SPEAKER_00: I think opt-in empire building is a great goal for our nation. I think our goal should be to get to

SPEAKER_01: a billion Americans and have America be the most populous and the most innovative country in the

SPEAKER_00: world. Now, how do you get to a billion from 350 million? You got to triple. And there's a certain amount of population growth through babies, but let's just say people aren't making a ton of babies. So there's two ways to accomplish this. You got to immigrate people or you got to do a little empire building, opt-in, of course. Maybe there's countries in Europe that would want to be, maybe Greece wants to be part of the United States. Wouldn't that be great for me if Greece

SPEAKER_04: was the 51st state, if they wanted to? Why Greece? Because I'm Greek. Because we created, man,

SPEAKER_05: we created democracy. America perfected it. This would be full circle for me. I'm so sorry. I did

SPEAKER_06: not know you're a heritage. So I'm like, struggling demographics, famous debt loan. I'm like, dude,

SPEAKER_07: I'm not picking Greece. That's why I think it's an interesting concept.

SPEAKER_10: This Week in Startups is brought to you by Oracle. Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, or OCI, is a single platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI needs. Save up to 50% on your cloud bill at oracle.com slash twist. DevSquad. Most dev agencies only offer developers. Why? Because product management is hard. Get an entire product team for the cost of one US developer plus 10% off at devsquad.com slash twist. And Ramp, the corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and money. Get $250 when you join Ramp today

SPEAKER_14: at ramp.com slash twist. All right, everybody, welcome back to this Week in Startups. We call it

SPEAKER_00: Twist. You can call it Twist if you want to. We are doing the show three days a week in 2025, Monday, Wednesday, Fridays. Trying to get consistent. We're at 10 a.m. start Pacific.

SPEAKER_03: Sometimes we're a little bit late. Sometimes we get a little early and set up the show. You get to watch us live. About 25% more show live on YouTube, X, and LinkedIn. If you sign up for those services, just search for This Week in Startups there. Search for Alex. Search for myself. And you can follow us. Turn on the bell on YouTube and you'll get an alert when we start. We take questions from the audience and a couple of thousand people show up live across the platforms, which makes the show a little more dynamic. We get feedback in real time. But if you're part of the podcast gang, that's

SPEAKER_00: okay. You can join the Nodi gang, N-O-T-I, the notification gang, by going to YouTube, clicking the bell after you subscribe and putting on all notifications. You can do the same on X, X.com slash TWI startups. With me again today, the one, the only, he's cautiously optimistic, Alex Wilhelm.

SPEAKER_18: Hey, hey, hey, hey, Jason. Two things. One, we finally got in snow out here. So now when I see

SPEAKER_19: your background, I can also just see it out my window. Fewer skiers, similar look. And I just wanted to give a holiday shout out to all of our friends out there. This is a short week for TWIST. It's a short week for pretty much everybody. If you're a Christmas person or if you are a Hanukkah person, may you please enjoy. This is a gift from a friend of mine who, beautiful, knows that I like heavy metal. But I think it's a good moment to dig through the news and then we'll send everyone

SPEAKER_21: off for a short hibernation. And then we're back on Monday. Oh, back on Monday. Right. So you got us

SPEAKER_20: today, you get us Monday and we're going to do the TWISTY awards again, I think on Monday, right?

SPEAKER_00: We are going to do TWISTYs. Great show Monday. We'll do our TWISTYs, the annual tradition. Before there were the besties, I had started the TWISTYs. You started

SPEAKER_03: taking a theme here. A lot of the all-in bits and stuff like that were built off this week in startups. If you're an all-in fan here, especially my SACs and MAGA fans who come here to troll me, welcome. We love to talk a little bit of politics, but only in relation to technology here. Yes. We're not just going to talk about random stuff or Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine or whatever. Here is for overlapping tech and politics, which we're going to do today a whole bunch. And first up, over the weekend, I stepped into the pal and sometimes I step in something, Alex. I don't know if you've ever seen this on X, but sometimes I step in something. I've seen it several times now. So I walked into a hornet's nest. I didn't realize Palantir had an army of individuals

SPEAKER_00: who are very enthusiastic, like our friends with Bitcoin or the XRP army. There's an enthusiastic, vivacious, effervescent group of individuals who love the company Palantir. Now, I've known Palantir forever. Joe Lonsdale's a friend. He's been on the SHIP program. He's the co-founder. And I love the CEO, Alex Karp of Palantir. He's so based. But it is a somewhat expensive stock that people are really promoting. And when you see massive promotion, especially on social media like X or YouTube, it's like X and YouTube seem to be have won the conversation in finance. That's when I get a little bit of radar going up. So I thought today we'd start with, since so many people were like dunking on me, there was an all-in clip that came out, which we'll put in the show notes. I don't know if we should play it here or not. No, we don't need to go through that. We don't need to go through that whole thing. But

SPEAKER_36: the clip was basically me joking about, I guess we were talking about Cloudflare or whatever. And I just made a joke about how Palantir was deep state. Because, you know, Saks loves to talk about the deep state. Palantir is as deep state as deep state gets. Saks is a shareholder. So Lonsdale is a co-founder, obviously a shareholder. Everybody we know is a shareholder. It's a founder who's running the company. And I was just like, yeah, they're deep state too. But somebody tweeted as if I was saying the stock wasn't and trying to say I was making a stock call on it. I wasn't making a stock call on it. I was just joking about it being, there was no discussion about the stock price.

SPEAKER_38: Jason, I had your tweet. So Jason, here is your tweet about this. You make an argument that really

SPEAKER_29: speaks to my soul because you're talking about price earnings ratios and price sales ratios or just sales multiples here. Let's read the tweet. Yeah. Okay. Jason says, I think we were joking about them, Palantir, being part of the deep state, not stock price, but at a 400 price earnings ratio and at 65 X sales, multiple exclamation points, looks like a good time to take some profits on the name. In fact, and this is spicy, insiders told me they are selling into this insanity.

SPEAKER_15: And this is in response to Saks. Yeah. Saks was like redugging the tweet. And listen, he gets a lot of calls, right? Obviously wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't smart. So

SPEAKER_03: a lot of people I've heard, you know, like at cocktail parties or whatever, you know, I literally heard folks saying, Hey, I'm trimming at this level. I hear that. Now, I don't know if it's true or not. I don't know how much they have. I don't know if they're trimming one share or a billion shares. I'm just saying the buzz I've heard from people who maybe own shares is, Hey, this is a good time to maybe trim if you got in very early. You know, you

SPEAKER_15: could be certain if, you know, Robinhood, Uber, you know, DoorDash or other companies that

SPEAKER_00: I own shares in, including Facebook, Google, Apple. I own a bunch of different individual

SPEAKER_36: stocks that I've made trades on or I own from a no-profit company. If it was trading at 65 times sales, you could bet I would be trimming my position. Now, this is not financial advice, but I just wanted to ask you since you're, you know, a deep data finance nerd, which is

SPEAKER_03: why we're here. Where does Palantir's multiples, and this is a great company with a great CEO and a great team, incredible growth. I know they're growing like close to 30% year over year,

SPEAKER_36: something in that ballpark. And, you know, this is just a discussion over the price because

SPEAKER_00: once I added Palantir, I don't own shares in it. Although I think I might own shares through like, you know, mutual funds and stuff like that, obviously. I was just trying to wonder how

SPEAKER_36: expensive this is right now. Because when I did add it to my Apple stocks, there was a lot of stories about, oh my Lord, this is an incredible run-up. Yep. So one thing I think that's important

SPEAKER_51: to show is just how quickly the company has appreciated value. So we're going to go ahead

SPEAKER_19: and pull up a chart now on the screen. And this shows Palantir's price sales ratio. Now, Jason, for those who don't know, price sales in public market terms is last 12 months revenue, four quarters divided by, sorry, it's your valuation divided by your sales, essentially. This chart goes vertical as we approach the last couple of months. And I think this cap of appreciation makes people greedy and very enthusiastic. But when you see a chart like this, Jason, that goes

SPEAKER_21: vertical in evaluation terms, it makes you wonder what's driving such insane near-term appreciation.

SPEAKER_15: Right. So we would know in the case of, say, Eli Lilly, it was the, you know, Ozempix or ZepBound or whatever. We would know, because I'm assuming their chart does something similar there. Although their sales did skyrocket. So then we might see a similar chart with an NVIDIA as an example,

SPEAKER_03: when they move from just doing, you know, their main category being gaming GPUs to server farms becoming

SPEAKER_58: the majority of their revenue. We've seen those charts before. So there can be explanations for

SPEAKER_03: massive acceleration. Somebody could get a huge contract, right? You could have somebody from, let's say, the CHIPS Act, you know, Intel or TSMC could get a couple of billion dollars in loans or

SPEAKER_00: grants dropped on their head from the U.S. government to build a foundry. So that is not unprecedented. And I guess Palantir sells into the government. Peter Thiel's biggest bets were Facebook, JD Vance, Trump, you know, Palantir, Founders Fund itself. I mean, he's got an incredible

SPEAKER_36: record. And I don't know if anybody's ever had a betting record that dipped into politics like this,

SPEAKER_00: because now with these appointments, which we'll talk about next, it's looking like a lot of Thiel folks are in the administration. Let's keep going. I want to stay on the price sales point here,

SPEAKER_19: because you asked about the NVIDIA chart. And if we could just share the screen again, here is NVIDIA's price sales ratio, Jason. Oh, okay. And actually, not what you and I both expected, which was a vertical ascent up into the right. It's actually been relatively static since, I don't know, it's actually where it was in mid-2022, which is shocking to me. This just goes to show that NVIDIA's valuation has scaled as its revenue has also increased so

SPEAKER_63: quickly that it's actually kept up with the appreciation in its value.

SPEAKER_64: All right, let's talk about AI, everybody. It's everywhere. Self-driving cars, breakthrough medical

SPEAKER_66: research, and of course, business tools that make everybody better and faster at their jobs. If AI hasn't hit your industry yet, trust me, it is on the way and it's happening fast. But AI requires a ton of computing power, you know that. And those costs will skyrocket if you're not careful. I have seen these bills come in. It can get crazy quick. And that's why it's time for you to upgrade to the next generation of cloud. And that means Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, or OCI. OCI is a blazing, fast, and secure platform that covers all the bases. Infrastructure, databases, app development, and of course, all your startup's AI and machine learning needs. Now, here's the kicker. OCI costs 50% less for compute and 80% less for network compared to other cloud options. That's a lot of savings, especially when every minute counts in the cloud. Thousands of businesses have already upgraded to OCI, including MGM Resorts, Specialized Bikes, and Fireworks AI. So here's your call to action. Right now, if you switch to OCI, Oracle is offering to cut your current cloud bill in half for new U.S. customers with minimum financial commitment. But you'll need to act fast. The offer ends December 31st, 2024. See if your company qualifies for this special offer at

SPEAKER_14: oracle.com slash twist, oracle.com slash twist. What this does is that people are looking at the

SPEAKER_15: valuation in relation to sales. They're very attuned to what the top line sales is, sales line, the sales line is. And then they're doing the math to say, what's the price to sales ratio here?

SPEAKER_58: What's reasonable, given their growth? And they were doubling revenue a year at one point, I believe.

SPEAKER_73: Oh, NVIDIA? More than that.

SPEAKER_20: Yeah. So, I mean, it's three-digit growth year over year is unprecedented. It's absolutely insane. 15% to 30% is high growth in public market companies. NVIDIA grew like a startup, a series A startup going from three to 10 million or 10 to 30 million, which does happen. You showed the Google chart at one point last week. So, this is disconnected from reality. Is there- But- But, yeah, give me- No, no, you tell me. Because if this is- Is it disconnected from reality? Yes. Okay. Okay. So, let me tell you- I want to check with you.

SPEAKER_19: Yeah. Okay. So, I went through their last earnings report. And I just want to point out that, as you said earlier, this is a really good company. So, revenue growth last quarter, Jason, 30%, 7% quarter on quarter. And I would say more importantly, inside the U.S., revenue growth is 44% year over year. So, very impressive. Okay. That's unbelievable. Yeah. The customers count up 30% year over year and gap profitable. So, their net income had a 20% margin in the last quarter. And they have about a billion dollars in trailing operating cash flow. So, profitable, kicking off cash, growing quickly, and increasingly diversified customer base.

SPEAKER_14: So, where does Palantir sit? I guess, you know, putting things in context, super important.

SPEAKER_57: Are there other companies trading at 60 or 70 price to sales ratios right now in the market?

SPEAKER_03: I asked ChatGPT and Gemini. Gemini wouldn't give me finance information? Come on, Google. Really? Yeah. A lot of the Googlers are listening to the show. And I think, because we've been giving so much great praise to what they've been working on. But I couldn't get the Google Finance and the

SPEAKER_15: Google Finance teams behind. So, where does Palantir sit versus other stocks when we look at a price to sales ratio? Yep. And by the way, this all goes back to startups. There is a time in which your valuation can get ahead of itself. And that happens in private markets. The people who are giving the investments in those cases have downside protection. They're called protective provisions. So, they get their money out first. So, if the company does get sold, and let's say I put $10 million into your company at a billion valuation for about 1% of it. And the company's making $10 million. So, it's 100 times revenue. It's 100 times price to sales ratio. Well, if the company was sold for $50 million or $10 million in a fire sale, my $10 million comes out first. That's what happens with private stock. That's why VCs will make, you know, crazy bets or seemingly crazy bets on a stock that's high growth and to beat

SPEAKER_00: another venture firm. So, if you're a venture firm, Acme, and I'm a venture firm, Delta, and you

SPEAKER_15: offered $500 million valuation for that startup to put $10 million in for 2%, and then I come in and I say, I'll put $20 million in for 2%. So, I'm going to pay twice the valuation. If we're both believe this is going to be a $100 billion company, all I'm doing is losing the gain from a billion

SPEAKER_00: to 2 billion that you're insisting on getting, or 500 million, the difference between 500 and a billion. You're getting that first double. I'm saying, you know what, I'll give up that first double. I'll just play for everything after it. And that's why you see crazy valuations in private markets. In public markets, typically people like to make money, and they don't have that downside protection. So, they're like, well, let's make sure we reevaluate every day the stock market is trading. What makes sense here? And this, obviously, I guess the correlation here is we are going to have a more efficient government under Trump 2.0. That's their promise to us, the American people, if we take them at their word. And I actually do at this point, we'll get into that in a minute, that they want to lower spending, they want to lower the debt, and they want to have a more efficient government. Well, where would you go to have a more efficient military? You go to Andrel, you go to Palantir, you would go to SpaceX. These private companies have lowered the cost of getting to space or building missiles by 90%. So, then, of course, you would go to them. So, Palantir does have a bright future. Maybe that 30%, 40% growth is going to go to 67% growth. Maybe it is

SPEAKER_98: the next NVIDIA, and that's the bet people are making.

SPEAKER_19: So, Jason makes a great point about other companies that might have a similar set of accounting or perhaps a similar focus. I found a couple of names. Splunk, Tableau, and Alterix are all companies that we think of when we consider big data and perhaps visualizations of it. Sadly for us, Splunk was bought by Cisco for about $28 billion in March. Tableau got bought by Salesforce, and Alterix was taken private by Clear Lake and Insight. So, where does that leave us in trying to understand where Palantir sits? So, we don't know for those three what the sales were at that time, or we have a guess? I don't recall the exact price-sales ratio of those companies, but the point is they're off the table, and they're off the table far enough in the past that I think they wouldn't be directly comparable to Palantir today. But two companies that are, Jason, at least related, one is C3.ai, does AI stuff for the enterprise, currently trading at a price-sales ratio of 13, so about one-fifth of what we're seeing from Palantir. And that was as low as

SPEAKER_88: about 10x in recent quarters. And then the other one, when we think about big data, warehousing, leveraging that information, Snowflake, a very well-run company. We've talked about them here

SPEAKER_19: on the show a lot. Well, their price-sales ratio today is 16.2x, when as high as 24 in the last couple of quarters, Jason. But I couldn't find anything at scale in these areas that had a price-sales ratio, revenue multiple of anything even approaching Palantir. But people are willing to overpay for expectations. And so when you look at Trump Media or whatever you call that company,

SPEAKER_00: TNTG, people will pay for it. Yeah, people will pay for it. Okay. Well, so a great company, probably dipping into meme status if, when I talk about it, so many people are like,

SPEAKER_36: have fun staying bored. When you see people pumping, pumping, pumping, that's when you know

SPEAKER_15: that you should be more cautious. I'm not going to say that's when you know there's like funny business going around. But literally this weekend, there was a fake news story about Bezos spending 600 million on his, 600 million, not billion, on his wedding. He's spending 600 billion on his wedding.

SPEAKER_09: Everybody who comes is a billionaire. Right. You get a free billion dollars in your

SPEAKER_113: gooding bag and your name tag. Exactly. So no, it's, and so Bezos had to come out and say, I'm not spending 600 million on my wedding. Do you know what the first reply I saw to his tweet was?

SPEAKER_107: What was it? Michael Saylor. So go ahead and use it. Oh my God. Are you serious? Yeah. Go ahead

SPEAKER_119: and do a search for it. Look for Jeff Bezos and you'll find it. It is the funniest thing I've ever

SPEAKER_121: seen. All right. Take a second and picture the ultimate all-star team for your startup. Okay. You got that mental image. Maybe the Avengers, maybe even X-Men, Wolverine, Cyclops, pick your favorite superhero team. And let's be realistic until you've raised your series A or your series B, you might need some help building that dream team and finding top tier talent, managing all the timelines you've got and maintaining quality. It's a big lift for all founders. I mean, scouting for that elusive 10X developer, that's going to eat all your time. And that's where DevSquad comes in. Think of them as like Professor X, you know, they, they know where to find those exceptional mutant developers who are 10X devs. And DevSquad offers a complete product team from Latin America. You're going to get two to six full stack developers, a technical product manager, and specialists in case you need them, like product strategy, or UI and UX design, DevOps, and of course, quality assurance, all for 75% less than a US-based team while being on your same time zone, which is really important. There's no long-term commitment. It's just seamless collaboration. So if you want a GSD, if you want to get stuff done and you're ready to squad up, head to devsquad.com slash twist for 10% off your first engagement. That's devsquad.com slash twist and transform your startup with the all-star team it deserves. The story comes out. Bizarre to even

SPEAKER_124: see a story like this. Um, press not doing themselves any favors. Um, so the press, if you scroll up a little bit, you'll see the top, the press, you know, did the story, which you can't

SPEAKER_00: see here about the 600 million. So Bezos comes out and says, furthermore, this whole thing is completely false. None of this has happened in the old adage. Don't believe everything you read

SPEAKER_36: is even more true today than it ever has been. Been throwing shade at the press over the Washington Post. Now lies can get all the way around the world before the truth can get its pants on. So be careful out there, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Michael Saylor's reply, $600 million would

SPEAKER_29: buy a lot of Bitcoin. Here's the thing though, Jason, that's not true because in Michael Saylor's estimation, anything less than two or $3 billion with a Bitcoin purchase is just chump change.

SPEAKER_101: I mean, he's out there buying real Bitcoin, not that $600 million fake crap.

SPEAKER_15: That's a, like an interesting segue here. I'll just give you another tweet. As of this

SPEAKER_113: morning, December 23rd, Merry Christmas. Oh my gosh. Michael Saylor reports, Michael Saylor has acquired 5,262 BTC for $561 million.

SPEAKER_130: Dang it. $600 million. He literally bought the $600 million last week.

SPEAKER_19: I have never eaten my words so quickly in my life, but I do want to make a small point there about the press comment that you made, which is we are discussing the New York Post, which

SPEAKER_136: I believe is part of the Murdoch empire. Jason?

SPEAKER_15: You know, the New York Post isn't the one who reported it. I think they were reporting that

SPEAKER_138: it was fake. So, uh, yes. So you don't have the presses. Somebody, if one of the outlets

SPEAKER_47: gets something wrong, the other press pile on about it. Um, but of course this led to crazy

SPEAKER_19: chaos, uh, online, but yeah, it's, um, $600 million for a wedding. I mean, that was, that's like buying the castle, tearing it down, rebuilding the castle, tearing it down, rebuilding it,

SPEAKER_38: and then inviting everyone in England. Like, I mean, that's, that's a lot of money.

SPEAKER_15: Yeah, this is, um, crazy. It's not true, obviously, but there was, I mean, it's not without precedent. Wasn't the precedent, wasn't the, an heir to an Indian fortune. Didn't he just throw like a hundred million or $200 million wedding where he paid, you know, a

SPEAKER_145: bunch of major celebrities, um, just giant appearance fees and Bonnie family. Um, the

SPEAKER_19: kind of, I would say the robber barons of modern India to use in a historical American analogy to a certain Gilded era. And there's been some discussions about potential fraud in certain major family run business empires in India. So just pointing that out. The thing though, about Palantir, I do want to make sure we're giving the positive vibes here. And I did go through their product lineup and what they built is very impressive and they're proud of themselves for doing well. The thing that hit me was this FT story from recent, uh, from the last couple of days in which it discusses a new conglomeration of the companies you're discussing working together. So when you talk about SpaceX and Palantir and Andrew, we think of them as, as discrete units, but I think that they really want to operate

SPEAKER_88: more together. So the FT reports that Palantir and Andrew and other companies are quote in talks with about a dozen competitors to form a consortium that will jointly bid for U S government work in an effort to disrupt the country's oligopoly oligopoly of prime contractors. Awesome. Yes. That was exactly my first reaction because even if there's a lot of self dealing

SPEAKER_148: here amongst the teal and PayPal mafia folks, it'll still be less corrupt and better than

SPEAKER_150: what we currently have. Well, I mean, it's a free market. So, you know, if you look at

SPEAKER_15: what's happening right now, I think there's like a duopoly basically in these contracts, you get the same two or three people each time doing cost plus bidding. What the, this new group of tech defense that companies are doing is not cost plus, they're just saying, here's what I can sell this to you. How many do you want? Yeah. And so if they offer, as we had the submarine company on the, the unmanned submarine company, you'll remember my short term memory is gone. That company was, I think they, I think they said they were making them for 50 to a hundred K and they would normally cost 500 to 750. The Titan submersible. Thank

SPEAKER_00: you. If you were to take the Titan submersible, you know, maybe the government's like, you know what, we're going to buy a thousand of these, but since they're 90% cheaper, we'll take 2000 and we'll have a new plan. So if you were going to defend against new enemies, new possibilities, if there's a vibrant competition going on here and startups are included in it and it's not fixed and it's not based on like who gave the most money, or it's a new group of people who are exerting their influence through our system, which includes money, it's better for us because prices will go down and the value will go up of these products and no competition. If you look at the things that have gone up in cost in the United States, the top things that have gone up in cost are, um, healthcare, education, especially higher

SPEAKER_20: education, um, healthcare, education, and housing. And if you look at those three, there are

SPEAKER_00: the most regulated and government participatory verticals that we have. And if you take some regulation out and there was like more college degrees were available from different folks, or there was a more open healthcare system, insurance system, maybe we'd see a little bit, I wonder where military is in terms of the acceleration of costs. And if we are going to lower the budget, you could actually get more functionality and capability with startups, making weapons, defense systems, et cetera, for less money. So more for less, who does not taking more for less?

SPEAKER_51: No, it's, it's absolutely lovely. I do think that the cost plus accounting that we've seen is

SPEAKER_19: essentially just a license to be incompetent, to run out timelines and to take in more money. It's literally saying, please bilk us. So I'm glad that that is out of favor. I will say though, I don't want to compare and drill and Vatten systems and everyone else too tight and submersible because that submersible was cheaper and failed. What I'm excited about is cheaper and better because I bet, I bet you, I bet you, Jason, I'm sure you actually agree with me here, but I bet

SPEAKER_88: these companies will make better products for cheaper. So it's not just more and cheaper. It's

SPEAKER_155: no, no, these are going to be much better, much better and cheaper. And so, you know, there's a,

SPEAKER_01: and there's a number of examples of this. If you go take an Airbnb, you might have a better experience. If you like a kitchen and a backyard, when you rent a house, then getting a suite or three, one bedrooms or three rooms at a typical hotel in the same city. So if that's the case,

SPEAKER_00: this is a similar situation where you're going to get a better product produced differently. And I can tell you entrepreneurs are all of a sudden asking themselves, I wonder if I could do something with drones. That sounds kind of fun. That sounds kind of profitable as a business. That sounds kind of helpful to the world. So entrepreneurs are getting into defense tech. They're looking at all these areas. They're saying, how can I, and we had the founder of the self-driving company that does remote control of cars to drop off your rental car. In Vegas. Yeah. Yes. And so, you know,

SPEAKER_01: that company, a great founder, it will come to me in a second, is also working in defense tech. So

SPEAKER_119: you can imagine, you know, if you're in the field and you want a Humvee, okay, how do I get a Humvee to

SPEAKER_160: you? You're a hundred miles away. Well, I was going to say drive it, but I presume that's not the

SPEAKER_00: right answer. Yeah. Now you got to put four people into a Humvee to drive it to you. And then maybe they need to have another Humvee following them to get them back. Yeah. And then maybe you need a patchy to give them some air cover and throw up a drum. You want to send one Humvee into the field. You could send it alone. Just some guy with a joystick, gal with a joystick, boom, zipping it right to the front line. So, or maybe you need to put some stuff into it. Maybe you need some more

SPEAKER_15: ammunition. Boom. You send a Humvee remote control. It's going to be awesome. And so you do need to be vigilant. Yeah. Anytime we have this kind of situation, I'm not saying like people shouldn't be vigilant and question everything, but we are entering a new era clearly. And I thought we should talk about some more of the, of my contemporaries, I'll say, people of my generation getting into politics. My friend, Ken Howery, who was previously an investor, who was previously an investor, a founder's fund or co-founder. I think he's technically a co-founder and was at PayPal. He's now going to be the ambassador to Denmark. And he was previously the ambassador to Sweden.

SPEAKER_124: So he's back in the mix. He's a good friend of mine. Did you see the, the Trump post about this?

SPEAKER_19: We're going to put it up on the screen right now. We're going to pull it up. And this is all standard stuff here. But then he says, for the purposes of national security and freedom throughout the world,

SPEAKER_51: the US of A feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity. Now we can

SPEAKER_19: take that off the screen, but usually ambassadorships, Jason, are just well-funded boondoggles. Like Calista Gingrich just got the ambassadorship to Switzerland, which I presume is going to be her bouncing around castles eating chocolates for a couple of years for free. I thought that they

SPEAKER_166: were sticking Ken in a relatively unimportant ambassadorship until I saw the Greenland thing. So are these serious about this? Hey, everybody, I want to tell you about an awesome corporate

SPEAKER_169: card and spend management software that's designed to help you save money. Basically, it puts money back in your pocket. It's called Ramp. And we use it here at launch. My COO, Heidi, our chief operating officer loves it because Ramp gives you visibility into your company's software usage. And this is going to help you trim your subscription costs. And it allows you to issue cards to every employee and then give them limits and restrictions. So we do this. Sometimes we'll have the whole team go to an offsite. We send everybody a Ramp card. Everybody has a certain amount of money they can spend, and they don't have to worry about using their personal cards or submitting an expense report or any of that drama. No. And Ramp customers save about 5% on their expenses every year because you can do things like dial up and dial down how much money can be charged to a card. Ramp's offer is so smart. You no longer have to do manual expense reports either. And they'll even play bad cop for your company, chasing down missing documentation and requesting repayment. Ramp's so easy to use, and you can start making payments in less than 15 minutes. So join Ramp right now, and they'll give you $250 right into your account. Ramp.com slash twist, R-A-M-P.com slash twist. It is the best way to manage expenses for your team. It's elegant, it's dead simple, and it's going to save you money. Disclaimer, cards issued by Sutton Bank. Members, FDIC. Terms and conditions apply.

SPEAKER_172: I don't know that it would have to be for sale. I would like the Japan one. I know Rahm Emanuel's got

SPEAKER_00: it right now. But I found out, I asked, I asked, how does this all work to some friends? And basically, you have to fund the ambassadorship. So people don't know this, but you as the individual who's going to be the ambassador to Sweden or France or Spain or whatever it is, you fund the operations of the embassy for those years. So it's going to cost you low millions of dollars to fund the parties, the staff, and all that kind of stuff. Yes. That's not fun at all. Yes. So if you see people doing this, they have to raise money or they have to have money in order to do that. And it's a ceremonial position, obviously. And you represent our country, but obviously the decisions, and there can be moments, I guess, where you're in the mix. But I do think there's a large amount of ceremony with these ambassadorships. And they seem to be a lot of fun. It seems like this is what rich people do for a four-year vacation and to serve their country. I like it. I could see myself doing it someday.

SPEAKER_19: Oh, I would love to be an ambassador. I have a number of countries I would love to spend time in while wearing a fancy hat and a sash and going to dinners and such. I don't want to pay for it, though.

SPEAKER_15: I think that's how it works. Well, you've raised money. You get some benefactors. It's like having a chair at a school. If you want to have your own chair at Columbia or Harvard, you get somebody to donate a $500,000 or a million dollars to pay for it, right? All this stuff has got some underwriting.

SPEAKER_19: Yeah. Well, I didn't know that. But the Greenland point's interesting for two reasons, just to show everyone kind of where next year might be going. One, there is talk about somehow adding Greenland to the US. Again, with Trump, never sure if we're trolling, never sure if we're being serious, but Ken's caught up in that. And then also, Trump wants to go and retake the Panama Canal is the latest thing that I've seen.

SPEAKER_15: Well, yeah, there's some talk about the Panama Canal being co-opted by the Chinese or something. That seems like a national security issue. We sold it, so I don't know if we get to get it back. I will say, when they're talking about deporting people and the sort of xenophobic part of the

SPEAKER_03: dialogue, which I don't like, which I don't think is actually going to happen, I think that's the rhetoric. I've now become convinced. I don't have inside information, obviously.

SPEAKER_119: But I think the rhetoric is 15 million. I think the reality, so we'll talk rhetoric and reality here.

SPEAKER_03: Rhetoric, 15 million people dragged out, thrown over the border, chaos. Reality, 50,000, 250,000

SPEAKER_15: violent criminals, people who steal, jump the turnstile, or light somebody on fire in a subway car. That's what's going to happen. And there'll be zero tolerance for that, zero tolerance at the border. And then they're going to quietly kind of grandfather this concept of 15 million people being removed, which I think is great. I think opt-in empire building is a great goal for our

SPEAKER_01: nation. Just hear me out here. I think our goal should be to get to a billion Americans and have America be the most populous and the most innovative country in the world. Now, how do you get to a billion

SPEAKER_00: from 350 million? You got to triple. And there's a certain amount of population growth through babies, but let's just say people aren't making a ton of babies. So there's two ways to accomplish this. You got to immigrate people, or you got to do a little empire building, opt-in, of course. I think we should start offering countries to join the United States. There would be some decade-long period of integration, getting off of their dollar, whatever, services, voting. Cuba, Puerto Rico,

SPEAKER_194: Canada. I don't care who it is. I don't care if it's on the other side of the planet. I don't care if it's a Middle Eastern country, an African country. Why wouldn't we have a couple of outposts

SPEAKER_00: around the world? The French have some territories in the BVI, obviously the British Virgin Islands. And there's a bunch of these kind of- And French Guiana and- Yeah.

SPEAKER_36: French Guiana. I like the idea of America spreading democracy and building the largest

SPEAKER_119: populous country and the largest economy concurrently over the 21st century. Let's try to get to a

SPEAKER_19: billion Americans. What do you think of my proposal? Well, I, one, agreed. And I was just trying to find a post that I wrote in which I cheekily said, this was some months ago, that we should, one, Puerto Rico should be a state, clearly. But also I was like, let's just take Canada. We'll take Mexico. Let's just make big, big, big United States, many, many states. And I think it's a great, frankly, idea. Other nations have their own views of sovereignty and so forth. But- That's what I'm saying. It's opt-in, right? It's opt-in. Exactly. Open door policy is great. I do not want us to go out there and grab other countries by the back of the neck and drag them in, because that's going to lead to, I think, a lot of dissension in

SPEAKER_18: the ranks. But certainly. And what percentage of people, before you go to your end, would need to

SPEAKER_119: vote in favor of joining America for it to seem like you had enough consensus for that, dare I say, transaction to occur? 65.

SPEAKER_20: You think 65? Okay. I was going to say more like 75. I was thinking 75 or 80%. Oh, wow. Like the overwhelming majority, a super majority. But you're thinking super majority too,

SPEAKER_36: with 65. I was thinking the first number that came to my head was 75, 80. But it's maybe between

SPEAKER_88: 65 and 80. It becomes impossible at some point, right? Because if you have the bar set so high, you'll never clear it. And so to me, 60 is too low. 70 feels impossible. That's how I got 65.

SPEAKER_204: But 65, 70%, yeah. I'm totally here for it.

SPEAKER_138: I have an idea. Okay. If it's in order to do the process, you have to have five consecutive years

SPEAKER_15: of voting 65% or more to join the United States or 70%. So you have to vote every year for five years

SPEAKER_00: for this to happen and start the integration process. Then it's like, listen, the country voted not once, not twice, not three times, five times over five years to join the United States.

SPEAKER_15: You know, like there was a little, there's plenty of time to consider it. You didn't have one chance to vote. You had five and you had to five years in a row have 70% or more. So you had to have real

SPEAKER_00: consensus and real discussions about it. Because if in year three, it dips to 60%, now that resets the clock. Now you got to do five years in a row. And we should just go out there and like give our best offer. Maybe there's countries in Europe that would want to be, maybe Greece wants to be part of the

SPEAKER_03: United States. Wouldn't that be great for me? If Greece was the 51st state, if they wanted to? Why Greece?

SPEAKER_04: Because I'm Greek. How?

SPEAKER_05: Because we created, man, we created democracy. America perfected it. This would be full circle for me. I'm so sorry. I did not know your heritage. So I'm like,

SPEAKER_06: golly, where have you been? I'm famous debt load. I'm like, dude, I'm not picking Greece.

SPEAKER_171: That's why I think it's an interesting concept. If you have a debt load, if you have challenges

SPEAKER_00: and another country wants to come in and say, hey, listen, I know you're having challenges.

SPEAKER_209: We could help smooth those out. And maybe you'd like to be part of our culture.

SPEAKER_138: Yeah. And you know, like, do you care if you have USD as your currency or, you know, do you need to have

SPEAKER_00: your own currency? Do you want to be part of the EU or do you want to be part of the United States? Do you want to, you know, be able to come to the United States anytime back and forth, would not

SPEAKER_172: worry about your visa? You know what that would do for Greece? And then if the taxation was similar, retirement was similar, and you just take 20 years to have those systems blend together.

SPEAKER_101: I mean, Jason, can you imagine how funny it would be to explain to people who are accustomed to European style health care, how health care works in the US?

SPEAKER_00: Well, there you have it. Right. And so maybe there's things the United States could learn, like Canada has obviously figured some things out about health care. When I talk to Canadians, they complain incessantly about their health care. When I talk to Americans, they're like, why isn't our health care like Canada's? I'm moving to Canada to get their health care system.

SPEAKER_98: So they've obviously learned some things. And yeah, it would be, that would be amazing for

SPEAKER_36: Americans if Canada was the 51st state, if they opted into it, obviously. And Americans could move there and get in Canada as a, you know, state with, you know, multiple, it would obviously be

SPEAKER_15: multiple states over time. They would, Americans who went there would get the benefits of their health care system and their health care system could be different than ours. And that would be an interesting, you know, concept. So maybe we need another level here because

SPEAKER_19: we have the United States, 50 states, and then we have the federal government. But what you're describing almost sounds like underneath the federal system, different collections of states with

SPEAKER_51: different rules, almost like having blocks. A territory. Yeah. Yeah. It'd be like the

SPEAKER_138: Northeast, the Southwest, you know, this would be the Canada states. So if they were, if they broke

SPEAKER_16: into five, six, seven states, whatever it is, it'd be the United States of Canada.

SPEAKER_59: Yeah. Well, I mean, hell yeah. I'm, I'm a big fan. The thing I was going to throw in there is that I don't think we have to go quite as far abroad to get more folks. I also think that we have lots of

SPEAKER_88: room inside the country and anyone who's flown over the United States once has looked down and gone,

SPEAKER_59: wow, there's no one here. And so there's lots of room just inside of the country.

SPEAKER_172: Pick a great location for energy and water and climate, given what's happening. What is the

SPEAKER_01: perfect place to build a new city and build a city intentionally for 30 million people? Now it could start as 3 million, but with the intentionality of it hitting 30 million, in other words, a city of

SPEAKER_00: the scale of, you know, Beijing or Shanghai, a mega city, like really going for it. Where would you put the mega city? This would be like such an incredible thing for America to do, to do, to say, we're going to build a mega city. And we're going to start with this plot of American owned land,

SPEAKER_15: because our government owns a lot of land. And we just say, Hey, this million acres, this 100,000 acres, 500,000 acres is going to be the city center. And here's how we're going to have this Manhattan

SPEAKER_119: project where we ask startups and companies to pitch an architecture for the city. And then we're

SPEAKER_172: going to pitch neighborhoods and you as a company, whether it was Google or Boeing, Google did have a city project, you remember, and they have Waymo. Google could come in, Apple could come in and say,

SPEAKER_00: I want to build, you know, this hipster neighborhood. This will be the Brooklyn or the Venice or the Berkeley of it. I want to have that territory. I'm going to build Apple apartments, Apple, whatever. And I want to have the concession to build a building of, you know, like the, um, the Apple headquarters. So Apple's headquarters could become like those rings. They could say,

SPEAKER_15: we want to build 10 rings around the city. And we're going to connect the 10 rings with skyways,

SPEAKER_00: whatever, a hyperloop. And people will live in a ring, work in a ring, play in a ring, live in a ring. You know, Steve Jobs considered that one of his great products, the, uh, the,

SPEAKER_51: the mothership. Yeah. Well, I remember watching that thing get built. I really like this idea, but I wonder if we have to use federal land because there's a lot of folks out there who own quite a

SPEAKER_235: bit of government could buy from them. Yeah. Government could buy from them. And then you,

SPEAKER_236: sure. I guess you could do it that way. I love the idea. And I think, I think we've seen some

SPEAKER_51: nations try this. If you look at Egypt's, um, capital that they're building, uh, kind of de

SPEAKER_124: novo, I just think it's at the UAE, UAE bought some land from them and they're going to build this new city there. And yet you have Neom, which is being built by, uh, Saudis. Yeah. Yeah. There

SPEAKER_18: are some precedents to doing something like this. Hey, moving on. I love it. I love it. Okay. Moving

SPEAKER_88: on. Uh, other recent hires by the government, um, Scott Kapoor, now a, that is going to be the director of office of personnel management, previously a managing partner at Andreessen Horvitz, employee number one, been there for about 15 years. I don't know Scott at all. Tell me about

SPEAKER_00: Scott. I haven't worked with him, but he's got a great reputation, smart. He's a team player. I

SPEAKER_59: don't know what this job does and what the mandate is there. So I went through their, uh, plans and I went through their strategic plans for the OPM from 2022 to 2026. The thing that I struggle with

SPEAKER_19: is that they want to make the federal government, a leading employer that is technology forward, but also a great place to work. And the struggle Jason is that I think a lot of the people who are

SPEAKER_88: glad that Scott's taking this job want the federal government to have far fewer people. So not exactly building out the same mission. So here we're going to have, we're going to see someone really come in orthogonal to where things have been heading and probably be a very unpopular

SPEAKER_19: person internally. The question is what are the net benefits for the nation, uh, as we go through

SPEAKER_238: this, but that's going to be a tough, a tough gig. So the gig is, uh, just looking at it here,

SPEAKER_15: um, human resources for federal employees, their benefits, their strategy to recruit, retain, and maintain the workforce. So basically it's like being the chief operating officer, human resources department. This sounds like really great to have somebody who's a business person in this. And if the goal is to shrink it and to get rid of the grift, there's a lot of people

SPEAKER_00: who are, let's face it, you know, in very high paid jobs and not working. I'm sure there's tons of people who are working more than they're getting paid for, but we all know it's growing too fast.

SPEAKER_15: We're in debt. We're spending too much money. Get in there. If you cut too deep, you can always add

SPEAKER_20: people back is the philosophy that I think we'll see. And I know it sounds cutthroat, but that is how you

SPEAKER_51: save money. Let's squeeze here one more time here. Okay. Um, Jason, this is the federal employment, right? Over what period of time? This is 1940 through today. Oh, is that percentage? Nope.

SPEAKER_19: It's thousands of persons. So it's, uh, the federal government is not, now this doesn't include the, I think the military, um, but it's not that many people. Which, which one is that? Cause I,

SPEAKER_247: you know, it has grown. Um, now there's a state, it gets higher. Cause you have state,

SPEAKER_15: you have military, you got, there's a bunch of different data points here that we need to look

SPEAKER_03: at. The federal 3 million state 5.5 local 14.5 according to the daily caller. So I'm not sure

SPEAKER_00: if that's correct or not, but so anyway, we can debate how many people there should be in the

SPEAKER_150: government. I think maybe you and I agree there should be less. Oh, fewer. I just, I just think

SPEAKER_19: that people think that the federal government has 45 million employees who are all sitting around playing Tetris and their flip-flops and it's, uh, it's several million people. So if we're going to cut spend, I really do think that we're having, we're having, there's a goal and there's a method to reach that goal. And we talk about cutting spending and cutting staff as a way to get there.

SPEAKER_63: I just don't think that this number is going to add up to anything approaching, impacting the actual

SPEAKER_236: spend and debt issue. Oh, I got you. Yeah. So if we're going to do this, we got to cut somewhere else

SPEAKER_20: and it's going to hurt. It's yeah. And it's good. Well, you know, it doesn't have to hurt

SPEAKER_00: because my guess is one third of the employees aren't contributing a bunch and the top third, you know, are doing 80% of the work and then there's the middle third. So if you cut a third, I've seen this in every organization I've ever worked with, you cut the bottom 10, 20, 35%, you will see universally the company works more efficiently. Um, and that's just the nature of any organization. That's totally fine. Et cetera. I agree with that. That's how I would

SPEAKER_19: do it. What I meant was we're going to have to make painful cuts on spending, like entitlement programs, not sort of thing. So the staffing, we can definitely cut 30%. I'm sure. I think you and I talked about this a while back. If it's 35% or if it's 50% that you can cut whatever, but that's going

SPEAKER_260: to be a very small percentage change in our overall spend. Military is the big number. Uh, yeah.

SPEAKER_163: And so forth. Yeah. Uh, there's a lot of places to cut, but you know, I think a lot of it is also a philosophy and the philosophy is going to be efficiency and competition and no more cronyism and grifting. I think that's what's going to happen is opening up, you know, that, um, philosophy and

SPEAKER_20: I'm here for it. And, you know, listen, if you don't believe they're going to do it, if you believe there's crony capitalism at work, it's going to be pretty obvious to see it. It's going to be right there on display. So you will see it. I can tell you based on what I know, even the most cynical Democrats, the most cynical who hate Trump are going to have to nod and say, it's my prediction.

SPEAKER_163: We'll be sitting here a year from now. I think they did a good job on those issues. I give it to them for that. Whether it's, you know, making the military more competitive, cutting spending, reducing spending. And just as a philosophy, you're starting to see, and I'll just, as we look at these appointments, um, what we'll do with them in a moment, here's where I've come to. People know I'm not a fan of Donald Trump, haven't been, have been super critical. All the receipts are out there. You can see me saying all the things I believe about his past performance. My belief is he's

SPEAKER_119: the president now, and I'm seeing him surround himself with quite literally all of my friends

SPEAKER_00: and colleagues. My dream has always been that the government be as efficient as Silicon Valley, as entrepreneurs, and it should be more entrepreneurial and more efficient. Guess what? I just got my dream. This has always been my dream is to see more people. And for me,

SPEAKER_03: that version of it was, I wanted Bloomberg to win. He got knocked out in the first debate,

SPEAKER_00: knockout punch, brutal. It is what it is. But I want to see Jamie Dimon in there. I want to see more business people in there, less career politicians, and really make the thing more efficient. So here's what my pitch is to everybody who doesn't like Trump. You have a year of action that you'll watch. You can be as critical as you want to be, bang on every assumption, everything they're doing, and just judge them in a year. Because you know what? You have no choice but to do that. You can fight them as much as you want. You can tweet, you can scream, but they won. And they won with a bit of a mandate. And so here we go. And some Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, are on board with some of these issues. So I think when they start voting on them, there's going to be a lot of Democrats who cross the aisle and say, and there'll also be some Republicans who break rank,

SPEAKER_98: but they'll say, you know what? I agree. We should spend a little less here. So it's going to

SPEAKER_51: be entertaining. It's going to be a shakeup. Absolutely. I'll take quite a lot of that. And I like the fact that we will be able to vet results based on the numbers. For example,

SPEAKER_88: we know how much money we were spending. We will know how much money that we do spend. We will see if yearly deficits decline. We will see if the federal employment numbers decline. We will be

SPEAKER_59: able to actually kind of go out and see what they can do. So I don't think anyone was saying that everything we were doing was going well. So here's a new way forward. Okay. What I struggle with is the

SPEAKER_19: demand for whenever the Republicans win, everyone goes, we all have to get together now and all have to hold hands and work together. And when the Democrats win, the Republicans go, they want to bring Satan back and beat up your children. And I struggle a little bit to be as big of a person as you're asking me to be when the other side that I'm being forced to hold hands with go to turn around and slap me the first chance they get when the tables are turned. Okay, though, I was raised Christian, turned the other cheek. All right. But I got to say, people have tried this before. We have tried blue ribbon commissions, which is what doge is to cut spending. We have tried things. Let's see what we get. Now, other people that are coming in, Jason, include Suram Krishnan, former GP over at Andreessen. He's going to revise on AI policy.

SPEAKER_270: I've met him once, but it was back when I was a mess. He was embedded by Andreessen Horowitz at Twitter when the takeover happened. So I spent a little bit of time with him there for the first

SPEAKER_163: couple of weeks. He is a hardcore, great human being, a really solid individual, great communicator, hard worker. He's going to do great. And he's going to work with David

SPEAKER_51: Sachs. He's going to be inside of the AI and crypto policy spot. And he was, if I recall,

SPEAKER_19: very active on the crypto side of investing for Andreessen. Yes. So he'll be bringing, I think,

SPEAKER_163: a little more crypto to David Sachs's AI. Yeah, his group. Yeah, I guess there's a group being formed and crypto needs to be regulated. And if we look at what happened the last four years, it was kind of Gary Gensler gave no path. He didn't give the third path. It was either you can't

SPEAKER_36: do it or you can do it my way or the way we've always done it. Exactly. Don't do it or do it the way

SPEAKER_00: it's always been done. There is, in fairness to everybody in crypto, they should have a rule set that has evolved. And the SEC, Congress, whatever commissions they come up with, whoever winds up, you know, working on this, they need to light a fire and make us, America, the most open to cryptocurrency geography in the world. It should not be the Zerg or it should not be some communist country or North Korea or, you know, Switzerland. It should be America. This is where we have the largest number of entrepreneurs pushing them to be in Puerto Rico, offshore, hiding their money. I've told the stories before. I've been on the boards of companies that are, you know, adjacent to crypto or in crypto. And they're like, we're going to put this in literally, speaking of Panama, in Panama, in a nonprofit. It's going to cost a million dollars to set it up. And I'm like, what? What corporation costs a million dollars to set up? I can go on like any number of sites and register a new company for $500 or free or a thousand dollars. It makes no sense. So let's not drive it offshore. Let's regulate it. Let's tax it. And I believe we should build a Bitcoin reserve. You know how we should do it? If you want to trade in Bitcoin in the United States, there is a 1% Bitcoin tax. You want to buy it. You want to sell it. Both sides pay 1% on every transaction. You know where it goes, into the government. That's it. That's very interesting. I mean, if I told you Bitcoin was totally legal, was totally sanctioned in the United States, and you could go crazy with it, have fun with it. And we came up with maybe a capital gains, you know, treatment for it that was different or unique in some way. And then we said, hey, we're going to go down and we're going to help XRP and Doge and whatever else is out there. Solana, we're going to help them have a very clear regulatory environment. But every time you

SPEAKER_286: trade in and out of crypto, both sides pay 1%, it goes to the government wallet.

SPEAKER_19: I want to ask a question about this because I have been lightly sympathetic to the idea that crypto does not match one-to-one to existing securities law. And we might need a couple of tweaks to make it work a little bit better for crypto. It sounds that when you say third way and, you know, a different

SPEAKER_88: approach that you're anticipating something a little bit more broad, Jason. So I'm not

SPEAKER_59: like you're on the spot, but I'm curious, like, why does crypto need a separate and more lenient

SPEAKER_51: set of rules compared to traditional securities that you and I know and love?

SPEAKER_00: Great question. You cannot take your Netflix shares and use them to fund a rendering cluster of computers

SPEAKER_119: and then burn those, you know, as a utility token, etc. So those shares just exist as a piece of paper in a ledger somewhere that you own a share of a company. They don't have any utility in the real world. An NFT is a collectible. It's obviously the NFTs. People are buying them when they buy a Beeple NFT.

SPEAKER_03: It's a one-of-one. It's a piece of art. He is a known artist. That doesn't fit in there either. So and then when you have a DAO and everybody's voting on what to do with their crypto and which NFTs to buy and then what rights the NFTs have, can they come to this party or that party? That's more like a membership club, but it trades like a currency. These are called innovations.

SPEAKER_00: Those innovations should be allowed, but we should allow them while making sure that people don't steal the money and grift. And if it's permissionless and there's a network of computers that nobody owns the network, but each individual's own nodes, well, then that has to be accounted for as well. Because who's responsible when somebody loses their money? Who's a retiree in Florida? Well, here's very simple regulation. Each of these projects has to have an overseeing committee. That overseeing committee gets paid compensation in order to make sure there's insurance for the project, that there is KYC, that people are looking to make sure it's not being used for money laundering or terrorists or human trafficking or whatever terrible thing that could be done with these cryptocurrencies. People have reported that Tether is being used for. There's many reports. It is the currency of choice for the criminal underground, which by the way, $100 bills were also part of that. Gold bullion and diamonds are part of that. It just had to be Tether is a quicker way than handing somebody an ounce of gold for whatever you're trafficking. So I think those are all examples of things that the current system doesn't take into account. And it's very simple. Accreditation. Start with a sophistication test. I have been shouting this on every All In episode, every This Week in Startup episodes for, well, 14 years, ever since I got exposed to this, because I know that people want to, in my family, in my friend circles, or employees of mine, want to participate in something like thesyndicate.com where we share deals. 90% of the deals will probably go to zero in any of those platforms. And so I expect ours will be similar. And I wrote a book about this. It's, and there's a book called The Power Law. People love to get educated about this stuff, but I can't offer for, I don't know, a million Americans to put in a hundred dollars each into a startup, like let's say CafeX, which we did some syndicates for the top 5%, but maybe the public wants to buy shares of Uber or Robinhood when I had access to them. And I could have said, you know what, I'm going to do something where I offer to drivers, the ability for them to put in a hundred to a thousand dollars. They're not allowed to, but they know Uber and DoorDash and Lyft and Sidecar before it better than anybody because they're doing it all day long, but they're not allowed to be, to participate. So just start with the accreditation laws is my message to Washington,

SPEAKER_98: and then let people participate in risky things as a percentage of their income or net worth. Those two things would solve the whole problem. You want to buy XRP and you know, half the people think it's a scam, half the people think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

SPEAKER_297: Great. You can spend up to 10% of your net worth on cryptocurrencies in this experimental category.

SPEAKER_88: I find it very interesting that your example about Netflix maps so neatly to Bitcoin.

SPEAKER_19: Yeah. Own a bit of Netflix, sits in a ledger somewhere that you own it, and you can't use it in a DAO. It's not a utility token. It's not going to get burned. That's holding ETH or holding Bitcoin, which would make them, by my logic, securities. And this is when I really

SPEAKER_88: begin to struggle. I do think that there's something to your point about how we have DAOs and other things that don't quite map to securities. And if you buy a token that is designed to be a lever

Chamath Palihapitiya: on a system instead of a corporation or as a group, sure. What if a musician, what's your favorite heavy metal band? Fit for an autopsy. Fit for an autopsy says, we are putting out a new

SPEAKER_14: double record and it's going to cost us, are they a major signed label band or are they? They're on

SPEAKER_36: nuclear blast records, Jason. So maybe they spend a quarter million dollars to make an album.

SPEAKER_303: Sure. I'm putting a number out there. Somewhere between that and 500, yes.

SPEAKER_03: Okay. So let's say 500,000 is what it costs to make a really high quality record. They say,

SPEAKER_36: hey, our label dropped us, but we're going to offer our fans $500,000. And you each get to own for every $5,000 is 1% of that record for all eternity. And you get your name on the back cover.

SPEAKER_03: They can't do that right now. They can't do that. They're not allowed to. They can do it for

SPEAKER_00: 5% of the country at an expensive cost. But what if you said, you know what, for me, it's about supporting the band. I want to own 20 basis points, $1,000. For me, being able to go to

SPEAKER_36: the concert to get a signed album. So every $1,000 gets a signed album. So they have to sign 500 albums.

SPEAKER_01: Would you spend $1,000 to get a signed album, go to the concert and have your name in the record

SPEAKER_161: label notes as one of the producers? Oh yeah. I would do that for no recognition. If the band was like, we're broke, send us money. I would send them money. So, okay. They do that for their album

SPEAKER_00: and they get to own their masters for all time. And the community gets to own half of their masters alongside them. So half of the equity goes to them, half goes to the community. You can't do that right now. Why can't you do that? Because we have antiquated security laws that want to protect you, Alex, and the other fans from spending your money. You're not allowed to do it because

SPEAKER_01: in the eyes of the SEC, you're not sophisticated enough, which is another way of saying you're dumb.

SPEAKER_19: Well, just as a reminder to everyone, what Jason's talking about in the accreditation test, according to sec.gov, currently the financial criteria is net worth over a million, excluding

SPEAKER_101: your house, or if you and your spouse make 300K or more per year in each of the last two years.

David Friedberg: You're accredited probably. But anyway, putting it all aside, you 10 years ago weren't accredited.

SPEAKER_309: Oh God, no. I was anti-accredited.

SPEAKER_20: So back then, you were writing for TechCrunch. You were brilliant. I met you in your first couple of years in the business. You were too stupid in the minds of the government, unsophisticated,

SPEAKER_119: to do that. Now, you were sophisticated enough to go take your $1,000 and play poker and lose it to your

SPEAKER_20: friends or give it to whoever. You go to Vegas and put it on a roulette wheel. So that's what I'm talking about. And that's the kind of stuff that you could then sell it. Let's say that album becomes

SPEAKER_119: one of the best-selling albums of all time and your equity and it's worth 3X. And your kid's going to college and your 5,000 turned into 15 and you want it for college, you could sell it to somebody else in the Dow instantly without any going public or anything, just in a wallet. So the way I would

SPEAKER_03: say it is projects under $100 million in total market cap should be able to do whatever the hell they please as long as they're registered in some way with this is the people who have started

SPEAKER_58: the project and we have some basic insurance that costs $1,000 or something.

SPEAKER_51: So I love all of that, Jason. You're speaking my language. I would love to have more ways to

SPEAKER_19: work with fans of other artists that I love, especially fans that are struggling in the Spotify era. But here's the thing. All we need to do that is to just update the securities laws to be a little bit less stupid. None of that requires a special set of rules for crypto that's distinct. So to me, I don't think we need a third way. I think we need a more intelligent main path. And I just think that it's not a sin that many assets in the crypto world are securities. And so what we should do is we

SPEAKER_88: should just make the securities aperture a little bit wider, which I think is what you are. I think

SPEAKER_03: we're getting to the same place here. Yeah, I'm saying a third way, because I think there's so much innovation here that you really need to start from a blank sheet of paper and really understand, you know, is this a situation where you do need to know your customer or not? Right? Is this a situation where it has to be registered? If it's like NFTs, you know, and they're trading under a certain dollar amount and they're trading cards, like I don't know that you need to be so worried about KYC, et cetera. That's why I think you could like let people start small projects as the projects get bigger. If there's a central authority, they have to register, et cetera. But anyway, you're correct that a lot of what I'm saying could also be viewed as evolving the securities law. And when I say a test, I mean a test similar to a driver's license, an easily accessible test,

SPEAKER_15: not something you pay where you go to school for, for a year or two. I'm talking about,

SPEAKER_03: you spend six hours in a course on your own time. That's a free course online. And then you take a 50 or 150 question test and you're licensed. In other words, you can't go back to the people who sold you a, you know, a JPEG and say, oh, this JPEG isn't worth the $50,000 I spent on or the 5,000 or the 500 because you took a test that said, there's no inherent value to this because it's a piece of art. And it's the only way for this to have value is for somebody else to believe it has

SPEAKER_119: value. And there may not be a buyer for your piece of art ever again, because you take the long

SPEAKER_101: piece. Yes. Well, that's why I buy all art on the predication of, I love it. If it goes up in value,

SPEAKER_19: huzzah. Look, we have a couple more names though. Emile Michael, former Uber executive,

SPEAKER_250: named under secretary for research and engineering. Congrats to Emile. I don't know him at all. I know

SPEAKER_140: you do. And so tell me why he's the right guy. I mean, he was Travis's right hand man. He will

SPEAKER_163: get any deal done. He is just, if you wanted to have a deal maker by your side, he'd be top three

SPEAKER_15: in the industry to grab. If you want an operator, you know, deal maker, aggressive, you know, this is like, this is like getting a version of Travis on your team for the government. And so whether you

SPEAKER_00: like business people or not, sharp elbow people or not, aggressive people or not, in our government, we've had the opposite. I am here to have aggressive, hardcore, driven people who want to perform at a high level in the government. I predict all these nervous Nellies, all these people who are negative about this right now, you know, who are like, oh my God, we're just, this is oligarchs. We're turning into oligarchy. I think these people actually are doing it in a patriotic way. And I think we're going back to a founding fathers type situation where the most successful people in the private sector go do a tour of duty, give up making money for four years, eight years, whatever it is, and then they come back into the private sector. Or in some cases, they're able to do both in some of these positions, but some you can't. And we don't know in each of these positions, which ones are, you have to divest everything you can't. We're going to find out. I can't wait

SPEAKER_101: to read the financial disclosures. I wonder who's poorer than we think.

SPEAKER_293: Well, I mean, and then the other thing is, you know, they're going to, in some cases have to divest.

SPEAKER_163: And if you're worried that people are going to be, you know, you know, people are going to be

SPEAKER_03: grifting or talking their own book or working their own book, this is something that exists already. All these generals, all these people working in defense do like whatever number of years at Raytheon. Then they go work in government. They go back to Raytheon. It's a revolving door. It's well known, but it's all, and it's a problem here. You have high profile people who've already made their money. We're playing for legacy. I would judge them based on that. And just, you'll know if there's any type of corruption or grift, it is going to come out so fast because AOC, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and that group are so tuned in to making sure it doesn't happen. There are checks and balances in our system. That's my belief. I could be wrong.

SPEAKER_15: This could be one of those clips that gets played and people go, look, you were wrong, but I am an optimist. I think that this is the default case. I think everybody's going to be quite pleased with the performance of these individuals.

SPEAKER_101: Okay. Well, that brings us to one last name, just adding one more to the mix because Jason's

SPEAKER_19: giving them all lots of points. So one more for the scoreboard. Michael Kratzios, someone that actually that's, this is new to me. He's going to help with SACS on emerging technology. He's currently an MD at Scale AI, a company that we all know, but this was one of the tech

SPEAKER_286: people that I didn't already follow. Yeah. I don't have a relationship with him. Can't speak to it. But again, I think what we're going to see is a really young, high energy, tech first,

SPEAKER_00: entrepreneurship first, less regulation, lower taxes, less spending, more efficient and competitive America. That's my guess. And I think people are going to learn to appreciate what this group can do. And back to people with Trump derangement syndrome or who don't like Trump or who have concerns about his leadership and his track record in this Trump two point era. My major concern was that people who I consider incompetent, racist, xenophobic, deranged, dumb, the whack pack. Remember some of the whack pack he had around him the last time around, like really bad actors, people with nefarious intent, people who were really dark individuals. In my estimation. Now you've got people who are rabid capitalists. This is the ultimate upgrade. This is the ultimate upgrade. Steve Bannon versus Emile Michael or David Sachs, like massive upgrade. So thank your lucky stars is the way I'm looking at this. If this was Trump 1.0 and it was a bunch of Steve Bannons, then I'd be super concerned. This is a much better turnout. So that's another way for people who have concerns to maybe think relative to who Trump could hang out with. Maybe this is better.

SPEAKER_38: No, I definitely I'll take someone who's run a business over Steve Bannon because I would take

SPEAKER_19: the gum stuff to the bottom of my shoe before Steve Bannon. So low bar there. But I do appreciate

SPEAKER_236: the optimistic take here. I'm trying to be optimistic. I'm trying to be optimistic. And,

SPEAKER_15: you know, these in some cases are many of my close friends. So I am as biased as that comes. I am.

SPEAKER_59: Oh, I understand that. But but this is one of the times in which I think bias is useful.

SPEAKER_88: Yeah, because you're speaking from not just people that you've met a handful of times, like the great people that journalists meet, you know, three, four or five times total. These are people that you know very deeply. And so that gives you, I think, a better view into what they'll do when people aren't looking, which I think is basically what character.

David Friedberg: Absolutely. I can tell you, David Sacks made enough money. Elon's made enough money.

SPEAKER_20: Emil Michaels made enough money. I know that they don't need they're not doing this for money. I've had conversations with many of these people about why they're doing it. I won't say which ones. They're doing it because they actually think America needs them. So whether you think that's deranged, delusional, delusions of grandeur, put it all aside. They feel called to serve. They feel called to put, you know, whatever number of years of entrepreneurship and increasing their net worth during one of the great eras in technology, the AI era. They think it's more important to save America in their minds. They literally think they're saving America. Now, people will laugh at it. People will criticize it. But I tell you, that's truly what

SPEAKER_03: they think. They want to. They think that national debt's an existential issue and they want to help

SPEAKER_119: and they want to make the government more efficient. I say, give them 12 months and write a scorecard.

SPEAKER_88: Right. Yeah. Well, the only thing I'll say is, I do hope that people remember that,

SPEAKER_51: and I just pulled up the latest numbers, that Trump won 49.9% of the vote. Yes. Now that is 1.5% more than Kamala did. Shout out.

SPEAKER_339: But I'll just say- 3 million? What was it? 3 million Americans more?

SPEAKER_145: Let's see. It's 2.3 million more. Okay. So-

SPEAKER_19: It's not- They won. Shout out. Yes. But I do hope that there's also a recognition that not everyone has the exact same vision. And so I hope- Oh, no. Other people also have a chance to have a voice.

SPEAKER_163: Literally, the reason I'm saying this is because I know that there are a bunch of people who are very concerned. And I have told them, and I said it on an episode of All In, I think it's

SPEAKER_00: important for Republicans who have a very high troll level, a very high vengeance level, explicitly stated, for them to say, you know what? Let's do this for all Americans. And I told them on the other side, again, Captain Nuance here, I am a moderate. Just like I'm telling the people on the left, hey, give them a chance. Judge them based on the results. I told them publicly on the All In pod, on my Twitter, and I've told them privately, do not troll people and make sure the benefits of Doge, make sure the benefits of efficiency are felt by the bottom half first. And my pitch to them was, all the gains that we see, if we can get back in the black as opposed to going into debt, let's say we're back in the black by whatever amount, and we can reduce taxes.

SPEAKER_119: They should just come out and say, you know what? All tax reductions for the next four years are going

SPEAKER_163: to the bottom. 75% of the country, the top 25% are not going to get any tax breaks. That would be

SPEAKER_160: the high ground. And I would love to see a tax package that was actually progressive in that way.

SPEAKER_19: History is not kind to that kind of expectation, but there's always a new chapter to be written. So again, leaning on your optimism here, I'll take it. Because here's the thing, Jason, we're in the car. We're going over the cliff. Geronimo. So it isn't like we're like opting in

SPEAKER_18: or out here. You and I are side by side here and someone else is driving. Yeah. I mean, my perception of you now working with you a couple of times a week here is you're a moderate techno optimist who is liberal socially. Am I correct? Capitalism, technology, and gay rights.

SPEAKER_163: Okay. Awesome. And so you put that package together. I think we're in a good place right now. I think you're going to be pleased with how this goes. Well, I mean, look, I love a good

SPEAKER_38: surprise. But before we go, I have a couple of really funny comments from the audience that I do

SPEAKER_19: want to bring up. So a while back, Toronto filmmaker Irvon X said right now, 13% of Canadians are in favor of joining the US according to a recent poll. So we have some work to do to get Canada on our side. It's currently upside down, but I like that. And LMNOP, that's a great name, says Greenland would be great for natural cooling of data centers. To which I say to you, LMNOP, yes, but have you heard about climate change? So that will have a multi-hundred year ceiling to it. Interesting you

SPEAKER_20: bring that comment up. There have been data centers that were put in cold locations with,

SPEAKER_119: you know, good natural energy sources. And somebody told me the way they designed them

SPEAKER_118: is to put fans in them and to have the wind and where they place them be where cold air will blow

SPEAKER_119: into it. So during certain months, they actually literally can open the doors as it is on either side of the data center and have the freezing air below through the H-100s and cool them down.

SPEAKER_349: I love that. Now, I don't know if that's reality, but that was explained to me by a data center expert

SPEAKER_19: that that existed as a concept. Did you see that Microsoft thing from like, I want to say five years ago when they wanted to put a data center in like a shipping container underwater? Yes. I thought that was so cool. And that was before the AI boom. So I want to know, actually, okay, here's a question. If you are building something, or to our friends in the audience, that involves really, really insane data center cooling, AlexW at launch.co, shoot me an email. I want to talk to you because this is an issue that I just love. Jason, we have one more show before the end of the year, and it's the twisty. So it's going to be a little more retrospective. So let's just, let's end here. End on a positive note of just saying that let's hope everything goes better than

SPEAKER_51: we expect and make everybody benefit to the nth degree. And may this be the new onset of an American

SPEAKER_293: century and may my concerns be wrong. Yeah. Golden age. Let's do a golden age. Stay positive,

SPEAKER_113: folks, because you have no choice. We're in the car. You're in the car with them and Louise

SPEAKER_119: heading towards the cliff, folks. We'll see you all on Monday with the twisty awards. Sign up for the channels. And my pitch to you is in 2025, I want you to start a company, be independent, start a company, you know, like Alex did. He works here with me, but he also has cautiously optimistic.

SPEAKER_03: Cautious optimism. Cautious optimism. We have to put that in your lower third. Can we get lower thirds here now that we're using Restream? Cautious optimism, then I won't mess it up.

SPEAKER_118: Cautious optimism.substack.com, I believe is the newsletter. Give him a hundred bucks.

SPEAKER_20: Yeah. Help him out here. Let's build a foundation. He's been entrepreneurial. He's here half the time. He's doing his newsletter half the time. And founder.university, which I'm going to be

SPEAKER_118: bringing and I'll be announcing next year. Founder University is going to be coming to another

SPEAKER_18: region in the world. You teased this on the last AI with Sunny. If you want to go get a little more, there you go. Go back in the archive. Founder.university, coming to another region

SPEAKER_358: in the new year. Talk to you soon. Bye-bye.