SPEAKER_02: let's go jason start let's go do you have any intros let's go let's go let's go all right if SPEAKER_01: you want intros we're not willing to pay for them so don't even go there SPEAKER_04: sax is awake all right well then we'll start with you sax if you want to do your job you'll do the SPEAKER_06: intros and if you want to if you want to slow roll your effort because you think you're negotiating SPEAKER_09: with us don't we don't give a shit listen i'm doing all the projects i think we care about your SPEAKER_11: intros do a bad job we don't care waiting in the wings all we do all right well then i'll just do SPEAKER_02: three sax intros in a row oh my god it's so true do do a couple bad jobs so that we can boot you SPEAKER_24: off the show oh that'll be so quick all right here we go all in summit i packed the joint but sax won't SPEAKER_28: give me an extra point his crypto holdings they can't find a floor gonna have him flying commercial for the first time since 2004 welcome david sax back to the program the rain man good to be here ah now freeberg i never wanted to see him go but you gotta show up for work you can't do every other show the sultan of science he's certainly not a fad but then again did you see those ratings with brad welcome back the sultan of science by the way our show beat brad's SPEAKER_32: rating so thank you very much jcal okay well a little drama always builds a little audience okay here we SPEAKER_28: go chamath a little healthy competition well chamath he's in italy living a life so grand his next spack a luxury wine and sweater brand this market is leaving him in a daze so he's been tipsy in the mediterranean for the past 10 days welcome back the dictator thank you thank you i just i put them SPEAKER_38: on stun i didn't want to do any kill shots there since everybody's a little on edge including the SPEAKER_28: audience the audience had a lot to say about whether we cover a lot of the controversial topics roe v wade january 6th and ukraine all i did a bunch of surveys 50 of people want us to talk SPEAKER_42: about and 50 don't so uh we'll see which ones we get to say yeah do you think we should be surveying SPEAKER_44: the audience to ask them what they want us to talk about because when we started the show we just SPEAKER_46: talked about stuff that we thought was interesting sure and people happen to like it and listen and tune in for it if you end up asking the audience what they want don't you end up becoming like a fox SPEAKER_47: news or like any other kind of media company where you just ultimately use the feedback loop to drive SPEAKER_48: yeah i mean i wouldn't every week of the show i will tweet like hey anything you want on the docket SPEAKER_50: because sometimes people will have good ideas um but yeah certainly you shouldn't base it on like SPEAKER_52: a survey no i think it was just like a way to get some feedback yeah we were just yeah that's how we started was we were just kind of being intellectually honest with each other and curious about stuff we were SPEAKER_46: interested in and it worked and if people don't like it they don't like it i mean i don't think we should the big controversial thing like a like a vote for your topics and that's what we follow SPEAKER_57: definitely not we should i think we'll agree on that i think just there is an ongoing debate SPEAKER_59: amongst the audience of what percentage of this show should be politics and when should we talk SPEAKER_61: about politics and are we doing too much politics and so i think let's start with markets let me ask SPEAKER_44: you one more question do you think our objective should be to grow the audience or should our objective to be talking about the things we want to talk about yeah what do you think i mean what do you think SPEAKER_01: sex yeah i don't think it's a good idea to poll the audience about what we want to talk about SPEAKER_06: is the objective to grow the audience yeah well i think it's good to have an audience otherwise what are we doing but yeah um but look at what the audience showed is that half i wanted to talk about those topics roughly and half didn't i suspect that most topics are going to be like that you know SPEAKER_59: unless it's not markets and people like i think 80 90 percent of people want to hear us talk about SPEAKER_46: markets and startups yes like our core stuff right david i'm just saying if your objective function is to maximize your audience you're going to end up making a tiktok video of people twerking or something SPEAKER_63: you know it's not like the show did you just volunteer to twerk on the show i'm not going to do SPEAKER_59: that no no i think i'm pretty sure it's from off well i have the video of freebird twerking at uh all in summit anyway oh hey oh all right let's get started with um i think what's going on in crypto because people do want to hear about that and it's been quite stunning a british virgin island court ordered the liquidation of three arrows capital three ac after creditors sued the crypto hedge fund for failing to repay its debt they had three billion in assets under management they had a huge position SPEAKER_50: in the now defunct uh stable coin terra and its token luna and they were trading on some massive amount of margin uh how much and what deposits they were using to do this uh we will find out now they're being forced to liquidated to be liquidated three ac owed voyager digital 650 million could not pay it which sent voyager stock down 60 and caused them to need a bailout from sam bankman freed which has led to uh sbf as he's known in the industry bailing out a couple of other major folks in crypto he provided a 200 million dollar credit line to voyager digital this is a canadian crypto lender uh they'll lend you money against your crypto uh and uh ftx provided a 250 million dollar credit line to block fi uh ftx is obviously sbf's company and according to early block fi investors the ftx credit line would wipe out all existing shareholders so we're starting to see the really uh onerous term sheets to keep these things alive this is of course in the face of an SPEAKER_59: entire crypto collapse with many crypto coins seeing what we saw in growth stocks is this the end of SPEAKER_80: crypto uh is it going to rebound again what are your thoughts jamoth sacks freeberg who wants to start SPEAKER_82: on crypto did you guys see the chart that i posted into the group chat that showed bitcoin activity as function of year and value can you just put that up just so that we can look at that together the crazy SPEAKER_84: thing about this chart when you look at it is and it's pretty obvious is that we are collectively in one way shape or form basically trading up uh ever since 2018 really with all the stimulus because if you look at you know the mean price of bitcoin about 2018 it was a nothing burger you know what we were talking about was you know a price that was sort of between a few thousand dollars two three thousand ten thousand three thousand you know and then all of a sudden when all of the stimulus money SPEAKER_89: hit the market look what happened to it but i think something unique also happened which is that people really understood how to run these very complicated off-chain bitcoin arms and i think we should explain SPEAKER_84: what those are because those are what's behind the three arrows capital it's behind you know i think sam had this kind of um oblique tweet that said you know some of these exchanges are actually already in salt that they're already the walking dead so the first thing to keep in mind is that you know this is a completely unregulated market right there are no middle maker uh market makers per se that actually have reporting requirements to any regulatory authority there aren't any clearing houses there isn't a way for us to understand systemic risk as it builds in the crypto market so what happened starting in 2018 and 19 is people realized the following things were true it's sort of what we SPEAKER_89: talked about last week you go and do some crazy round you uh you know mark up some phantom equity in a company that company then issues tokens you then list the tokens not on you know a blockchain per se SPEAKER_84: obviously but uh in a place where trades can happen off chain right and there's a bunch of exchanges where these things happen off chain because it's one you know uh company and then they have a bunch of segregated sub accounts and what happens is when these things initially get listed retail goes crazy the price goes up folks basically dump on retail um and you know you spin that loop as fast as you can SPEAKER_92: and you can extract an enormous amount of money along the way all these things like defy all of a sudden popped out of nowhere and it's like hey you can earn 15 16 17 18 percent just deposit the bitcoin and so folks would deposit bitcoin but then what would happen is like the places where those deposits were held would then need to obviously find places to make that 11 12 or 13 percent and so then they would go off chain to some other random person who was offering to pay them even more than that and SPEAKER_89: they would try to art the difference but it all catches up with you because when something like a terra goes to zero all the bitcoin that was used to basically you know uh run that defy process around tara vanishes you know and then all of a sudden you the lender are like hey can i have my uh bitcoin back and the broker's like well actually i don't have it i lent it to somebody else let me ask that someone else and they're like i'm sorry i don't have it but i have these terra coins you know because i was running some arb and now it went to zero and that's essentially what we're seeing right now so we have two big problems and then i think we have a third that's kind of funny the first big problem is like obviously in the absence of any regulatory oversight this stuff is going to happen systemic risks SPEAKER_84: are going to build up that's what we're facing right now is an enormous amount of systemic risk largely around bitcoin a bunch of this money i think has been essentially just vaporized and so SPEAKER_89: all these people that try to find their deposits especially in custodial accounts in off-chain brokers SPEAKER_82: may be sol at some point and i think that's just going to be a huge show if that actually happens SPEAKER_94: and to be clear chamath they don't have the keys to their own bitcoin they gave money SPEAKER_96: to a custodial account they then did this lending went out to get them to 15 percent and they don't have any recourse here they can't get there well look at this why real bitcoin owners put them in a SPEAKER_97: wallet and own the keys does anybody have recourse to this three arrows capital and all of this other interrelated parties that are now you know gone completely bankrupt because of this scam the answer is SPEAKER_89: absolutely not um so that that's the first problem you have absolutely zero oversight which means systemic risk has been built up in the system um the second thing is that exactly what you just said jason is that people don't even understand chain of custody here which is that you thought SPEAKER_92: that you owned this bitcoin it turns out you actually may not actually own them at all you thought that you were properly lending them out you actually don't there is no enforceable contract SPEAKER_89: it turns out and so i think that's going to be an entire set of different legal issues that are now going to come to the service because people who actually legitimately lent this stuff out SPEAKER_92: for example like if you short a stock and you go and borrow stock from any one of us they're really tight guardrails you know if you wanted to go and put a credit derivative swap on against debt there's a central clearinghouse that makes sure you're not over levered you know you have to go and get audited by a bank to even get in the kind of account that allows you to put these SPEAKER_89: derivatives on none of that was possible in crypto and then the last thing which i think is kind of funny is that we've had to listen to every millennial and gen z market observer in crypto tout how this is not like boomers and they turned out to be the same same things i mean this is the thing of all it's like of all of the times you've had to hear how it's so different it turns out it is entirely the same entirely entirely it's in fact worse the custodian issue is definitely a SPEAKER_103: major one sax what do you think is happening in crypto right now the price is obviously going down SPEAKER_06: a lot i don't really have a new point of view on it i'm mainly pissed off that sbf is trying to raise my taxes in california explain that sam bankman freed he runs ftx and his company he lives in the bahamas okay and there are probably reasons for that related to liability or taxes or something like that can you tell us what what ftx does they're like a coinbase competitor but they obviously think it's beneficial to be offshore and not under u.s jurisdiction and they're very profitable right yeah supposedly they're super profitable i mean he's worth like 10 or 15 billion dollars this is my understanding so he's been very successful at this i don't know why they're in the bahamas i think either they're in there for securities regulation reasons or for tax reasons but it's one of those two in any event he doesn't live in california and yet he is sponsoring a ballot initiative here that would add a 0.75 tax on incomes over 5 million to finance a pandemic prevention institute of his design he's doing this with dustin moskovitz another billionaire doesn't know what to do with his money he was may remember that dustin was the guy funding chesa budine in any event this would be this pandemic prevention institute would be governed by an unaccountable board as opposed to something like the university california this is like them using the ballot initiative system to fund their pet philanthropic projects i mean there's really no need for this i mean first of all this is sounds like something that should be done federally yeah SPEAKER_112: exactly it's well first of all it's looking in the rearview mirror in terms of like a budgetary priority but even if you believe this was a priority i don't know why it'd be the responsibility of california taxpayers exclusively and even if it was you'd want to do it under say the uc system some sort of accountable board as opposed to having a report to you know sam and dustin so it makes no sense and this is really going to hurt the california tax base because if you start raising taxes on you know california millionaires more of them are going to leave the state and then that tax revenue leaves the state and so it actually hurts the general budget and that's why you know california teachers association for example opposes this is because they know that this is going to have a negative impact on core services what is but what's offensive to me is i mean so first of all this is just a stupid idea in like every possible way but what is a guy who lives in the bahamas doing funding ballot initiatives in california to raise our taxes thereby worsening the california fiscal situation to fund his pet philanthropic projects if you're worth 10 billion just fund it on your own you know do it through your family foundation i don't know why you need SPEAKER_116: to raise the taxes on all of us yeah that's very bizarre i think why is he giving well the simple SPEAKER_84: answer is because i think it helps curry favor with politicians that he needs for other things SPEAKER_118: but this is why you would do it that's why i would do it this is currying negative favor because first of SPEAKER_112: all every millionaire in california should be up in arms over this but even i'd say yeah i mean but i'd say even liberal politicians and interest groups in california like the like the teachers SPEAKER_06: association don't want this because the money is not going to a cause they support and it will probably it will almost certainly drive down the state's tax base right because people on the margins are going to SPEAKER_125: leave we already have the highest taxes in the nation we're at what like 13.3 percent for the top SPEAKER_127: end we have a hundred billion dollar surplus for a reason all these ipos all of these venture capitalists ceos and rank and file tech workers are just paying massive amounts of tax here and SPEAKER_112: they're leaving right but that's highly levered to capital gains right and so last year we had a boom market we now know in hindsight that it was inflated that was all driven by this liquidity bubble so do you think that's gonna be the case this year i think we'll do for a huge budget shortfall next year because there's going to be no capital gains they better hold on to that hundred billion for sure the california tax base is highly leveraged to this boom bust cycle and driving the top earners out of the state is only going to worsen that impact so you know but again i question why is a guy in the SPEAKER_135: behind it'd be one thing if it was just dustin doing it i guess but i don't understand why sam's taking the lead when he's not even a california taxpayer because i think he's a very sophisticated SPEAKER_84: player in not just crypto but frankly uh regulated and unregulated finance and look he i think he spends a lot of money in dc as well and i think that he has a very thoughtful game plan and then you know when you look at who his parents are his parents are really really smart thoughtful people as well two law professors at stanford and so i suspect not knowing and having spoken to him that i think that there's a really specific strategy that these guys have around who they need to influence and what they care about and then willing to as a pass through fund those things in order to carry the you know influence that he needs for the things that he cares about and i suspect that it's that kind of worst trading which is i think it's pretty typical in u.s politics um the the question though is what will happen if ftx um has to really talk about you know everything that's actually happening in crypto crypto you know i'm sure that ftx could do a lot to help understand a lot of this off-chain activity some of the you know especially the stuff that's really in the gray especially the stuff that's going to come to light over the next few years is i mean you you have to understand guys like you know we've forged two trillion dollars and it's not of institutional capital you know SPEAKER_138: this is overwhelmingly retail capital all of this is going to inspire a lot of uh district attorneys and doj activity the discovery is going to be bonkers and it's all going to be regulated to the SPEAKER_94: point of in which it kills a lot of the opportunity i think this is going to become the most regulated SPEAKER_112: space well i don't know i mean i i if the goal here was to curry favor then i think sam must think SPEAKER_06: there's not going to be a red wave in november because i don't think republican politicians are going to look very favorably on a guy who's using his money to raise taxes in a state he doesn't even SPEAKER_144: live all right well let's move back to the crypto piece let's move back to yeah let's move back to SPEAKER_147: that's the bigger thing not a few million dollars of lobbying at this point with this many retail SPEAKER_149: investors well actually let me let me start with this friedberg is there a real technology here and how SPEAKER_50: much of what we've just witnessed with this crypto collapse and the crypto boom-bust cycle how much is this based on what you would perceive as real technology that is going to advance the human species forward and how much of this was hype if you were to put a percentage on it you know trillions of dollars in assets you know created and then wiped out how much of this was actually real technology how much of it was a complete utter waste of time and a grift i'm no crypto expert and i've not been SPEAKER_46: an investor in cryptocurrencies i read the original bitcoin white paper makes sense bitcoin itself to me makes sense as a potential uh initially it was kind of interesting as a potential alternative currency but the transaction fees were very high and so it never really seemed to make sense as a replacement for traditional financial networks until those transaction fees dropped below those of the traditional financial networks um and the the biggest concern i've always had which i've mentioned multiple times on the show is that whenever anyone talks about a quote cryptocurrency they talk about the price of it in dollars and if it really is meant to be an alternative to the u.s dollar why are you talking about it in the price of u.s dollars and it's up and it's down relative to dollars and that implies ultimately that the intention would be to transact back to us dollars which implies that the intent is not to be a replacement for the u.s dollar which was a lot of the early prognostication of bitcoin was it was going to be a replacement for the u.s dollar it's going to be an alternative to traditional monetary systems but ultimately if you're just measuring SPEAKER_58: this in dollars and it's up and it's down everyone's freaking out every day about cryptos up cryptos down SPEAKER_46: that means it really is more like a security except securities definitionally are supposed to have a secured interest in some underlying set of assets and there's no underlying asset it's not actually a security because it doesn't provide you a secured interest in anything so it is effectively a bet on some systems of computers that are meant to facilitate some set of activities that you know ultimately people really only seem to value in u.s dollars so um so i i don't know i mean like where does it all go it seems like i mentioned at our predictions uh episode last year that all of these smaller things are going to get blown out these quote unquote cryptocurrencies even though many of them don't really act like a currency and you know maybe bitcoin itself persists and it seems to me like that's always going to have good staying power as an observer i'm not a participant and uh you know anytime someone telling you something's in dollars and it's going up and it's going down and you're betting on whether it's going to go up or go down and your intention is to transact back to dollars you know and and there's no one there's these have been securities the whole time this is the problem SPEAKER_154: this is the problem i have with it this has been you know a shadow securities stack that was created in parallel to the existing one with a lot of you know oversight and what did we think would SPEAKER_63: happen if you created a global casino with no rules other securities have an underlying interest SPEAKER_46: in something this has an underlying sure interest in some line on the blockchain of that particular network that's exactly that's exactly what it has yeah it's a secured interest in a line of code in SPEAKER_84: on a distributed no it's it's it's it has a secure a bitcoin has a legitimate uh non-fungible entry in a blockchain that says it and only it represents that thing and i think that that you know is is i guess that the the link some may call it tenuous but i i mean i tend to think at this point bitcoin SPEAKER_92: probably has to be regulated like a security even even if it is not and it's more of a commodity only SPEAKER_161: because of the the volume and the sheer size of both the market and the the potential fallout is SPEAKER_96: the way you're saying it right the potential fallout when things go off the rails is so great you kind SPEAKER_89: of need to have some rails yeah i mean i mean like like again as i've said like look if you're a a market SPEAKER_92: participant trying to trade you know very sophisticated you know derivatives of any kind for example in the credit markets we have to go and we create these things called isda's they're called this does you know and it's basically a kind of an account that allows us to go and you know take risk in some of these very esoteric markets but the the underlying principle around that is a common set SPEAKER_89: of parameters a clearing house the ability to monitor risk none of those things exist here and i think that's really what folks have to solve for now secondarily is what were all these kind of like shadow activities you know it just it turned you know it seemed too good to be true when you would hear wow this d5 protocol will yield you 24 and you're just like who was paying the 24 it never made sense really but then none of us really questioned it you know i you know i had people on this week in SPEAKER_165: startups i questioned it all the time and they could never explain it to me and then now the explanation SPEAKER_38: was well we were giving you we were giving short-term loans to other people who basically wanted a margin loan you know they want to they don't want they want to hodl their bitcoin but that was only four or five percent what they were also doing was giving you tokens in some other cryptocurrencies uh that they were basically originating so they basically were like we'll give you four percent on your bitcoin loan somebody else will pay that uh you'll pay that but then the other eleven percent SPEAKER_96: is coming from some tokens we're giving you that actually you know you have to airline miles we have SPEAKER_84: to answer you airline miles we have to answer a really important question if you we've we you know look the the markets have incinerated many trillions of dollars i just saw like for example there was 1.7 trillion you know that was just torched in etfs alone just in the since the beginning SPEAKER_92: of this year right we've done that or more uh in the crypto side we've done that or more on public equities right we're probably going to do that or more in other markets but every other market is regulated and there's a full accounting of the p ls and the dollars that are won and the dollars that are lost and here some folks have just you know basically escaped with billions and billions and SPEAKER_84: billions of dollars and the bag holder is just you know a regional investor so the real question is SPEAKER_89: are regulators going to actually care to try to do something because oh yeah the level of grift that's happened in this market is extreme and especially when especially when everybody was telling you no this time is different this market is completely different it's transparent SPEAKER_168: it's on chain you can see everything it turns out actually most of it was not on chain it was off SPEAKER_96: chain and they were using they were using this hey have fun being poor this like psyops to get SPEAKER_59: you to participate okay boomer you don't get it gensler i was talking to kramer on cnbc here's the quote some like bitcoin and that's the only one jim i'm going to say because i'm not going to talk about any of those these tokens that my predecessors and others have said are a commodity um and then he said many of these crypto financial assets have the key attributes of a security aside from bitcoin he believes you know like these things are securities and that makes sense because 99 of SPEAKER_38: people buying them sacks were buying them because they wanted to see them appreciate they were never using these as utility tokens they were buying them to you know i see them appreciate and to flip them SPEAKER_59: so what do you think sax is there is there when we look back on this whole mess in 10 years is it SPEAKER_50: going to be like the dot-com era where we're like yeah it got overheated but amazon and google came out of it or are we going to look at it and go well that was tulip season well i think there is um a future SPEAKER_06: technology platform here with crypto um but i mean i've been saying this for the last year that just because there's a future technology platform doesn't tell you what the pricing should be and the price action got decoupled from the level of progress in the space um you know you should always be looking at what is the real usage use cases customers revenue things like that and people stop doing that and i think part of the reason why the narrative was so powerful if you go back to last year and the chart that chmas showed about the the increase in the price of bitcoin which is really the the root of everything right because you know first bitcoin appreciates and then if you think about it like ethereum is ethereum's market cap is like a derivative of of the bitcoin market cap it's been roughly 40 percent and then the altcoins sort of get the market cap of the altcoins is sort of derivative off ethereum's market cap so the whole thing kind of moved up in in sync and the reason SPEAKER_112: why bitcoin moved up so much is that as the fed kept printing more and more money you had fans of bitcoin saying look the fed is debasing the us dollar we're going to need an alternative currency that was a powerful narrative that the fed seemed to be vindicating and there was a positive feedback loop which is the more the fed debased the currency the more that the price of bitcoin went up now the reason the price went up was not because they were debasing the currency it was because SPEAKER_06: they were creating so much liquidity that that it created a liquidity effect that then drove up the SPEAKER_96: price and then so so consumers had money that they could buy bitcoin because they were there was more money in the system yeah you created more buyers a bit that's exactly what happened they SPEAKER_176: i mean all of this idiotic narrative sorry go ahead sex yeah you saw an increase in speculative SPEAKER_179: investments across the board including but not limited to crypto so again you know when the fed SPEAKER_112: prints too much money it creates asset bubbles but there's a powerful reinforcement because as the fed was printing bitcoin and supporters of bitcoin had a really great explanation for why bitcoin was going up which is they're destroying the us dollar we're going to need an alternative soon now i think in the very very long term could bitcoin be a non-fiat currency yes i mean i actually think the technology works you could create a a new kind of currency that's backed by math and by cryptography as opposed to fiat government but that could take a really long time i mean that could be decades in the future and but what happened is the market started thinking well that's going to happen soon and that's where it just got ahead of itself that was the tulip part of it yeah i think that i think that SPEAKER_84: they found all of these words you know written in these economic textbooks that allowed them frankly to justify what a lot of people were doing in a lot of other markets which is just straight up speculation SPEAKER_89: because the money printer was going burn and you know if the if you look at this 92 correlation to SPEAKER_92: the equity markets i suspect in bitcoin and crypto is probably closer to the even a hundred percent um because it really was the furthest out on the risk curve and it just made the most sense when you thought money was you know effectively infinitely going to be available to just buy the riskiest risk SPEAKER_154: assets think about the friction taken out of this chamath you could buy these you know uh crypto currencies so easily you could trade them so easily you could create one so easily people were popping up SPEAKER_38: forks of these things so in a way what technology has done over the last 30 or 40 years from cloud computing to software to open source has made it very easy to pop up a startup well you could pop up a currency and then you could get an incredible reward and you get this incredible reward before you actually SPEAKER_148: make a product for consumers and and absolutely zero rules and oversight no oversight yeah SPEAKER_92: the feature that was touted was actually the first one to get thrown away which was transparency SPEAKER_89: yeah when all of this activity was actually happening off chain this is why you have this systemic risk issue now when sam is saying some of these exchanges are actually insolvent what he's saying is well that exchange has one master wallet address every time you open an account and transact on such exchange you're actually just transferring between a database entry inside of that company and so it may look like it is fine but it is actually not fun that's what he's claiming this is the problem with all of this so all of this activity you know built on these principles of openness and you know defensibility and you know you you can't inflate it and you know devalue it and debase it turned out to not even matter because the fundamental principle that would allow us to verify all of that was violated right from the get-go which was transparency all of it is happening in the dark most of this stuff is happening off chain and if you think that you know it's okay to torch a trillion dollars of equities well SPEAKER_92: at least there's rules on the equity side but to torch two and a half trillion dollars in crypto SPEAKER_89: where there are no rules it'll be really you know it'll be a very telling sign to see if these folks get their act together and but meaning regulators and politicians and do something well then we made SPEAKER_59: this crazy hybrid where we had the venture community and i'm not going to talk about any specific firm here and to be clear you know nobody knows exactly what's happening but you had coins you can't know SPEAKER_148: by the way you can't know because it was happening off chain exactly so somebody would originate a coin SPEAKER_154: and i was you know offered these deals and you would as a venture capitalists be buying some equity SPEAKER_38: in a company and then some amount of tokens would be created before the token was released to the public or before anybody had insights into this these tokens were swapping around everybody had different rights some people could sell early some people could never sell and it was as if you know you took the process of going public and you gave that to a seed stage or a series a company before they launch their product so you're taking a company public essentially before they go if you SPEAKER_196: if you subpoena they launch their product if you subpoena the exchanges all of this gets turned over SPEAKER_82: yeah because the exchanges are the honeypot of off-chain activity yeah so and that's what's going to happen SPEAKER_50: i think in all of this and it's going to be really funky this is and what's terrible about this is this is why the accreditation laws exist is like oh only sophisticated people top six percent of americans are allowed to participate in private companies and what did we do we allowed a hundred SPEAKER_202: percent of people on the globe to participate backed by pure math back that less than a thousand SPEAKER_203: people in the world actually understand that what could go wrong what could go wrong you cannot buy a stock but you can buy this cryptographically secure you're not allowed to buy a share of linkedin or SPEAKER_201: uber or airbnb even though you stayed in an airbnb we're an airbnb host you're too stupid to buy airbnb shares when it's private but you can buy this cryptocurrency that doesn't even have a product SPEAKER_92: in market oh and and here's this white paper that has you know university level pure math as the explanation of why it nothing can go wrong and it turns out again because nobody actually understood in SPEAKER_206: the first place this is going to be a decade of discovery if you look at that price chart what it SPEAKER_89: really means is like again you know we talked about this if the equity markets have to rebase SPEAKER_92: and get all this qt qe out of it yeah right and then you have to rebase for earnings if you believe you're in a recession and then you have to rebase for margins if you believe that there's rampant inflation those three things have to happen in the equity markets we're in the midst of that yeah but that also has to happen on the crypto markets in the crypto markets and if you look at that chart what it really tells you is that the baseline price of bitcoin where things seemed you know where rational supply and demand were meeting each other before all these you know five ten thousand thirty five hundred to five thousand yeah i say about five thousand seventy five percent SPEAKER_50: from here yeah it's twenty thousand now so yeah we got we got we could we have ways to go one thing that i thought was an interesting sign of potentially bouncing along the bottom um zendesk has agreed to be acquired by an investor group in an all cash transaction they're basically going private here uh for around 10.2 billion uh if you don't know zendesk is a help desk software company it's a sas SPEAKER_59: software company they turned down a similar acquisition of 17 billion earlier this year their SPEAKER_50: market cap is 9.1 billion in the public markets it's gone up obviously since it's announced this was announced but um they have uh a billion three in revenue they're up 30 year over year so this is a SPEAKER_59: strong company but the acquisition price is 7.7 times their 2021 multiple sorry did you say they're up 30 percent year over the revenue is up 30 revenue is up 30 year over year they have 1.5 billion SPEAKER_61: dollars in cash and securities uh that are you know marketable security so they're cash rich SPEAKER_59: small loss 223 million for the year in 2021 so they have six years of runway if nothing were to change yeah what do you make of this sacks is why would they do this they don't have to so and is this to you like the sign of a bottom if we start seeing a bunch of these companies that went public that are seemingly strong start to go private and to go maybe clean up their balance sheet and go public again in SPEAKER_215: three years what's going on here well i mean this isn't a horrible outcome and by the way i mean i SPEAKER_06: remember we shared uh when i was doing yammer a decade ago we shared a floor in uh our an office building at 410 townsend with um with zendesk and they launched a tech crunch 50 yeah yeah exactly so we had i think 5 000 square feet and then the other 5 000 square feet and we were in a standoff both of us were expanding and we needed the other half of the floor and it was like who would move first basically and anyway they ended up moving and we took over their space but so i mean look this is a company that you know was worth 100 million bucks 10 years ago so whatever it was i mean they were still you know they were very early stage so this is still a great outcome should they have taken the 17 billion sure with 2020 hindsight that would have been better but look you're seeing the valuations here being roughly reflected the sas index is now down to about five and a half times revenue i think SPEAKER_112: next 12 months revenue for them for the median sas company and the median sas company is growing about 20 percent if you're a high growth company which starts at 40 percent you're trading at about eight times next 12 months revenue so zendesk is sort of in there i mean that is what they're trading for SPEAKER_165: and sas founders why go why would the founders the board i'll tell you what to go private is the SPEAKER_92: question on people's minds it's not it's not that they wanted to go private i think that they wanted to stay public and they wanted to build a large business but this is where the law of large numbers catches up with every company that's why it's so rare to have an apple or a google or a microsoft or a facebook or netflix where you can grow for 20 years at 25 plus percent because at some point 25 growth over last year just becomes too hard of amount it's a big number and so what zendesk suffered from is what most of these sas companies not and i'm not trying to disparage them just calling it out will have to go through which is the following the easiest kind of sas company to start and the SPEAKER_84: one that folks you know really talented investors like sax will fund overwhelmingly over others are what's called bottoms up sas right things that sell to the low end of the market things that sell into SPEAKER_226: you know individuals can buy them in a corporation as opposed to the cio yeah the the unfortunate part of SPEAKER_92: that growth curve is that it's pretty terminal within seven to ten years and after that you're forced to go to the mid-market and then eventually you're forced to go enterprise but when you go to the mid SPEAKER_84: market and you're selling to 500 and you know 1 000 2 000 person companies and then eventually even enterprise you're talking about massive investments of opex people engineers product managers sales people SPEAKER_92: and all of that stuff costs money and it's not clear that your product is any good so in the zendesk example it's not to say their products were bad but all of a sudden they were going up and selling a crm tool a salesforce automation tool and now you're going head to SPEAKER_89: head against companies like salesforce who are going down market and all of a sudden salesforce and microsoft and all these companies can play very aggressive pricing games with their products SPEAKER_92: they can bundle all kinds of other things in for free they can give you discounts and it's very hard to compete as a single individual company so your growth starts to stall so i suspect what happened at zendesk is they said we can make it and we believe in ourselves and they found that it was hard then instead of organically growing that's when they turned down the 17 billion dollar SPEAKER_89: offer they tried to grow inorganically they looked at survey monkey right which our friend zander runs and said we're going to try to buy that for 4.1 billion dollars and the market said uh-uh no SPEAKER_92: and then the market basically contracts and now they're like well if we go and now torch our ebitda goals and tell the market we're going to go and spend all that billion dollars we have to try to go up against salesforce and microsoft with a product that we don't know is going to work our stock is going to be at a dollar and so i think that that's sort of the the parade of terribles that happened for them but it's a little bit of a warning sign for how difficult it is to get big like SPEAKER_89: what salesforce pulled off right and what workday is starting to pull off what service now has pulled off i mean you can't underestimate the quality of i mean google apple facebook i'm saying i'm saying specifically enterprise sass yes those companies service now probably being the last one that's really did it incredible so difficult palo alto networks is probably the next closest one now SPEAKER_233: and salesforce to issue acquisitions let's be clear right salesforce doesn't matter how you get there SPEAKER_92: organically and organically it doesn't matter the point is it's very hard where most ceos fail nobody so is this going but okay so my original question is is this the bouncing SPEAKER_149: along the bottom moment because we have peloton we have buzzfeed we have so many of these companies SPEAKER_89: this is a warning sign okay there's why yet the bottom well this is a warning sign that says you cannot go into a massive investment cycle for all companies unless you can prove that you can sustain margins SPEAKER_149: sustain growth and minimize opex but isn't this a very sophisticated buyer taking it private they must have a thesis of how they're going to get their money back right so that's my point is saxie you SPEAKER_96: think like that this is like if if the company's already public and somebody thinks hey you know if i take this private i can do better than if it's public and i'll reintroduce it to the public markets to get liquidity later isn't that what's going to happen here in all likelihood you're making that SPEAKER_196: statement in the absence of understanding how these things are financed well it's got a billion five SPEAKER_241: and it's and it's break even almost so okay what is it about the what about the the billions of SPEAKER_92: dollars of debt they're going to take out and slab off this company right what about the number of people they may be talking about post going private at the end of the day the private equity firms are not trying to make you know this 10 billion dollars go to 25 they're trying to make the 2 billion of equity they put in go to three and there's a lot of ways that two can go to three SPEAKER_165: before 10 goes to 25. so they want a modest return it's not a modest return it's 50 return it's a lot it's making a billion dollars it's hard yeah but but compared to the management team and the board's view of being a public company and growing 20 a year or it's actually in their case 30 would that be a better opportunity for those shareholders that's what doesn't add up here sacks what do you SPEAKER_06: think if i had to guess i mean i haven't talked to mickle about why they're doing it i think that they're operating at a new stage of the business i don't think it's as fun to be growing a company at call it 20 to 30 a year and now all of a sudden you have to generate cash flow and you're being valued on that i mean they're past so management burnout is your thesis i don't know i mean it's it seems a potential thesis i think that's basically why people sell good businesses like i actually don't think there's a problem in their business i think that growing 30 a year with 1.3 SPEAKER_112: billion in revenue plenty of cash in the bank i think they have a good product i don't think there's anything wrong with the business yeah i think that that i do think founders get burned out and this is an exit and i do think that the phase of their business they're in right now is not going to be as fun as a high growth phase look when you're growing 100 200 a year and investors are willing to fund that growth and they don't really care if you're profitable that is just more fun than growing a business 20 to 30 a year and investors are breathing down your neck saying when are you going to deliver cash flow and what the private equity guys do is they're going to go in there and they're going to restructure the business to deliver cash flow now i think ultimately these types of businesses they're great these software businesses they're great business to own because they're high gross margin and you know they've got a subscription base that just keeps growing organically if they've got positive net dollar retention so you've got a let's call it a 1.3 billion dollar subscription base that will grow to 2 billion over the next whatever half dozen years and quite frankly i bet you the private equity guys are going to take out half the cost structure there's no reason this thing could be generating 500 million a year in free cash flow but the management SPEAKER_197: team would be unwilling to do that because it's a different it kind of sucks to do that every day to SPEAKER_96: come in and fire half the team that you hired and take that hard medicine it just is a bummer for that SPEAKER_06: personality type i think it is a different kind of management challenge and yeah i don't think it's SPEAKER_112: that fun and but look the thesis behind software companies the justification for them burning money was look we're gonna we're gonna spend every dollar in revenue that we make and then some because we're building a subscription revenue base that again has positive net dollar retention so one day okay one day we won't have to keep investing so much in sales and marketing we won't have to keep investing so much in r d we'll still keep investing to some degree we'll make the product better but it's SPEAKER_262: going to be a little bit more maintenance mode we will get to maturity and then you can lay off a SPEAKER_133: third of the staff and all of a sudden and then and then all of a sudden the company's gonna be super SPEAKER_263: profitable and the fact of the matter is is that day never came because the markets never demanded it SPEAKER_92: now that day is here no no hold on it never came because the markets kept demanding more growth if you look at their long-term operating margins you know when they first when they first came out public it like had like a negative 30 margin two years later they had a negative 50 margin and over the last seven years so that was 2015 up to now they've crawled their way back to negative 13 so at some point i think investors said oh my gosh this company has never made money it needs to keep investing more in order to grow and i think david to your point maybe the decision that he didn't SPEAKER_46: want to make was to flip it to a cash cow i don't think that's true i looked at um these guys have been generating cash their reported gap earnings are negative because of the stock-based comp expense meaning that they're issuing well there's a big topic to discuss here and i think that that's SPEAKER_58: actually worth highlighting because this is an important one because people have been talking about SPEAKER_46: this considerably lately so this company's been making money every quarter they generate cash but in the last quarter they issued 60 million dollars in stock to employees to compensate them for the work that they do so that's 250 million roughly of dollars per year of stock-based comp which is two and a half percent of the total shares outstanding in the company are issued as employee comp SPEAKER_58: every year that number results in a dilutive effect to shareholders over time even though the business is generating cash your relative ownership as a shareholder in a business that's generating cash is going down by two and a half percent every year because of all the new shares that are being issued to compensate employees for the work that they're doing and i think that's part of the issue that a lot of folks kind of have taken for granted this was well rooted in i would say probably google who SPEAKER_46: became very generous very early on with issuing rsus and stock in their publicly traded securities to employees as part of their compensation package but google has a 30 40 percent ebitda margin in terms of incremental contribution of new new revenue and they can afford to take a point or two of dilution google by the way is actually not dilutive they they buy back shares with their extra cash so as a a shareholder you actually benefit from this considerable cash generation but a lot of software businesses and tech companies in general have had to rely on issuing shares to compensate employees for the work that they do so even though the core fundamental of the business is generating cash and SPEAKER_58: cash is going up every year the business doesn't know how to get out of this cycle of how do you pay these engineers four hundred thousand dollars a year without diluting shareholders by issuing all these SPEAKER_46: new shares every year and you'd have to do that more likely as a private company to figure out how to consolidate earnings how to trim headcount and actually get the thing to generate the cash SPEAKER_88: it needs to generate but freebrook isn't that a real like you're pretending like it's some fake cost SPEAKER_270: yeah it's not it's it's a real cost it's a cost to shareholders for sure but why but why why the SPEAKER_271: asterix well no there's a specific reason because the business itself operates running out of cash it's SPEAKER_58: not burning cash the business is growing its cash balance but in order to compensate employees for that cash balance they're diluting you the shareholder right look when you own a share of a company okay which by the way is another way of saying that the company is effectively issuing two and a half percent new stock every year to fund its operations i mean that's another way to think about SPEAKER_92: it look i'll give you the warren buffett school you can tell me that it's stupid but it kind of makes sense which is you take the number of shares you own you divide it by the total number of shares SPEAKER_84: outstanding you look at the total profits and you say my look through earnings equals that SPEAKER_273: percentage times the total profits yeah and your percentage is going down every year with stock-based SPEAKER_202: comp that's the problem and so the question is it's also going down because you're buying real SPEAKER_84: estate you're hiring people you're paying them more like it's going down for a whole host of reasons that asterisk is an irrelevant asterisk in my opinion like at the end of the day you spend money to grow how you spend the money is not that important to me let me say two quick things on SPEAKER_277: the topic one is um yeah i totally agree it's an expense on enterprise software and sacks you're you're the the the master of the art but um you know as an observer it seems to me that many of these SPEAKER_58: companies once you have an enterprise account you benefit from being able to cross sell new products into that account and you can grow this net revenue retention number over time and ultimately generate cash many of the big enterprise software companies that we've talked about from SPEAKER_46: salesforce to workday and others have succeeded in doing that autodesk is another good example and carl bass i think is on the board of zendesk they've done um they've done this successfully by bulking up their product categories and they're they've done acquisitions or they've done build outs and so over time your incremental cost to uh to to sell a new product and generate um incremental gross profit goes down and the business performs better with scale this seems to be one of those SPEAKER_58: businesses where ultimately they couldn't bulk up through acquisition and they couldn't organically build new products and they tried and so the challenge is they're kind of a i don't want to say a one-trick pony but the portfolio of things that a business like this can sell into and ultimately increment gross profit is very limited and that business becomes challenging to operate as a public company because you really do have to show that momentum as a scaled enterprise software business SPEAKER_46: that you're actually generating real cash over time the other thing i just want to say on stock-based comp and sorry sax come back in one sec but chamath and you guys i don't know if you realize this but the standard in silicon valley today um when a company goes public in an ipo SPEAKER_58: is to have what's called an evergreen stock grant proposal um and evergreen um basically means that every year the company is authorized the board automatically authorizes the issuance of some percentage of new shares per year this is typically in the range of four percent and iss and other you know kind of institutional shareholder advisory services actually vote against these shareholder proposals and push back against them but most of the companies in silicon valley that go public automatically include evergreens as part of their you know kind of ipo prospectus i mean can we agree it's out of control like it's yeah which means that every year they can they can dilute shareholders by SPEAKER_50: four percent and independent of how the business operated that year which is effectively the same SPEAKER_58: as doing a four percent secondary cash offering every year because it's this you're issuing those shares into the public market and instead of getting cash you're paying your employees with them and so it avoids you having to use your own cash balance to pay your employees so you're effectively raising money every year and you're allowed to raise up to four percent dilutive effect to shareholders to do that every year and it's become a real topic and it seems to me that a lot of the big portfolio managers of big institutional funds are starting to pay really close attention to this quote-unquote standard in silicon valley that stock-based comp expense has become so high and evergreens have become kind of a standard as almost like an ordinary course of business and it's become um you know a really contentious topic and i don't think it would be too surprising number one to see cash salaries go up and number two as a result of that to see salaries become rationalized in silicon valley where engineers may start to get challenged on the standard 400k per SPEAKER_46: year that everyone's become used to um you know in terms of you know high tier uh you know SPEAKER_65: remote work maybe there is a a compromise that could be had but this compensation you have to remember SPEAKER_96: has been outrageous in some cases especially for senior management and so it makes the core business look broken but what we actually have is maybe people who are on these boards are also in on this compensation and it's just bad hygiene and it's not related to the performance of SPEAKER_58: the company right i don't think i don't think the board people are quote in on it i think that's it's just it's you have to pay an engineer 400k a year to compete effectively in silicon valley SPEAKER_154: today well i was talking more about the management's the management stock comp the management stock comp is different than the engineers you would agree for you very like there have been some enormous stock grants board yeah yeah certainly if you want to run the company SPEAKER_06: as a high growth startup with employing these high paid engineers and executives including stock compensation that is a certain kind of way of running the business but again if you're trying SPEAKER_112: to run the business for profitability that's a different way of running the business and just to add a layer to what happened here that zendesk was under intense pressure from an activist investor called jana who was basically trying to replace the board of directors they're running a proxy battle against them so jana has been pressuring them to replace the board to make all these changes that to take the 17 billion dollar offer i guess back in march they didn't do it now they did a lower offer at 10 billion why i think because the market has clarified we now it's it's clear that we're in this regime change what the market is valuing is free cash flow as opposed to profitless growth SPEAKER_179: growth and my guess is again without having talked to mickle my guess is they probably just threw up SPEAKER_112: their arms said listen you know like it's not going to be fun to run the company this way but you also have to you have to ask the question why are these highly sophisticated private equity firms buying it for 10 billion i think they're going to make a lot of money and the way they're going to make a lot of money more than a billion yeah they are going to slash the hell out of the cost structure they're going to run it to be highly profitable they'll probably bring the growth down from 30 a year to 20 percent or 15 but the benefit the offsetting benefit to reducing the growth a little bit will be they could probably generate three four five hundred million of free cash flow on that business if it's doing 1.3 billion and they stop investing in r d and they stop and they bring down the sales and SPEAKER_287: marketing that could be a that could be a cash cow like you said so i think that's probably what's SPEAKER_223: what's going on here um is the just i just want you guys to know not to burst this bubble but SPEAKER_84: when people talk about free cash flow they touted a lot tech companies touted a lot because you're SPEAKER_92: allowed to add back in stock-based comp as if it didn't exist the problem is that stock-based comp is SPEAKER_89: non-cash so when when your only source so if you see a company that has negative ebitda negative everything all of a sudden they're like quote-unquote free cash flow positive it's because they were able to add back in stock-based comp but that money is not real so when the only source of free cash is stock-based comp that free cash flow doesn't reflect the company's true profitability this is what i mean by people play these shell games with these numbers to allow you know oh let's you know value something based on ebitda actually no because you know our stock-based comp is off the charts let's actually go to something else you know we'll do a non-gap ebitda measure you know you know adjusted ebitda and then oh actually wait sorry look at free cash flow because you can add back in this gargantuan SPEAKER_92: amount of stock-based comp i mean it's crazy i'll just the quote from we work the the quote from warren buffett summarizes the best if compensation isn't an expense what is it and if real and SPEAKER_89: recurring expenses don't belong in the calculation of earnings where in the world do they belong i think SPEAKER_06: what we're seeing right my point is is not that comp isn't an expense it is but rather that it's an SPEAKER_112: expense that you can control by reducing the amount of staff my guess is that i think these private equity guys are going to basically whack the cost structure of this business i'm just saying you can SPEAKER_301: distort free cash flow as well because you can head back in stock-based comp it's a joke it's a little SPEAKER_32: bit of a shell game going on it's like the dirty secret let me ask you an like an important SPEAKER_46: investing accounting question let's say that a business like um zendesk is generating 100 million SPEAKER_58: dollars of free cash a year no no what does that mean well hold on so every year their cash balance goes up by 100 million dollars they have a business it generates 100 million dollars of incremental cash every year the cash balance goes up so you as a shareholder own shares in a company that is creating 100 million dollars of cap of incremental capital per year however your shares that you own are going down because they're getting diluted every year by roughly two and a half three percent and that's it's two and a half percent is zendesk's actual number so every year you're getting diluted by two and a half percent would you rather have a business that you are getting diluted by two and a half percent but it's incrementing its overall balance by a hundred million dollars or would you rather own shares in a company that's burning cash each year and i think that's where this ended up from a market perspective getting rationalized is shareholders said i want to have the safety and security of cash generation and i'm willing to take on the dilution for it and that's how this SPEAKER_06: became you know as standard as it is when i think about funding a new startup uh and i look at the competitive landscape when i see that the competitors have all been acquired by private equity companies SPEAKER_112: i generally think okay there's room for innovation here because i know that the first thing the pe firms are going to do when they acquire a company is like zero out r d or just put the product on maintenance mode there's no innovation that happens yep with the product once the pe firms buy the buy it right so the reality is i think so those are good targets for startups they'll do acquisitions right sex i mean they'll find yeah they'll do roll-ups right because it's they will do financial innovation they will innovate the the structure they'll cut all the the wasteful spending and all the SPEAKER_312: nonsense and lunches yeah exactly once they want to like cut out all the kind bars yeah the kind SPEAKER_313: bars expose brick walls like all this nonsense yeah so who do you think the vegas trip yeah SPEAKER_112: this stock-based compensation is going to go away because they're going to get rid of all the high price engineers they're going to get rid of the a lot of the high price executives they're going to probably they're going to have to keep customer support they're going to increase cash salaries probably they'll bonus people they'll just do bonuses for hitting targets instead of giving people as much equity in the business and they'll run it like a you know private equity type type play SPEAKER_317: how do you do this sex it's not fun it's not interesting to me right yeah i mean we're going SPEAKER_318: to see innovation it's not like you're building your product i think david the other reason why it SPEAKER_92: wouldn't be fun is like it's a it's a level of financial engineering which is highly sophisticated i think for some people it is fun i think for us it's less fun because you're not necessarily creating SPEAKER_321: a company per se not innovating you're not being a product person you're yeah but i would say that it SPEAKER_92: is highly sophisticated and the folks that do it at these places that these private equity firms are incredibly they're very good at it savvy at how they do it um and it's it's all the twists and turns of how you you know lever this up and use debt and blah and use a margin loan and pre-fund the com i mean and it's not the stuff that necessarily we want to be thinking about but that's what you'd have SPEAKER_112: to do as well i totally agree with that look i'm i'm happy they exist in the ecosystem because we need firms we need more exits right and we know that right now in washington the the regulatory regime is very difficult it's very hard to get deals through so at least you have private equity SPEAKER_06: firms that are providing some exits and we need the ecosystem needs and those exits you're saying sacks SPEAKER_127: don't trigger like comp competitive concerns with lena khan and her group right like yeah some private SPEAKER_61: equity firm took this private okay salesforce didn't buy it so we don't need to get through SPEAKER_112: regulators you're going to see a lot we need exits in order to justify the risk capital that goes in at the earliest stages which in most cases is going to be a zero and just to give you some other numbers SPEAKER_50: out there manscaped uh which is the company sells razors for guys uh they had 315 million in net loss SPEAKER_215: in 2021 with 310 million in stock-based comp by the way that number can also be distorted just to be SPEAKER_58: clear if you give a one-time big grant to an executive like a ceo yeah the way that the accounting works on stock-based comp it's not the kind of thing you can have a very simple kind of descriptor on but you can have these very significant short-term costs associated with a big grant that could vest over SPEAKER_46: a long period of time sure with that that has very high strike prices i mean when elon got that massive grant at tesla the stock-based comp expense was significant but you know what the interesting way into it SPEAKER_333: it was that was there were 20 targets or something crazy like that and all of them were based or a SPEAKER_50: lot of them were based on the stock price and the delivery of cars so that's one of the things that i think is broken yeah yeah so this is one of the things that's broken in silicon valley is that SPEAKER_333: the comp in the stock-based comp is not tied to performance it's like just giving people SPEAKER_46: guaranteed salaries in fact i was going to say jason like there is more sophistication to be clear in executive comp and public uh technology companies i think that should trickle down to the junior SPEAKER_336: people too i think everybody should rise and fall with the company's performance that's my personal SPEAKER_50: feeling i mean this is the problem with entitlements you know and people being entitled to sorry to be like a red pill here but we should have like performance should be lauded and compensated for not just showing up and hanging out there's going to be a bunch of companies in this position so look for this as a trend peloton 964 million last quarter in revenue lost 757 million in the quarter they have a 3.1 billion dollar market cap they've only got 879 million dollars worth of cash i'm just looking at these numbers hopefully they're they're tight um and they have a billion for an inventory that company is going to get taken out uh buzzfeed i don't know why that even went public SPEAKER_38: they're down 84 percent they had 91 million media company and 91 million dollars in q1 revenue they lost 45 million their market cap is down to 210 million and they've only got 74 million in cash or so with some you know maybe 100 millions in accounts receivable so there's a bunch of companies right now that are public that are about to hit in a couple of quarters running out of cash going into a recession are we going to see some big flame outs do you think and are you watching specific SPEAKER_216: companies because the private equity folks must be salivating watching this well i mean look you SPEAKER_06: asked what the takeaway was around this and i think the takeaway is there's been a regime change in the public markets the way that investors look at these companies is changing it's not about growth SPEAKER_112: at all costs anymore they're not just looking at revenues it's also about margins and cash flow and you know we talked about in the last pod how i think a lot of founders understand intellectually that we're headed for a downturn if not a recession but they weren't taking the medicine of basically reducing their burn well this is an indication of what investors are valuing if the only way for zendesk to create value as a public company is to sell to a private equity firm who's going to SPEAKER_179: have the staff is going to cut off or some huge number of staff to run it for free cash flow SPEAKER_112: that's just an indication of the regime change so you know we need founders to start internalizing this information so they can run their businesses more efficiently you know what investors want right now they still want growth but they want it with low burn high burn operations are going to get SPEAKER_161: punished i've transitioned most of my public markets time to focus on debt um and i've been looking at Chamath Palihapitiya: these companies because yeah because there's a lot of these really interesting tech companies with a SPEAKER_92: lot of because what david said i think is a hundred thousand percent right what sacks just said there is SPEAKER_84: an massive massive regime change here and yeah and when shopping you if you don't take the medicine yeah SPEAKER_92: and and what what's funny is like so many of these companies have been left for dead but what is really juicy is the few companies that you think will survive and specifically making SPEAKER_236: sure you're protected in the capital structure which means to own the debt because the debt is always senior to the equity and there's some really really interesting companies out there that are in that situation and it's just like it's a much better risk reward in a moment where again you know we talked about this but why would you give up your liquidity today i don't know the answer why why you use this term jason before like skipping along the bottom i just think it's like psychological wishful thinking as opposed to sort of like a rational summation of the actual jerome powell just said i will tank the economy in order to beat inflation he just said it in the wall street journal but people believe inflation might be turning over do you buy that or not no as i've said i think you're gonna see eight and nine percent inflation prints for at least the next three or four months minimum i think that things could get um marginally better after that but i think the thing we don't know and again it just touches and i don't care what the audience thinks touches russia and ukraine so sorry to bring up politics but no these things are inexorably intertwined and if people want to go and venture and gamble in the stock market you might as well understand this because i think you know many of the scenarios will trade because of what's going to happen with putin let me let me ask the question here how many quarters SPEAKER_336: will this recession be if we had to pick a range pick a two-quarter range i'm thinking three to five what SPEAKER_50: what do you think i have no idea okay freeberg you gotta this is the second how many quarters plus or minus two let's say uh is this recession going to be so five plus or minus two four plus or minus two plus or minus one what are you thinking will be the bottom out point i don't SPEAKER_46: like the term i've told you guys i don't like the term quote recession as if it's some absolute negative thing i mean negative gdp growth coming off of inflated gdp doesn't feel to me as as uh systemically challenging to the economy as uh you know but some other circumstance where for example there was a global financial crisis or uh 9 11 or some other kind of factor that that that drove things uh that that really affected the core economy we're certainly we hadn't we had something that that affected the core economy and covet then we had massive stimulus so i i don't i think there's this unfortunate general characterization of quote unquote recession being an absolute negative and i think that there's relative growth and if you're if your relative growth is negative off of an inflated number but over okay let me give you let me let me just finish but over a historic two or three year period you're still growing the economy considerably because jobs uh jobs are growing and production is growing uh it's not as negative as it's being made out to be so i i'm not gonna okay i get you get SPEAKER_165: into let me let me ask you this way then how many more quarters will we have of stocks and real estate and assets declining in value or being flat that's a financial markets question which i think SPEAKER_58: is a different one and one thing i've realized is that financial markets in the short term uh you know SPEAKER_46: the old warren buffett quote or whomever it is that over the long term equities are a weighing machine in the short term they're a voting machine as we've seen with crypto it was a voting machine that everyone voted on the the hot thing does your and now everyone's voting against it so i i don't know SPEAKER_58: they're weighing it now yeah well yeah i mean at some point you hold a cryptocurrency long enough you'll find out how much fundamental productive value it's creating and the same is true for owning SPEAKER_46: businesses or other real assets you'll find out over the long run how much productive value they're SPEAKER_165: creating so so you don't want to answer the question of when we hit a floor okay sax when do you think we hit are we are we hitting a floor now we have a lot more to go down tell you one point SPEAKER_58: of view i i am looking at buying high quality share businesses buying shares of high quality businesses right now okay i think that there are things that are that are cheaply priced that if i own them for SPEAKER_46: a long enough period of time the underlying productive value of that business will return my capital to SPEAKER_375: me and so you have one that you might want to mention here that you're looking at i don't SPEAKER_306: because you don't want to share some tips at the summit with our friend uh sonny he's his trades are up but like i told him these are longer term trades what do you think in terms of and then we'll SPEAKER_59: go to some of the political stuff that affects markets after this well i mean i think it's all SPEAKER_06: related so there's three things going on here right now economically or three underlying causes one is rate expectations have changed massively interest rates have gone up and rate expectations are going up even more fueled by inflation and until we see where we're at on inflation whether that gets controlled that issue is not going away the second big issue is economic slowdown the recession so the first one is wall street this is main street and these two things are related because companies are slamming on the brakes because they're seeing that the capital availability is greatly getting reduced by this re-rating this regime change in markets so we're seeing an economic slowdown that threatens to turn into a recession and consumer confidence is part of that right when your wages don't buy you as much because food and gas prices are through the roof that reduces consumer confidence and that also plays into that so that's the second big issue and i don't think we're going SPEAKER_112: to know about recession it's going to take you know potentially through the rest of the year before we figure out what's happening there and then the third part of this is the overhang of this war in europe the ukraine war which is now threatening to become a forever war there was a pretty stunning article in the washington post this week in which the administration officials were quoted as saying that they would effectively prefer or countenance was their word a global recession and famine over letting russia keep the donbass region so they are committed now to basically prying russia out of the donbass even if it means global recession not to mention they say specifically the donbass or specifically standing up to putin because that's kind of minimizing what we're talking about is is the donbass region what's happened is look the russians lost the first few weeks of the war in which they SPEAKER_179: tried to strike they basically went for a knockout blow to take over kiev topple zielinski i think we SPEAKER_112: accomplished something in preventing that but since then they have achieved their objective of taking over SPEAKER_179: this eastern portion of the country this donbass region in which this is where most of the ethnic russians live and these ukrainian separatists who are ethnically russian they've been fighting alongside the russian troops and the russians have basically won that part of the war and so the question is what do we do now and what you had is you had administration officials saying that they would not accept the status quo that they are willing to fight on for years you know the same geniuses who gave us the forever wars of the middle east are now giving us a forever war in eastern europe and they are saying that they are willing to basically continue this fight even if it means global recession now i don't think the american people ever voted for this but this is what the SPEAKER_112: administration is pursuing and you know you got to remember that there's always the risk that this war spins out of control that we get a nuclear escalation so i think that this is a huge overhang on markets it's the third big problem that we have so i don't see how we get out of this bear market until you get clarity and resolution of inflation and rates number one slow down to recession number two and basically this war in europe number three and it's reflexive because uh these next three months SPEAKER_84: as i as i kind of indicated last week i think we're going to see inflation uh prints that are really high in part because things like rents which haven't you know which are on a lag will get folded back in so we're going to be printing eight and nine percent and then guess what jason it's the fall it starts to get colder you know uh russia's depriving europe of nat gas um where's the oil going to come from opec is basically still stiff farming the united states with respect to expanded production capacity why because they didn't like the way that we were strong arming them and a whole SPEAKER_236: bunch of other topics in you know and so where do we stand you could have 180 a barrel oil by november december when it's cold not just here but in continental europe now all of a sudden inflation gets kicks right back up again it could be seven eight nine percent again i so i just think all of these things are now so inexorably intertwined i think david's right we need to put this war to bed Chamath Palihapitiya: and the unfortunate consequence is that right now if we want to fight a proxy war there is no elegant SPEAKER_103: off-ramp that i see so the prediction markets just so people know are predicting point eight point nine SPEAKER_94: percent uh additional inflation in june over and i think that's over last month and last month was 8.6 Chamath Palihapitiya: so we're going to be at nine and a half jason could you imagine what the markets do if we print a double digit inflation print 10 and a half percent 10.1 just the psychology of that uh well consumer SPEAKER_138: psychology is really low right now no not consumer psychology i'm thinking market psychology no market SPEAKER_50: too yeah so we put those two things together and then if this war is never ending and the famine that um and the impact on 40 million people or something like that that freeberg predicted is actually going to happen in the next six months uh this is going to feel quite chaotic to people around the SPEAKER_138: world so we we do need to put this work to bed for sure there's no deal on the table right now but SPEAKER_112: the deal that we've talked about on previous shows there was always the broad construct here even before the war began was there were three pieces to it number one was that that ukraine had to remain a neutral state as opposed to being brought into nato and having american troops weapons and bases on russia's border that was always a red line to them and in exchange for neutrality ukraine would get security guarantees piece number two was that in the eastern region where you had these russians these russian speakers that their rights would be respected and that they would have some autonomy SPEAKER_179: and again that was something that ukraine agreed to under the minsk accords but it was never properly implemented and the third piece was that russia got to keep crimea which again was a fait accompli that happened in 2014. smart observers of this conflict have been outlining that three point plan for over a year and that is what we're going to end up with the only difference is that it's going to be implemented by force and ukraine will be destroyed in the process that is basically where we're at right now russia has they've taken over the donbass they've taken over this eastern 20 other country they have crimea and ukraine basically the the rest of it will not be part of nato that is basically what the russians have done is implement by force a plan that frankly we could have agreed SPEAKER_103: to through negotiation a year ago and avoided all this death and destruction my my count is maybe i mean we don't know putin's intent and that's that's the wild card here he is a bit of a man man i mean he's pretty much of a wild card here he's a dictator who invaded another country SPEAKER_97: yeah my my calculus is slightly different i think i see two things in order to get us back to a state SPEAKER_84: of relatively predictable growth and price stability number one is we need to reset supply and demand by taking 30 trillion dollars out of global markets and then the second is we need an off-ramp to this ukraine-russia war so that there is predictable energy and food supply to the world so that folks can SPEAKER_236: just get back to what they do best and if those two things can happen then the markets will have found SPEAKER_92: the bottom um but until those two things happen in my opinion and by the way the first thing doesn't actually have to happen entirely you just need to see a path for it and you know we're the only one that's doing quantitative tightening right now the ecb hasn't even started taking all this crazy money out SPEAKER_236: you know i don't know when the bank of england is going to do it when is you know the bank of japan going to do it so this has to be a global coordinated effort before we find the bottom SPEAKER_06: and this war has to stop well jason can i go back to this uh unpredictable madman narrative jason yeah SPEAKER_66: look if we're the dictator yes if what you're trying to say here is that putin bears moral culpability and moral responsibility the blood is on his hands for this war i agree with you on that okay however this SPEAKER_392: idea how could you not i mean he's the person who invaded right but but just logic there but right SPEAKER_179: but the idea that this war was unpredictable or could not have been predicted is simply false because many experts did predict it and they did tell us exactly what's going to happen and the reason they knew it was going to happen is because russia has been saying since at least 2008 uh when there was this bucharest summit and nato declared its intent to bring ukraine into nato the russians been saying that that is a red line and russia experts biden's own cia director a guy named bill burns he was then our uh emissary to russia and he wrote a memo to then secretary of state condoleezza rice and what he said is that the idea of bringing expanding nato to ukraine was a red line for the entire russian elite not just putin so uh and if you go back and look about what other russian leaders said about nato expansion gorbachev said it was a humiliation to russia yeltsin was against it they've all been against it and so bill burns warned in 2008 this was a red line and the russians have been saying this since 2008 and they were saying it all of last year if you go look at contemporaneous headlines describing the tensions between the us and russia this is the headlines of articles i can provide to nick we can put on the screen they were saying this was an absolute red line for them so the idea that this conflict was unpredictable because poon's a madman listen you can call him a dictator you SPEAKER_165: can also we can also predict highly predictable yeah okay and you know what's also highly predictable SPEAKER_50: is that china considers you know taiwan a renegade you know um province like yes dictators you know uh will tell us what they're going to do the question is does the free world want to stand up to dictators and so while you know uh it's messy to stand up to a dictator the west you know kind of doesn't have a choice to stand up to dictators or else they will roll into other countries history SPEAKER_165: has shown that so as messy as this is and as terrible as it is for the economy i do think that SPEAKER_405: we have to stand up to dictators there are plenty of dictators where we work with but they're not SPEAKER_361: invading other countries they're not invading other countries and that's the difference here SPEAKER_165: sacks you're giving putin a bit of a pass here he invaded the country we must stand up to dictators who invade other countries well look where you're standing i don't mean just america i mean the free SPEAKER_263: world yeah well look look where you've got us then with this policy you and the people who we could SPEAKER_112: have avoided yeah because you are basically spouting this this nonsense that look the question is stand SPEAKER_48: up to dictators who invade other countries i think you would agree that's a good idea let him talk SPEAKER_112: let us discuss okay freeberg okay listen the the there's no question that russia has been the SPEAKER_179: aggressor but the question is why did they do this you don't really have a theory on that jason except that you believe that on february 24th putin woke up and went nuts that's basically your explanation no that's not for what's happening in the world we know it's a debated we know it's a SPEAKER_361: debated region we know that they've had this conflict for a long time okay so we could have SPEAKER_403: used here on the pod many times every every president from bill clinton to obama who has dealt SPEAKER_112: with putin has written largely the same account of him in their memoirs which is look they know that he's a thug they know that he's a dictator however they always said they always said he's very business like he's very direct he told them what their issues were okay putin was very direct he and biden had a summit in june of last year the russians been very direct your attempt to bring ukraine into nato is a red line for us why it's a violation of our security interests the idea of bringing a country into nato it has huge security externalities for them by the way we understand this in other contexts we understood in the context of cuban missile crisis we didn't say that cuba had the right to join any military alliance that it chose to because we wouldn't be able to sleep as well as at night if cuba had nukes pointed at us with a first strike capability now we've had this conversation SPEAKER_417: do you think should sweden and finland be invited into nato i would table that issue until the war David Sacks: is over i don't know why we need to basically deal with that right now but listen we don't even have SPEAKER_112: to go back to the cuban missile crisis right now okay there's a country called the solomon islands about 3 000 miles off the australian coast they entered into a deal with china security deal and the u.s has been up in arms about that so you know and the reason is we don't want china extending its footprint in asia okay so we treat that deal as having a security externality for us and yet we refused last year to recognize that there would be any security externality for russia if we brought ukraine into nato the russians were abundantly clear about what they SPEAKER_179: needed so my point is this conversation on the pod yes my point is this that this war was easily avoidable through the use of diplomacy the administration chose you believe that you don't know that you believe that you don't know that you don't know we never even tried we actually don't know that you actually don't know that it's worse than that jason because here's what happened after the june 16th summit in geneva between putin and biden last year okay putin tells biden to his face this is SPEAKER_112: a red line as they've always said so what does the administration do not only do they not negotiate SPEAKER_179: with the russians they invite zelinski to the white house on september 1st of last year we talked about some time and then on november 10th they published a massive 10-year charter agreement this was a huge finger in the eye to the russians and on the heels of that november 10th charter SPEAKER_112: agreement the russians basically delivered an ultimatum to the u.s demanding a written guarantee that ukraine not join nato and then in january blinken was tasked with negotiating with lavrov and blinken said there has been no change there will be no change nato's door is open and will remain open this administration was incredibly stubborn they were absolutely refused to use diplomacy to SPEAKER_179: defuse the crisis now you say well we can't know what we would have done well but the point is they SPEAKER_404: never tried is the ukraine a sovereign country yeah they are but do they get to pick what they do in SPEAKER_216: their fate look this idea that there's a dog to pick their fate as a sovereign country i think you SPEAKER_112: would agree yes okay well here's the question is you're what you're trying to do and is is create a doctrine okay you're trying to create a new doctrine that a country gets to join whatever SPEAKER_179: security alliance they want whatever military alliance they want that is not a doctrine we believe in when it comes to the solomon islands it's not a doctrine we believe in with respect SPEAKER_112: to cuba and the cuban missile crisis and the fact the matter is is that the nations of the world are engaged in security competition and the re and if if a country like ukraine joins a new military SPEAKER_179: alliance that has huge externalities and so we do not believe in that doctrine jason this is a doctrine that did not exist until february wait we don't believe more people should be able to join nato while sweden no we clearly believe that but this this doctrine that the countries of the world should be able to join whatever military alliance they want that is not a that is not we do not practice SPEAKER_255: that doctrine that is not a good example is cuba cuba and then more recently the solomon islands okay SPEAKER_165: yeah i mean listen i i i'm not saying this war is not a mess all wars tend to be a mess i'm not saying we shouldn't try to resolve it with everything we have i do think the people of the ukraine and you know get to pick their fate and and i am in support of the of nato being stronger and stronger and i'm in favor of isolating putin uh you know and using diplomacy as the primary SPEAKER_437: tactic to do that and making sure he doesn't run over countries because he won't stop at one i i think that's the the big question i think is will he stop at one do you think he'll stop at one country history has proven he won't at what point are you okay with stopping him listen you you just said that SPEAKER_178: you want to use diplomacy as the primary tactic okay so we agree on that the question is what SPEAKER_112: you're willing to give up because the administration was not willing to engage on the key russian SPEAKER_444: concern which is the admission let me ask you ukraine it's a native do you think russia will stop SPEAKER_401: with ukraine or donbass do you think that's actually the stopping point for SPEAKER_112: putin listen i think there's a few ways to come at that question one is to ask what is the motivation which is very hard to know because it's inside putin's head okay so the second is what are their interests and the third is what are their capabilities the capabilities question is pretty easy to answer i mean they have had a very hard time winning this war they've won this eastern region of the donbass because i think why is that why did they have a hard time well because their military capabilities are obviously not as great as people thought and the native ukraine got a lot of weapons from the west from from nato exactly so this idea listen i've said it before the eu's gdp is 10 times greater than russia's and you know economic strength is the foundation for military SPEAKER_179: strength moreover we've seen that these nato weapons are incredible the us's weaponry i mean SPEAKER_138: it's so you're in support of providing weapons to ukraine nato the eu the european countries i'm SPEAKER_446: not in favor of creating a forever war in eastern europe that is none of us are in the cards SPEAKER_179: nobody but the question is jason you just said that we have to isolate putin we have to deprive SPEAKER_112: him of any of any positive outcome from this war no no no i said we have to stop him from evading SPEAKER_50: countries that's what we stop him from invading more countries that are he's not going to invade SPEAKER_446: nato countries because he's so outmatched well not nato but i mean there's a lot of countries that SPEAKER_50: are not in nato so i mean i think that's the thing but i mean listen we discussed this a million times SPEAKER_361: here rule i think we both agree we want the war to end i think we might just question is what are you David Sacks: willing to do to end the war and you know my point is this that the question is what is putin willing SPEAKER_336: to do in terms of starting wars and invading other countries and what does the west have to do to SPEAKER_59: react to that you know i think that's what we're talking about here we didn't start this war you know but anyway let's move on i think well hold on a second we didn't have started this war but we SPEAKER_287: failed to prevent it through the use of diplomacy that's always been my point yeah i think this war SPEAKER_179: i think this war was easily preventable if we had listened and engaged easily easily yes okay yes i'm not sure that's what let me just tell you right now the deal that would end this war is the same deal that was on the table last year was zero bloodshed which is ukraine remains a neutral state there's autonomy for the russian speakers in the donbass and crimea basically remains part of russia that was the deal that is the deal that will be the deal the only question is does the whole country have SPEAKER_460: to be destroyed all right well we're going to find out in the coming months and does the world have SPEAKER_61: to go through a global recession and famine these are big questions uh yeah it's not the sacrifice it takes to stand up to dictators is very significant and especially ones with nuclear bombs and it will SPEAKER_50: be even worse with taiwan i mean if we think that this is difficult can you imagine this kind of escalation with a capable adversary if russia is not super capable and their weapons turned out to not SPEAKER_401: be as strong my god what would taiwan look like did you guys read this story where um it was the deputy SPEAKER_84: foreign minister got demoted and there was all this um speculation like why did he get demoted and one of the things that came out was that you know he was very very pro-russia and and she is not and she is not and she is much more hedged and moderate and yeah you know wanted to have more optionality and felt that he was cornered because i think there was some what was the quote i mean nick you can pull it but it was something about like you know the the strength between basically china and russia is infinite but that was that was a quote that he said that was a little bit off the reservation it seems and so yeah that's kind of defense yeah yeah yeah yeah you know it's an important story as SPEAKER_50: well i mean and you know it's one of the things that we can look at what's happening in these political situations i think we probably have 50 60 70 of the information not even not even really quick SPEAKER_94: tell us what's going on in alpha fold world sultan of science there was a paper published about two weeks SPEAKER_321: ago in the journal science it's actually um an important paper because it used alpha fold SPEAKER_277: to do some really important work and the work is to actually create a 3d structure 3d model of the SPEAKER_58: nuclear pore complex and that nuclear pore complex is really the scaffolding that makes up the nucleus of a cell so all eukaryotes you know all plants and animals have a nucleus in our cells and the nucleus SPEAKER_277: holds the dna and the big question friedberg's internet connection is getting bored SPEAKER_476: just let him finish his sentence did it break up yeah you're fine keep going SPEAKER_479: no your internet connection fell asleep because it was so boring what you're talking about keep going SPEAKER_32: so what does this mean in terms of well hold on so um so what this team did and this is a the problem SPEAKER_58: that's uh kind of been around for decades is we've never really understood what the physical structure of the nucleus in a cell looks like and this is important because the physical structure regulates how molecules get into and out of the nucleus and how dna is expressed and how the rna that comes out of the dna goes into the rest of the cell and this regulates so much of human health in fact it's been shown and demonstrated that dysfunction in the nuclear pores or the nuclear pore complex in the cell um can lead to things like viral infection brain injury cancers cardiovascular disease many diseases their underlying driver may result from dysfunction in the transmission of molecules into and out of the nucleus of the cell and so scientists have always tried to figure out what does that transport mechanism look like what does that infrastructure look like and um so for the first SPEAKER_277: time and scientists have published theories on this and they've shown using x-ray imaging you know some theory around what these complexes look like um and what this team at harvard did that they published two weeks ago is a really groundbreaking extremely detailed view of the entire nuclear comp nuclear pore complex around the nucleus of the cell by combining both x-ray imaging and alpha fold and so what they did is they took the predicted physical structure of those proteins from alpha fold and use that to construct a sample of what the you know the nuclear pore complex looks how do they know it's accurate and so using this x-ray imaging they've been able to kind of verify some of the assumptions of alpha fold yields and now they've created this 3d model and this 3d model now gives and by the way just to think about this physically what it means like for a second the nuclear pore complex think about it as like a fence like a spherical fence that sits around the nucleus and some parts of that fence open and close some parts are static and the way that certain things open and close and what can fit through them and how they fit through and how stuff gets stuck is really important to understand as a way to both um understand the underlying cause of diseases like cancer but also how we can create therapeutics and how we can target specific things that we can fix and how we can get molecules into SPEAKER_58: the nucleus of the cell to regulate dna expression and edit the dna inside that's mind-blowing so wait if SPEAKER_50: i were to translate this from nerd you basically alpha fold predicted no i'm being sincere there's a map here that we were not able to see through x-rays and through you know physics but alpha fold predicted some of that and filled in the gaps so now we have the map has been filled that's a great that's a SPEAKER_277: great way to describe it and so now we have this incredibly detailed 3d image and nick can share the images on our youtube um stream here of what the nuclear pore complex looks like and how each of those pores work how do they open and close what's the structure of them this isn't simply like a circle this is like all these weird tentacles and little things sticking out and that can help us predict what molecules get stuck and how one error in one of those proteins can cause things to get SPEAKER_492: stuck like a cancer or something like that yeah how this can cause certain dna to be over expressed or SPEAKER_58: under expressed causing things like cancer so we're going to live forever a whole new area of research SPEAKER_277: in medicine gene therapy and new things that we can think about targeting to fix a lot of these underlying diseases and so this was a groundbreaking paper incredible what's the name of the paper can we SPEAKER_429: just get the name of the paper so people can google it we'll put it in the show notes as well uh it's SPEAKER_58: been an amazing episode yeah so it's a team out of harvard we'll send the link in the in the show notes structure of cytoplasmic ring of nuclear pore complex by integrative cryo em and alpha fold uh terrible naming not for the general audience no no it's okay sax is printing it out right right now SPEAKER_482: and he's going to use it uh for his kit his new kittens but i just want to highlight you know SPEAKER_277: because we talked about alpha fold i think last year or the year before and how it was going to open up all these new areas of research and here we are a year later this is an incredible example of how alpha fold's been used to solve this really misunderstood or never really well understood aspect of biology that is at the root cause of so much of disease and creates all this opportunity for medicine and therapeutics research and discovery all right this has been it's great to see this SPEAKER_497: breakthrough sorry we didn't get to january 6th or roe v wade we'll get to those the next episode SPEAKER_498: no no no listen i think roe v wade i'm not sure there's uh i mean we should do something about SPEAKER_84: the reactions but we did a pretty thorough episode so folks really want us to double click we double clicked with two of the most political constitutional experts in the space when it first got leaked so SPEAKER_500: please go and watch yeah or listen to that all right which episode is that number i don't know SPEAKER_376: which we'll put it in the show notes it'll be in the show notes for everybody and we'll see you all SPEAKER_520: next time bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye love you sex