  Now is the moment, man. I love it. What a way to finish. And I didn't get cut off there.

• 1:19:41Harry Stebbings?

  But before we leave you today, when you're building a company, you learn that trust is what closes deals. You may have the best product, but no buyers will sign these days without proof of your security. Here's what happens if you're not prepared. A prospect asks for proof of compliance. The deal stools when you scramble. Your engineer gets pulled off the roadmap to audit prep. Every enterprise conversation turns into this horrible fire drill. That's where Vanta comes in. Vanta is the leading agentic trust platform that not only gets you compliant fast with frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and GDPR, but keeps you compliant by continuously monitoring your controls. So your deals keep moving and your engineers really keep building. Now access the Vanta agent everywhere you work, even if your team lives in Claude or Cursa.

• 1:20:26Harry Stebbings?

  And that's why Vanta is trusted by more than 16,000 companies like Ramp, Harvey, and Writer. So prove you're ready for business and get $1,000 off Vanta when you go to vanta.com/20vc. That's vanta.com/20vc. While Vanta keeps compliance covered, Deal helps you hire globally. We get it. Global IT can be a headache. New hire in Tokyo, but the laptop, well, it's stuck in London. Someone left the company last week. Wait, is that access already revoked? Deal IT handles hardware, software, and access to across 130 countries from one system. You have the right to be impressed.

• 1:21:06Harry Stebbings?

  Brands like Eleven Labs are already managing their global IT at scale with Deal. It's one system, one source of truth, with zero vendor gaps or manual workarounds. So build your global team with Deal. Visit D E E L dot com slash 20 vc and start expanding your business today. While Deal builds the team, Framer builds the site. When a new landing page turns into a pile of tickets and handoffs, Framer helps your team move faster. Here's what I love. Framer is the pro AI website builder for creators, teams, and businesses that really care enough to get every detail right. The agents close the gap between AI-generated ideas and production-ready website work because it all happens where the site actually lives.

• 1:21:50Harry Stebbings?

  It lands on the canvas, it stays editable, and it can be published when the team is ready. Build custom code components, create and manage CMS content, optimize SEO settings, and ship everything all in one place. The agents bring speed and scale. You bring taste, judgment, and control. It's an enterprise-level solution, premium hosting, enterprise-grade security, and 99.99% uptime SLAs, which is why the world's leading brands like Perplexity and Miro build in Framer. Learn how you can get more out of your site from a Framer specialist or get started building for free today at framer.com/20vc for 30% off a Framer Pro annual plan. That's framer.com/20vc for 30% off.

• 1:22:35Harry Stebbings?

  Framer.com/20vc. Rules and restrictions may apply.