All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

Industry veterans, degenerate gamblers & besties Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.

#AIS: Tim Urban on political discourse + Keith Rabois on early-stage investing in 2022

#AIS: Tim Urban on political discourse + Keith Rabois on early-stage investing in 2022

Thu, 26 May 2022 05:30

This talk was recorded LIVE at the All-In Summit in Miami and included slides. To watch on YouTube, check out our All-In Summit playlist: https://bit.ly/aisytplaylist

0:00 Tim Urban gives a talk on political discourse in America and explains high-rung vs. low-rung thinking

26:20 The Besties and Keith Rabois join Tim Urban on stage for a roundtable discussion on cancel culture

51:23 Keith Rabois talks about taking a pause on new investments in 2022 and gives his take on other major VC players

Follow the guests:

https://twitter.com/waitbutwhy

https://twitter.com/rabois

Follow the besties:

https://twitter.com/chamath

https://linktr.ee/calacanis

https://twitter.com/DavidSacks

https://twitter.com/friedberg

Follow the pod:

https://twitter.com/theallinpod

https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast

Intro Music Credit:

https://rb.gy/tppkzl

https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg

Intro Video Credit:

https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect

Listen to Episode

Copyright © <theallinpod@gmail.com> - all rights reserved

Read Episode Transcript

Next up is my good friend Tim Urban from wait. But why? I asked him to do this as a favor. He gets a huge speaking fee, I said we have no budget. Jake, I think it's 7500. Take it, I said I have no budget. I stole it all. And he has the number one talk in the history of Ted on YouTube. My pal Tim urban. Thanks, brother. Let your winners ride. Green Man Davidson. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with them. He said something yesterday and Nate Silver went after about Nate one poker and he was like, yeah, I'm gonna take away your speaking. And I was like the **** speaking fee. Alright, so the title of my talk is Tim talks about politics and other things that are probably a bad idea to talk about in front of all these people. And I want to start with why am I even writing about politics? I don't like politics. I like writing about this science and tech in the future, and procrastination and things that interest me. But as I'm thinking about the future and all this awesome stuff that we could have, I started to have a bad feeling. I would think of society kind of like a giant Organism, and this is how I always grew up, assuming that society was like. It's like a big grown up, but when I looked around. It looked more like a poopy pants 6 year old who dropped its ice cream. And I feel like this is what a lot of people are kind of getting at in these talks. You know, we're talking about kind of all this crazy polarization and, you know, mobs and all and and to me, I just look out and I see this. I see kind of reverting. And people are acting like they're in middle school and like, you know, we we can't communicate and and and what's going on. So I started putting my mind to this. Now what? What was the problem? And the problem is very complicated and I'm not going to try to get into the whole thing today, but I think that what we can do is have a better framework to talk about the problem. I think that we are very constrained to this one-dimensional axis. It's like a straitjacket. In our conversations you hear people say the problem is, you know the the far left and the far right. We need to be in the center. We need to be more moderate. But what is that in the center is just a policy position, right. The far left and far right aren't inherently bad. The far left is just. Kind of radical and and questioning everything. And they're experimental and the far right is just questioning, maybe we messed up. Maybe we should go back to the way things were. I mean, there's nothing inherently better or worse about any part of the spectrum, but we're using these words to try to get it something else which say centrist, moderate. We don't really mean in the middle of the spectrum. I think we're talking about a different axis. I call it the latter. So I think bringing our political discussions into 2 dimensions can be hugely helpful. Now sometimes you'll see like the political compass, you'll see you know politics in 2D, but that's still all what you think. That's all, you know different ways to look at what you think about politics. The latter is a how you think access. So there's, there's, you know, there's some nuance to it there it's it's it's a spectrum. But for our purposes let's just focus on the two kind of core ideas here. There's high rung political thinking and high rung politics and low rung politics. So the high rungs you can kind of divide into high rank progressivism and higher on conservatism, which I kind of think like like 2 arguing giants, like they're like, you know, you know, the, the, the, the collective efforts of high rung progressivism conservatism are, are, are kind of like lawyers in a courtroom. They're, they're, they're, they're heated, they don't like each other. A lot of the time they have very different ideas of how things should go. But it's kind of like, you know, the two lawyers in the courtroom, this is kind of a wink that goes on where they understand ultimately they're on the same team. Two sides of a truth kind of discovery machine and I think this is the same thing they don't like each other but they're actually ultimately on the same team trying to figure out the road map how do we move forward and and the the conversations in high rank politics are complexed they're nuanced you know it's it's there's different realms there's what is right they'll science and history arguing about what is that's that's hard to figure out there's what should be right that's that's philosophy and ethics. Then there's you know even if they agree on those two things how do we get there right what are the right policies strategies experimentation, testing. So, so there's a lot of nuances, a lot of complexity and and and one of the core defining features is if this is how you form beliefs, right. You know you go from, I don't know, some kind of process to, I know high rung politics is all about truth. They're geared towards truth. They start here and I don't know there's there's kind of an inherent humility to this process so. I think if humility a little bit like trying to say on a tightrope, it's not easy, right? We, we are you. It's easy for your confidence. You know, you have the Dunning Kruger thing. You're confidence shoots up when you first learn something and then it goes down after you realize you don't know as much as you know. And then sometimes you can go too low. And so when you go too low, you're in the kind of the insecure zone, right? You actually know more than you think you know. But you but but, like you're you're you're just not you're even some kind of imposter syndrome above the line. You know, we're in the arrogant zone, very common in politics. Obviously. You know you, you you think you know more than you really actually do. So, like, you know, you could even measure it like this is how much you're full of **** how much above like the amount above the line you are. And. In Hiram politics, look, no one is great at staying on the tight rub. It's very hard, but it's the, the, the the culture of high-ranking politics is helpful because it can actually it it humbles you because people will disagree with you and it's cool in kind of a high round political culture to be humble. Like if you say I don't know or you say, yeah, you know, I I haven't thought about that issue. That makes you seem smart in high-ranking politics, right? It's so. So it's encouraging. Whatever the culture finds cool, we're going to do more of. A core thing about high-ranking politics we don't identify with our ideas. So. I think, you know ideas, when you're in this zone are like a machine that you built. It's like a hypothesis, right? You put the boxing gloves on, you let your friends kick it, you know, go to town, you know, you throw it out there and people try to argue with it. You know, the besties are big on this, right? They they love an opportunity, relish opportunity, to just tell the other person they're wrong. Or here's why you're biased or here's why you have you know, you're being hypocritical and this is what hiring politics is about. No one takes it personally. You're just kicking my machine. And I'm saying, I bet my machine can stand up to it and saying I bet it can. And if it does, man, I just got more confident. Because I just I just realized this thing is is pretty strong. If they if they break it, it doesn't feel good. But I just got a little smarter. I just got a little bit less dumb because I learned something I was wrong about. So they're kicking it and you know you're watching them box is dialectic. When you watch them box together sometimes you play devil's advocate. You take the bat to your own idea. This is this is you know kind of how you move up that humility tightrope to a more knowledgeable place. Principles wise one of the things that defines high running politics is consistency. It's not again there's left right center so the principles will totally. Very. But there's consistency either way. So, classic example, Elon, talking about yesterday. Free speech doesn't count to value the, you know, to fight for the free speech of people who you agree with. Every single person in history has had that principle. That's the yellow zone. It's very easy to support your principles when it's also supporting your team. The challenge comes when it's not when it's people you don't like, saying things you don't like, for example, or when or when it's your team trying to shut down the free speech of others. And you know it's wrong. Even though you you do hate that speech. That's when you have to choose Green Zone or orange. Hiring politics is great about staying in the Green Zone. You will see them go against their own team all the time. If it if it doesn't conflict, if it doesn't jibe with their principles. I think if you take a big step back this thing again, it gets heated. This isn't, you know, people mistake hiring politics that, you know it's we should be all, you know we should be, you know, kind of withdrawn and and and irrational. But I think it's actually also it can be very passionate, very emotional, very heated. People care deeply in hiring. They can form coalitions and do marches and still and stuff like that. It's just that. They care about truth. They're consistent with their principles. They don't identify with their ideas. They like to argue. And ultimately, it's a positive sum game with a positive effect on the country. This is what drives the country forward, right? And the Science Academy, this is what drives knowledge forward, right? This is what drives innovation forward. Is is people able to disagree now? Get to the other thing that is lowering politics. Lowering politics. I have a name for it. I call it political Disney World. And I call it that because it's a land of rainbows and unicorns and a bunch of people who will not change their mind under any circumstances. It's a land of good guys and bad guys. The good guys are angels, perfectly righteous. The bad guys are awful in every possible way. And the good guys have good ideas and the bad guys have bad ideas. And there's a checklist in hiring politics. If someone tells me their position on guns, I have no idea what their position is on climate change or on abortion, or on immigration and lowering politics, you hear? One position from someone boom, you can just look at their demeanor and I know every single position they've got on every single issue. The same concept in lowering politics. Again, no one thinks they're in lowering politics. So people there will, will think, yeah, of course I value truth, but they don't. They're actually starting at, I know they start at the the checklist item and now they say, well, I have to prove this is correct. So when they read an article that they won't read the article, but if they read the article that disagrees with them, they'll meet their have a brick wall in their head about, you know, that this can't be true. This person is biased. This is, this is, you know, ad hominem whatever. And when they read an article that agrees with them and they hear an opinion, there's all that. Skepticism disappears and suddenly it must be true. Yes, of course. So I talked about hiring politics. It's like the ideas are like machines, right? It's not. You know, you don't get sensitive about it. You kick the machine, right? Low running politics. It's like a baby, a very cute baby who you love so much. So people's ideas, they're sacred and low rung politics. And and This is why you know you can kick a machine and know that's no big deal. If you kick a baby, you're an *******. And so. On the high rungs. People can disagree, you know, if you have two axes here, decency and agreement, and they're totally different, right? You can have people that disagree with you that are awesome and vice versa. You can have people agree with you in their ***** but in lowering politics, it's very simple. People who agree with you, they're good people who don't, they're ********. So this is, you know, when it comes down to is you have a high-ranking discussion and it kind of looks like this. They're examining things, lowering discussion. It's like ******* ****. That's a cute baby. God, it's such a good baby. How awful are people who don't like the baby? So awful, right? This is very common if you listen to a low rung political discussion. This is essentially what's happening. They're sitting around and they're talking about how right they are and how awful the people and dangerous the people are who disagree with them. And that's just they'll just talk about that forever and ever and ever principles. Same idea here. You actually stick with the left circle, you'll constantly, you know, give away. Here for low rung politics is that when, when when it's not convenient yellow circle territory, they will almost always jump over to the orange circle you know you'll have again, you know. So free speech you'll see is a perfect. This test if you you know, as soon as it's free speech people you don't like all those principles disappear. We we can you know there. How about COVID marches? All all all. You know people are completely worked up about lockdown marches and right wing states soon as it's marches for racial justice. All good all good. This is this is a public health crisis, right this is that's that's orange material. How about all the people who are super anti? You know, immigration policies and surveillance policies and foreign policy and, you know, debt issues. And then as soon as it's the other President now your Presidents in office, all those same policies stay and you're fine with them. You know, the classic example, the the debt was the worst thing in the world during Obama's presidency. And then Trump comes in office, starts doing up these tax packages that are adding to it and suddenly it's no problem. So there's endless examples here if high running politics is kind of this positive sum game, lowering politics. I see it much more like 2 screaming giants and and and and and they're there. If the high rung kind of emergent property is intelligence and and progress, the low rung emergent property is just strength and, you know, fighting for power. It's a battle of good versus evil. And the big, the big goal is not, you know, not trying to create a more perfect union. Again, they think that's the goal, but the big goal really is beating the bad guys. It's a 0 sum game that ultimately has a negative effect. So I know I just threw a lot at you. Because I wanted to kind of cover the different bases of this to give a feel for what I'm talking about here. This is the framework that I think is very useful. I've been living with it now for a few years. I've been having conversations with it and I find that it clarifies a lot and it helps with a lot of things, like for example, if you just think it's a horizontal axis. So as I said, you know, you mistake that the far left and right must be the problem, but it's not, it's the lower rungs that are the problem. That's actually where people are trying to say the moderate centrist, you know, thing. That's not what they're actually trying to say. They're trying to say hi wrong, which can expand the. The the horizontal axis, there's more than one tug of war going on. We think if you just have one access, well, it's left versus right, and that is a tug of war both in the high and low rungs. That is, you know, there are fighting for what they want. But there's a tug of war going on from the North and South as well. The, the, the, progressive. I think I know a lot of people in here probably are thinking I'm in that upper left guy. That's my guess. And if that's true, and it might be true, you, you do have a tug of war going on against that upper right guy. You also have a tug of Oregon going on against that lower left guy. This is the thing that I think is important to realize is when you have this, that the people who are on your team, you know, they also hate Trump or whatever they might be actually like the biggest impediment to what you care about politically. They they they undermine the progress of what you care about it. It also can enhance kind of collaboration because if you're not one of those. For Giants, the other upper giant is a lot more on your Ultimate Team. If you take a big step back, then the lower giant that wears the same color. So. So once you start to, I think this where I think it helps to, to kind of loosen some of the tribalism and give some nuance to our discussions and give some nuance to what we're trying to do. Now the story I wanted to talk about here is that this is OK, this is normal. By the way, this is not a problem. Every democracy in the world will have this. The founders knew this would be here. The goal was not to suppress. Low wrongness it was to contain it and actually you know when the economy to harness it for progress but in politics to contain it so it can't totally take over. They contain it by taking away the physical cudgel. You know you can't just conquer and become a dictator like so many low rung giants in other countries have done. There's there's laws here and and and most importantly there's kind of a high rung immune system which is just vigorous defenses, defense, defense against low rung infringement, low rung in this will. Try to shut down the conversations in the high runs and the high rungs. Resist. They say no, **** *** like we we we we know you can't enforce your echo chamber upon us. You're allowed to have your echo chamber. That's fine. You can't enforce it. So this is how it's supposed to be now, part of the reason we're all here continually in each talk. Talking about man politics is awful and things are bad and there's a poopy pace pants 6 year old, but the ice cream falling is because of, I think we've had some big changes to the environment. This is the kind of simple human equation I think about. You've got human nature as constant. The environment is what changes and that produces different behavior, right. You know, if the people who are really hard and during war, you know, they're not different biologically than us, they just were put in a very different environment and it created different kinds of people. So our environment has changed a lot and I think it's causing a lot of problems. I think it's causing a low rung flare up if you know. So here's one way to think about it. In the 60s, you've got intraparty factions within the party. You have a lot of progressive Republicans and conservative Democrats and the these, these factions within the parties, they hate each other. Right, which is which was a source of tribalism. Some people are just so focused on the other people in their party, the other factions. There's the national parties like we have that we we talk about a lot today, Republicans and Democrats nationally. That was a source of tribalism. And then there was this, you know, USSR and also before that Hitler like there were all these, you know, scary foreign enemies that created this kind of macro tribalism on the national level. So you have patriotism, which is one kind of tribalism, but it also unifies down below and the intra party factions might actually cause the national parties to collaborate sometimes. So it's not that people were less tribal, it's that tribalism was distributed. What's happened is now the intraparty factions have disappeared because the Conservative Democrats have all gone to the Republicans. They're the progressive Republicans all gone for lots of reasons. We can get into some other talk, but. That's waned. There's still a little, you still have Bernie and you know, Hillary not liking, you know, there are people not like it, but it's it's much less of a thing. Likewise, you still have, you know, yes or Russia, you know, but mostly that's not the focus. In fact, the focus is is is so not here that when there's a foreign thing now, usually we'll just use it as like political fodder for our national debate. You know, all the Russians are on their side now. They're on their side, right? And there's no patriotism that unites anymore. What you have is 1 big old political divide. And all the tribalism from all those things is concentrated into one place, which is an unhealthy. That's not great. I don't think that's good. And so this is 1 environmental change. No one's fault. It's just what happened then. You know, you also have a lot of things with like the electoral map you have between gerrymandering and, you know, geographic sorting. You have purple counties turning, you know, mostly red and blue now, which means primaries are actually electing the farthest right and left people as opposed to, you know, people who can win a general election. There's a lot of other kind of little environmental changes, but one huge one that we talk about is the media. I think of a media, I'd like to place them on a media matrix, accuracy on the Y axis and the objectivity. So you want to be as the top. All right. And actually for a long time there was an incentive magnet to be there for ABC, CBS, NBC, right. They they they didn't want to seem like they were inaccurate and they had to cater to the whole country, which kept them somewhat close to that. There was this incentive magnet. Today you have cable TV and then eventually you have, you know talk radio and you've got then the Internet and all these websites. You have tribal media, which is a totally different set of incentives. You cater to one side only. You it's more biased the the the more clicks and accuracy is just not a concern. To the audiences they end up having. And then you have this feedback loop like was discussed yesterday where once you cater to that, now you have to keep that going right you you've now lost a neutral audience and and so now we have a lot of Americans super addicted to a really trashy reality show. The politicians of Washington. And then it took me a long time to make this, by the way. I think McConnell's my favorite anyway. So. Then you've got, of course, the big bomb drops in our environment. You've got social media. This is a real graph showing people retweet things. They agree with two people they agree with almost entirely. Right? It's these algorithmic bubbles. It's insane, you know? And so if you're one of the people that actually I follow all kinds of different people, you're very rare because. And and and it didn't, again, it didn't used to be this way. John Ronson talks about, you know, how it used to be. It radical D shaming, like Twitter. You know, you go on and be like, oh, I do this embarrassing thing. People would be like me too and be like, oh, so nice and fuzzy at the very beginning. And then it turned into, wait a second, you know, this bad guy is harassing women at work. And now actually this woman has power for the first time. She can talk about it on social media. You can create a a whole kind of a coalition against it. He gets fired and it's exhilarating. And this is good, right? This is speaking truth to power. Problem is, now people are exhilarated. They're saying who's next? Right. And you have this new source of power, which again can be used for good. But it's gotten picked up by a lot of the low rung tribes who have started to use this cudgel. That started, it's been a while now, you know, creating mobs to actually enforce low wrong politics and what happens is you end up with high wrong world, very scared, kind of caught off guard. The normal defenses, the normal immune system is not doing its job. And So what happens when the high rung world gets scared? This is a very, you know, it can set off a domino effect. Imagine we picture this is the high rung world. These are brains. This is what a bunch of high rung people in the community think. They all think different things based on the color. Right now if we draw a circle around them. This is imagining what they're saying is the circles color. So here is a perfect high run community, right? Everyone is is a diverse, you know thinking and they're saying what they're thinking and it connects together into this super brain and it's awesome, right? But now maybe the social media cudgel, maybe something else starts to be a little bit scary and and this one group starts to say the only opinion that's OK is the orange opinion. Anyone who says anything other than the opinions an awful person. The high rung immune system just to kick in and say cool, **** ***. If it doesn't say that, everyone starts getting scared and then cowardice starts to spread. And before you know what, everyone's just saying the orange out loud. Even if they don't agree with it, no one wants to outwardly say what they think anymore. And the problem is you can't actually see what's going on in the brains. You only know what people are thinking based on what they're saying. So all people see is this. So if you're this guy. Who actually has one opinion and actually is full of diverse thinking around them. They don't know that. They assume it must look like this. Everyone starts to feel like I'm the only one who thinks this. I'm the only one who doesn't like this movement or this politician or whatever, and the group intelligence that's so awesome about high rung politics, it disappears. I think what we're seeing is if you know why, why are things so bad? I don't think it's because we move to the far right and far left. I think it's because. You have a low rung flare up generated by changes in the environment and the high rungs have been caught off guard by really rapid environment changes and they've just disappeared. They've shrunk away and the lower rungs are running, you know, buck wild. You can see this on the right. I think mostly in Washington. You see the debt ceiling, you know, being used as a a weapon in a way that should never happen. You see Mitch McConnell and the Senate not putting through a Senate candidate, a Supreme Court candidate because it's the last year, totally unprecedented. That's not the rule. And then four years later they go and they do, they put their own candidate. This is low rung ****. Of course Trump with the election, I mean Reagan's big thing was, you know, the the the peaceful transition of power is what makes U.S. special. And you know, Trump of course is the exact opposite on the left. I think we see it less in Washington and much more in culture. I think Wokeness is 2 things. It's a far left ideology and it is far left. It's, you know, postmodern and it's it's Marxist and that's fine. You can have those things in the high ranks, the thing that makes wokeness low rung. Was the way they treat others. You can you can go and have your own, but you can have your own echo chamber and do it with with, with the, with the. The woke mantra is you know what a low rung person in a liberal country supposed to say is? I don't like these ideas so I won't listen to them. What what you're not supposed to be able to say is I don't like the idea. So no one is allowed to listen to them, right. A disinvite nation on campus which has become very common. Right. It's it's it's not saying I won't go to that talk, which is a low wrong thing to say. It's much worse. It's saying no one on this campus is allowed to hear that. And we see that having played out. We see James Bennett, the editor of the New York Times op-ed section, getting fired because he published an op-ed by Tom Cotton that 62% of the country agreed with, but it didn't jibe with woke. Orthodoxy, you see Denise Young at Apple, a black woman who's ahead of diversity, who says to me diversity is not, you know, it's more complicated than just about something like race. When I look at 12 blue eyed, blonde haired guys, I see, I see diversity. I see different people diverse in different ways. She was fired for saying that you can go on and on. Medical journals are retracting papers that have never retracted papers before because double peer review papers because they get a rise on Twitter from the woke mob. So. I think we're seeing this in different ways, but to me it's all one big story, which is that we're having a low rung flare up and these low rung giants are out of hand. They're doing things they're not supposed to be able to be doing and they're doing that because the immune system is failing and that's why we all look like this. Now the good news is I do think this can change. I don't think most people are like this. I think most people are. And and by the way, if you think this is oh, another binary divide, we are all high wrong and low rung at different times and that's one of the big differences here. I think that if we want to get out of this and get back to here. We need two things. We need a awareness, which is the first thing we need. We need to be aware of I think this this this this access and to think about not just where am I being bullied intellectually where what's really the low rung thing and what's not but also where are we being low wrong because we all can do this this is this is this is a huge part of our brain that wants to go and and identify with our ideas and and be hypocritical. So where am I doing it? Where are the people around me doing it and and maybe realizing OK maybe the the the people that. On the high rungs when I am there that disagree with me horizontally, maybe those are my friends a lot more than the low rung people that are voting for the same candidate. And finally, awareness without saying anything out loud is useless, right? You need awareness has to be coupled with courage. People have to start speaking out. And actually that's the the high run immune system is built of courage. It's built of people actually standing up and you've seen this with some companies declaring we will not we. We're not a political place. It's courage in the face of a cudgel that's trying to get them to be political. And so I think if you can have a little bit more awareness and a little bit more courage, this kind of this low rung flare up can be I think. Controlled and I think we can end up in a better place. Thank you. Wow. Amazing. Truly epic. What an amazing talk to follow. The talk we had earlier, I think with, I don't know if you got to witness it, the Palmer Luckey talk. I was trying to think of how to trash you cause it was so popular to do. So you were gonna go low, Ron. Yeah, I was. But I mean in fact you know that that I think Palmer and I had some low rung moments where, you know, he was doing the anti Hillary stuff, I was dunking on him for it and then we saw an example of maybe adult high rung behavior of like, hey, let's sit here and talk about the differences I want to put out there just talking about the woke movement. For a second, one of the major challenges I had in this event was certain people attending the event. Made some people in that group. Unwilling to come to the event. No offense, Keith. In other words, like Keith Sacks, you know, and then even Glenn Greenwald and Greenwald, I'm sorry, and Matt Taibbi were triggers for certain people to not come speak. They're going to kick the baby. They were gonna kick the baby and so I think, and then on the right we have, I think, some pleasure in knowing you're triggering the libs. And it's exacerbated this. It's hard for me as a conference producer or a podcast producer to get the two sides to sit and just have a reasonable discussion at time. How do we break that logjam of the right just loves to troll and and and trigger the libs and the libs are like, I'm not even participating in the discussion with this group of people, that group of people, you know, the sax is the kids, the, you know, whatever I think we're keeping just came on. Oh, by the way, please welcome, Kiefer boy. He triggers a lot of limbs. But let's start there and then Keith, I'll, I'd love to hear you respond to this dynamic, which I know you are fully aware of. Yeah. So I think that that we can get some clear definitions here. Not wanting to go to something that that you know, high runner says. Oh, they disagree with me. Great, let me go. And that's that's what they really want to hear because I want to learn something, right? The Low Ranger says **** those evil, awful people. I'm not going to go right. They storm away. Fine, you're in a liberal country, live and let live you. These are both, OK? What's not OK is the low runners in pressuring you to kick off those speakers because otherwise they're going to start a a movement a petition, a boycott of your show that's gonna that's gonna end up hurting you in some way. You know, taking you know, smearing you on social media and into to pressuring this to not happen at all. That's saying no one's allowed to go to that conference. That's what's not OK. It's interesting you bring this up. I shared with you that back channel it was beautiful. There was back channel of. You have beautiful moment was with the high round discussion we just had. There was also a dark moment before the event where a group of people who did not agree. We're doing what you're saying. The woke mob was saying we need to get other people on the left. David Sacks time they're supposed to tell me when Rob Boy got here so there was literally to your point an intolerance level of not only are we not gonna come to all in summit because sacks or this person or that person are there, we're going to start telling other people to not go and not participate. It literally happened and I had to stop. But but this is a so look the this conference did happen. Those people did come. Ideas were spread. So this is a victory for high run this this is yeah. So then do you, Keith? Alice, why is it so pleasurable to trigger the libs? David Keith, no. In all seriousness, you love to debate. You take all comers. No problem. You, you you. You wanna get in the arena. What you're seeing now? Can I actually just interject on that? Sure. So I mean, speaking for myself, I don't get any pleasure in triggering libs, and that's not my objective. And I don't think it's necessarily keys either. What you're really doing is because we are willing to debate and we're not afraid to have the conversation, you're now redefining that as triggering other people. No, we're not. We're just going to have a conversation. Now, yeah, I think it's, I think it's really easy to tell who are the people who have good points to make and are and have intellectual confidence because they're the ones willing to show up and have conversations. And I think it's the biggest cop out for anybody to say, well, I can't be your comfort because I see this name and this name on your agenda. How lame is that? Well, and and and and to be honest, you know a lot of the positions. I think you and Palmer probably disagree on the approach to Ukraine. He's probably very pro supporting that, and you might be a little more dovish. Yeah, so I think 2 points. First of all, I I I took on this fool's errand like 10 years ago of correcting everything wrong on the Internet, which is we watched an insane idea and I still haven't quite got myself out of that. But but the reason why I did it was I felt like, wow, someone in who doesn't know any better might read something that's wrong and they might believe it. And so at least if I start correcting it, they'll see that. There's multiple perspectives and then we'll have to dig in as opposed to just take this for granted. The second thing is, yeah, I have no desire to trigger the libs, but I do feel like I have a platform and I don't want to die without having used whatever influence I have to proselytize for ideas I believe in. So if I have 300,000 followers, I feel I would be nice collecting like my life, like benefits of my life if I'm not proselytizing for the few 56789 things I care about. And so I don't want to wake up one day and say I wish I had done XYZ and it could have maybe changed the world. Can I ask him a question around? His name's Tim. Hey, nice to meet Tim. David free. How are you? We actually have met before. Do you think that overtime content has gotten shorter, sound bites have become kind of the primary form of content. You know, we used to be that we sit down and read books and we'd read newspapers and we'd watch these long form news hour conversations. And then, you know, things got shorter, they got faster, they got quicker. And as a result, we ended up kind of debasing ourselves and ending up in this point where everything has to be reduced to that primal instinctual reaction moment and it gets even. More significantly, fueled by the feedback loops associated with social media. So the things that you see more of are the things that really do trigger that kind of primal emotional sense more. Is that a big driver, do you think societally in terms of have we become more tribal over the last century? Yeah, I mean, I think, I think environmental changes are just, it's like they will produce behavioral changes and it can be sometimes a feedback loop where you have shorter content, more emotional, you know, kind of triggering content like you said, you know, there's there's almost like pheromones. Evolutionarily, it wins. Yeah. Well, and, you know, on Twitter actually, there's a phenomenon where actually. Umm. Virality dumbs down information because nuanced information doesn't hit as hard. Totally. And so it's when you have it's if you if it's it's kind of like, it's like evolution where you see, you know, that the the tweet that ends up super viral, it's it's, you know, survived 100 other competing tweets to get there and the ones that are rising to the top, it's a mechanism. There's a mechanism right now that is that is pushing this kind of forming a magnet down in political Disney World that is pulling us down. And one of the questions I, you know, have for Elon. Was like, what? What's? How can that somehow be? You know what? One idea that a friend and I were kicking around is like some kind of almost like. You know, Wikipedia managed to somehow stay somewhat, you know, nuanced and neutral in a way and and and could there be some kind of like giant 10,000 pool, you know, of moderators that actually kind of put, you know, rank things by maybe high rung and low rung and and the algorithm doesn't necessarily suppress the lowering stuff. It just doesn't push it. Which right now the algorithm is. You're talking about like moderation, editorialization almost, yeah. At least like to to give it like a credit rating on maybe a high, low scale. I kind of view this as like a muting effect. It's like an institutionalization of these social networks where everyone talks about them being free to run as a network without kind of a central system of control. But sometimes that central system of control has an important role in playing moderation, muting, editorialization that kind of avoid some of the adverse consequences that it's definitely optimizing downwards right now. What do you think, Keith? Yeah, I should should, Elon, by Twitter. And then, yeah, I started to disagree. I mean, I grew up in the 70s and 80s. And sound bite, you know, was the term of art for like 30 second commercials. And that's how we debated politics was 32nd commercials. I don't know any evidence that suggests that tweets today in politics are worse than the 32nd commercials I grew up with. And if you think about polarization, I also watched used to watch Europe, European politics in the 70s and 80s, the most extreme ends of politics you ever see. We don't have any of those extremes in the United States still today. Yeah. So I don't think there's, I I think a lot of people, like, make arguments without evidence that things have changed. And I actually start with like, first principles, like, wait. Where's the evidence? Like people talk about this information. There's no evidence that the American voter in 2016 have less information or less accurate information than 1888 or 1894 or 1910. In fact, the opposite is true by most by most serious studies. So this is all kind of made-up in my mind. Yes, either I should buy Twitter to save the world, but it's not going to be a good financial investment. What? How does it save the world, do you think? Well, we need a free speech platform where people can debate ideas and the left wing of Twitter or the employee base has completely suppressed ideas. For example, my husband, I happen to know this, wrote up an article on Foreign policy magazine, like the most prestigious publication in the entire planet for foreign policy debate about the CCP. Twitter refused for years to allow him to advertise that article published in Foreign Policy magazine. So there's clearly someone at Twitter suppressing content that's critical of the CCP. And we tried appealing to everybody and they wouldn't change this. So there's either Chinese spies there or a left wing culture that, you know, suppresses debate. This is foreign policy magazine. You can't get any more prestigious than that. It's absurd, let alone the fact that I have 300,000 followers and do not have a blue check. I must have the largest follower of anybody who doesn't have a blue check, and it's all because I have views that are unacceptable. That that seems really pretty ridiculous, considering many other VCs who are meaningfully less credentialed, of course. Experienced, accomplished. There's obvious, and I have, you know, insiders at Twitter have sent me screenshots of various things. There's no doubt that it's a left wing monoculture that's suppressing ideas and someone needs to fix that either. The government needs to fix it, which is worse than Elon fixing it. But the government, if the US Congress is turned over, there's going to be a lot of subpoenas flying over to Twitter because there are absolutely foreign governments influencing that some of those decisions at Twitter. Well, I mean, it was in fact proven that there were Saudis inside of Twitter. Saudi national, yes. The best tweet retort ever by you know. Yeah, I wish I would be that good. Yeah. I mean, what was the tweet? Well, you know, the the Saudi Prince was complaining and he said that. Please explain freedom of speech and how that works in your country. Alright. Yeah, I mean, two to the press should. Can you explain cancel culture in your framework? Yeah, so. I like to use a couple terms here. There's there's social bullying, which is no one. If you disagree with me, you can't be my friend. And again, that's OK, right. I don't, I don't think you're an awesome person if you act like that, but you're allowed to, then there's what I would call idea supremacy, which is, you know, it's kind of, it's it's it's like been saying, you know, no one is allowed to say this thing whether you're my friend or not. And and and you know, if you want to run something on your own property, you can make all the speech rules, but cancel culture is specifically going into places that are supposed to be high rung. You know, it says on top of Harvard College Veritas, right? Veritas, which is which is them. That is, that is them putting their stake down on the ground and saying we are a high wrong place. They're not say using those words, but there that is what they're saying. We are a place that cares about truth, that cares about diversity of ideas, that right cares about openness and inquiry and curiosity and all of this. And so cancel culture goes into places like that. Google you know, you you know, started off they had their all hands meetings. It was all about you know and every idea is good criticized the leadership like, you know, you know, right. So these things are specifically high wrong. Right. That they, they, they were founded on these things. Cancel culture goes into those places and says our preferred echo chamber. Now those rules apply to everyone here and it's a power, you know you're not a lot of things we want to do that, right. A lot of, you know I'm sure the pro lifers would like to go into campuses and say no one can have a pro-choice position. They don't have the power cancel culture. Is a product of a group that's not supposed to have the power to do that, having the power to do that. And I think that comes from the fear of social media. It comes from this hyper charged tribalism in the environment we live in right now and a lot of things and give you a solution. So one of the solutions to many things in life is moving to Miami and I'm serious about this. Ladies and gentlemen, Mayor Francis Suarez is one of the most stark things. When we moved to Miami 17 months ago, was in Miami you. It's incredibly refreshing because everybody has a different position. There's literally no environment, socially, politically, culturally, business wise, where you won't run into people who voted for Biden or for Trump. Like you cannot go to a dinner of eight people and have people have the same views. You cannot work in a company where people don't haven't voted or didn't views. And if you try to caricature people, you're gonna be wrong all the time. Even I catch myself. Like assuming this person of this demographic is gonna be liberal and they're not. And so here people learn to both be polite. Like, sort of like when you were growing up, you were taught like, you don't debate religion in front of people at dinner. People are polite, but also they have to engage. And it's incredibly refreshing because people learn to partake in arguments and it would be impossible to live in Miami successfully unless you do this every day. And so I think this is a model for America, like many things in Miami, but keep overtime, doesn't that transform? So, like, isn't there a concentration of ideas of memetics? That ultimately kind of rule the juice and, you know, this whole thing kind of eventually you end up with, with, you know, two pole, 2 Poles, 2 camps. I mean isn't this how all society start, the great debate, the great conversation. This is a microcosm of what just happened with human behavior over time because if you understand ideas, one of the benefits for me was I grew up in like the most woke environments ever. I spent years at Stanford and then Harvard like pretty woke places and all of my professors and political science were super liberal. But I always conservative the whole time and every one of my, you know. If you read my final exams, they're all conservative because I had to learn to master all the liberal arguments and find the weaknesses and the data points and be able to Marshall evidence. And that's a healthy thing. So when you encounter, people have different views, like, for example, you know, there's controversial laws in Florida, don't say gay, quote, UN quote, you know, changes in abortion policy here. People here will talk about them politely and debate them. And that's good for everybody. Like, I bet you, for example, like, you know, if you read the media, you read Twitter, you think this abortion law changed in Florida is radical. It's actually more permissive than any European country, but nobody knows that France actually allows abortion up to 14 weeks. Germany is like 16 and so we're 20 here. So we're more liberal than Europe, but nobody talks about that on Twitter that way. But if you live in Florida, you would actually know that. By the way, the campuses you just described, they're not here anymore. You the amount of testimonials from students saying if I disagree with the professor at my exam, I will get a bad grade, even worse again, this is then there's an encroachment by a low rung giant and there's no pushback. It will keep going. Well, they they've gone to some crazy places. Here's an example. Berkeley right now, and and UCLA and about 20 other schools. If you want to apply to be a chemistry professor. The first thing that you do is you have to fill out a diversity statement and it's called that sounds nice, a diversity statement, but it's actually you have to basically prove that you have a proven track record of social justice activism, of the woke variety. Not, not more MLK style social justice, very specific social justice in this. And if you are not a proven activist that has the right political, it's more than even a political litmus test. You have to actually be an activist to get to even be seen by the chemistry department. They won't even show the chemistry. So there's the stories like that, they're just like, Oh my God, but that's what happens when the immune system is failing. Just the the the things will continue. So what is the what is the antidote to that if we for those of us that can't move to Miami. Well everybody can we welcome. We welcome you. Those of us that have it yet. Yeah. The antidote is leadership because what happens is in each one of these stories, you know James Bennett getting fired from New York Times, right. You read the story in detail. You know, McNeil is another example for the New York Times for whole long story. But. In each story that you the leadership often because leadership is you know that most people are not insane like this almost. This is again with the orange circles. Almost everyone actually thinks this is insane these firings. And that's what's scary is they're happening anyway. So each of these stories you see a moment when the leadership first says, well you know here we do agree with even though I hate his views too. You know we we we we value diversity of a viewpoint and then there's huge pushback and there's a moment of truth. Are they going to stand up for the Veritas and for the for the core values are they going to. Are they gonna or are they going to a seed? The culture to the mob and and what the canceled culture is, is these moments of truth, that leadership choosing cowardice and the actual cudgel of social media doesn't actually hit the person. It's the leader actually going and actually firing them. The leader is the one who ends up actually being there, standing up to the mob as opposed to letting the mob rule you. Yes. Which is which is the hard thing and a lot of these current hard to do you think about we see all these companies in Silicon Valley. Well, we see it. When we do the podcast, we had a moment and we were discussing the don't say gay slash parents choice bill, which you look at the framing of that. It's completely hilarious that, like, we framed it as those two things. Either you're like, you don't want parents to be able to parent their kids or you hate gay people. It's like really, is that what we're talking about here? And we looked at it and a couple of besties were having the conversation, I won't say who, and we were trying to get educated on it and I'm like. Should people be able to talk about their gay parents in first grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade? Of course. You're a parent, you're gay. I'm assuming you don't want people to be able to tell you you can't be talked about at school. And then it was like and gender assignment and what gender you choose. And now we're sitting there going, I don't actually know enough about this. Should you introduce that you can be one of 40 genders at six years old or 12 years old? When should sex education start? I actually don't know. I we would learn that 15 should it be? Well, I don't know. And we're we were like, is this a discussion we can have on the podcast? Without us actually consulting with some people who know more than us and discussing it. And I've written about 3:00 or 4 tweets about the the trans swimmer, and I have feelings on it, but I'm like, should I actually tweet that? I find it's profoundly unfair that this person gets to win every single women's meet. And I kind of feel bad for the women who now can the best they can do is second place is am I going to get cancelled for that? Because that was my initial response to it. And I don't actually know my position because I don't know that other person story who's a trans woman and maybe she does deserve to be in that. I don't know if anybody has an answer for that. So I'm curious, you know, from the besties themselves, you know, what are your thoughts on are tackling some of those things and and not getting canceled or these things happen on every dimension, every day, which is you have more questions than answers. I think, Tim, you wrote it in the slide. It's kind of like. You're navigating between high conviction and, you know, high knowledge. But that's a path, and that path happens because you can talk to other people and you can ask questions and you can figure out where you are today. You can figure out where you could be tomorrow. That's what's not allowed anymore, right? On any on any dimension. It's not anyone specific issue. It's on so many topics, right. And the thing with that is that it gets people very afraid. And then when you are afraid, I think to your point, what happens is you take the most simplest reductive point of view that can be the most acceptable on any topic, whatever. And this is what causes this snowball to kind of roll, literally scared to talk about the trans issue because I feel like I don't know enough. I also don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. I I would feel terrible if I did hurt his feelings. So the reason you want to talk about it is because the social costs of even taking the risk of having that conversation outweigh any potential benefit. It's just the conversation gets so hot, but I want to, I want to go back to what Tim said, that the moment of truth is when the leader of the organization has the choice of whether to fire. The person who the mobs going after seems self-evident that the leader shouldn't basically join the mob and and inflict mob justice on this poor employee. But they do anyway. And the question is why. And I would argue that the reason why is because they're afraid of the New York Times hippies. That's it. That's what it comes down to. They're afraid that the woke mob will come after them next. And we've seen it before when Brian Armstrong implemented his policy of no politics in the workplace at Coinbase. Who then retaliated against him. He got a New York Times hip piece that was they are the enforcement wing of the woke mob. When Elon said that he would restore free speech to Twitter, what was the response? That the New York Times wrote an article basically trying to identify him with the apartheid regime in South Africa even though he was a kid? The headline of the article didn't even match up with the body of the article. The body of the article had body stories about him as a child. It was also a historical account. Of, you know, a bunch of oppressive things that happened in South Africa and in it when he was a child, right. He was, he was the body of the story had nothing but anecdotes about how he even as a young adolescent, basically rejected apartheid. And yet the headline, the story was basically painting him with this brush, so basically calling him a racist. And and it came from his dad and they have a super complicated relationship. And so it was like the IT was like the one person where you couldn't have necessarily guaranteed what would have come out of Earle mouth and it was still so supportive of Elon. Yeah. Right. So, so, so we're gonna overcome this problem. I think we have to have this recognition that, you know that these prestige outlets like the New York Times, who for some reason have so much credibility and our culture, they have the power or they used to have the power to basically destroy people's careers. We have to realize that these are just places that have been hijacked by radicals and, like their stories are meaningless. They're completely biased. We have to stop investing. And with the cultural power to, like, destroy people, it's that simple happens is there's a lag time. Now do Fox News. They don't. Here's the difference. They have the cultural power to destroy anyone. And who have they destroyed? Named somebody like what woke mob have they engineered? Mike the pillow guy? I think he. I'm not saying, look, I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could. I'm just saying that they can't because they don't have that kind of cultural power. Before we, Tim, you were gonna say something. I was gonna say when an institution like this gets what happens is a mob like this that they don't build anything. You know, they don't create what they do is they appropriate, they hijack something, they take its existing good reputation, which is real, which is a lot of power, and they spend it down. It's not constructive. It's destructive. Yes, but they'll actually go in like they they, they like, they take over and they and they spend the reputation down. But in the lag time between when the reputation catches up, it can do a ton of damage. So again, I would say that you know a lot. I'm scared about what's going on. Like Ivy League institutions, they have so much credibility, but in a lot of really bad things have kind of happened there and it's. Yeah. Can I suggest we pivot to tech and investing while we keep here? We're gonna lose that. Thank you joining us. And we decided to do a crossover on politics. Well done. Just keep, keep. And I were talking backstage and I was like, what investments have you made? Like, I've made no investments in 2022. And you guys have like, how big is your latest Fund, 5 billion, $5 billion latest fund? And you haven't made any investments and you told the fund as a whole has made some investments. I haven't met any, but you haven't. I haven't let any new investments in 2022. Yeah, last year I led the 13 or 14 in a year. So to go to, to go to effectively 0 for half the year is like me being on vacation. Can you tell us what your point of view is? Well, I mean, I tweeted in October. You know that we were at the height of the market. I tweeted last January that we're gonna see 2000 all over again. And so privately, internally, I've been arguing this internally, that this is exactly what's gonna happen. And so, you know, my behavior should reflect my views. I believe in some consistency and harmonization. So if I believe tech stocks and tech companies aren't worth that much, I can't be investing until they reset. And so I don't want to spend money and invest in companies that aren't going to make money. My job is to ultimately return billions of dollars to my LP's, and if I can't do that, I shouldn't be giving anybody any money. So when do you change your mind? Well, there are founders who are ahead of the curve, there always are, who understand where the world's going. They actually understand the world, where the world is going better than I do. They actually teach me about where the world's going more typically. And if they have appropriate expectations, I'm happy to invest. So the last three or four investments I did make actually were all, interestingly enough, about $1.5 million investments where the founder walked in and said, you know, I don't need a lot of money. I could accomplish a lot. I can achieve inflection moments for a very small amount of capital. That was the easiest thing ever to say yes at $1.5 million. I don't need to think about the macro world. I don't need to think about where the, you know, Nasdaq's going. And so the last three or four investments were all incredibly disciplined founders that I made like late last year into like arguably into January. Now we have doubled down, just to be clear about our conversation, we have doubled down in portfolio companies where we've led new rounds. But as far as in new investment from scratch, I haven't made any new ones this year. So when you double down in a moment like this, how do you set valuation, especially if the last valuation was maybe? Felt like a top tick. I think the founder has sort of digested where the world is. Then you know we have a dialogue by valuation. Otherwise I actually encourage them to go shop it like I'd say like we will give you money, but were you price it at the same mark at a discount. Now if they have a fair market valuation from top tier firms, we'll try to be like in that zone. But they'll often go to the market and people will be like either pass, Pass, Pass, Pass, Pass or they will give them, you know, just reality and then we'll match that. But we've done that a few times where we've encouraged founders. Typically we wouldn't do this. My partner, Brian Singerman, loves to pour money into companies that are working. That's been, we've been a high conviction fund for about a decade. So typically if we like a company, it will lead the next round, lead the next round. We've done this with ramp, for example, we've had like 3 or 4 rounds. But now with evaluation of reset going on, it's been easier sometimes with founders. I really like to say, why don't you go talk to father people? Well, it's just like go talk to five other people and I'll match what they do if they're really top tier people. But like I want you to get like fair market feedback, you know, not just have to rely upon my judgment car. Are we at the point in the cycle where the down routes, the warrants, the, the, the liquidation preferences have happened or are starting to be discussed? Definitely seeing a lot of like preferences again. Explain what it is and why that's important. Yeah so look we're liquidation preference basically means that the, the, the the the investor is going to get their money back first regardless of what happens in the world and that nobody who's a shareholder nobody is a founder is going to get a nobody's a common shareholder which basically means founder employee is going to get any money until the investor gets all their money back times some multiple and that multiple is based on time and or just a a hurdle. It's very scary, but it can be arbitraged by successful founders. This can arbitrage it well, meaning they have asymmetric information about the future of the company. If they really believe they can hit escape velocity in a short period of time, it can be a decent gamble. I've seen someone like Jack Dorsey at square did this very sophisticated CEO and he knew what he was doing and knew why he was doing it, and it's worked out pretty well actually. But it's it's you're playing a lot of fire, so it's not for everybody, and you should get a lot of feedback and advice before the flat rounds are definitely happening. The new flat is the upper round kind of philosophy, even in some of our better are those. And you're like prep or. It depends, depends on the round. They're all over the map actually. It's the market hasn't shifted to the point that every new money coming in senior to all other money. Then how much leverage and what quality investors you have on your cap table like say for example, someone tries to put a senior like preference on top of my capital. I'm gonna yell at them a lot and if they ever wanted a new investment that we're, you know, from our fund, they may not want to do that. Do you think that we're a couple turns away? That's what the Godfather, the discount rounds. Well some companies are going to have to try. The problem is like. Example, we don't like to do those rounds. There's so much brain damage in the politics of that with founders, with prior investors. Walk us through that. Why tell us about that brain damage. So typically if if you think there's an efficient market of pricing, right, like I need this much capital and the markets gonna float with the price of that capital is in private capital. It's not really true like, so if someone comes to me and says, you know, my last round was done at 300,000,000, you know, nine months ago and today you'd probably get priced at let's say 120 million, I'm more likely to say no than to give them an offer at 120. Because I know their prior investors and their prior employees are going to be mad at me and furious at me and I don't want a lot of founders and people annoyed at me and so that brain damage isn't worth it. So I'm more likely in our fund is more likely to say no, then try to find whether 8000 hundred 2000 forty is the appropriate price, which is very bad for the company in some ways because you they they might need to capital starve them of money. Yeah no they may be able to find somebody else but we typically have founders fund really don't like. Do those rounds. The only way we would consider it is pretty much if everybody on the CAP table called us up, the founder of CEO, the board members prior investor said we really want you to do this and like we're all collectively holding hands and want you to do this, then we seriously consider it. Do you, at the end of Q1, do you guys sit around and reset valuations and marks before you tell your LP's what these companies are worth, meaning your own sense when you sort of generate a a sense of valuations, like, yeah, we do mark down proactively, mark, we do proactively mark down. What's your methodology for that? Peters views, I mean I think I think Peter Sweitzer, we would be open to to doing that if we felt like we had an objective methodology for doing that. It's very tricky. I think you can if you it later, stage one is a little bit easier cause you can apply multiples, there's public, you know public comps and you just adjust to that. I think the earlier stage stuff very difficult to do objectively and it's also not that sense. You're probably not as sensitive to it in terms of what it, how it moves the needle, but the growth stuff we try to use public comps and be like realistic. What do you think about, let's just we'll just throw out some firms just if you had to guess the next 18 months for some of these folks, SoftBank Vision Fund one. I mean, you know my views on SoftBank have been obvious since I did New York Times and all Things interview 2016. You should read the transcript. But I was like that strategy just does not work. Pouring money into companies and hoping that money is the key asset and the key ingredient for success has been false and in the history of technology for 50 years. And so that, you know they lost $27 billion. And the brand subprime, they used to do well in Latin America, but they got rid of the person who actually knew what he was doing. So it's just a catastrophic mess. Plus it has moral issues, you know, less moral issues than before, but still, you know, not not the best investor, tiger. I think they have a skill set gap if they're gonna try it. From what I read publicly, they're trying to invest in Series A and Series B companies. The skill to be successful at investing Series A and Series B companies is very different than leading growth rounds or private or public growth rounds. And I mean, we look at this in our fund and we do both. We have a venture fund of 1.8 billion in the Growth fund of 3.2 billion. And we have part of the investment team is basically the same. Most of the investment team, maybe all of the investment team is better at one or the other. And if Tiger thinks that they're going to be successful, Series A. Masters, they're in for a very rude awakening. I know about 5 or 10 people on the planet that are successful Series A investors. It is a very different discipline than deploying capital rate large. Yeah, Sequoia, I think, you know, Sequoia is the best run fund historically. They are really good at what they do. Obviously, the world is changing around them. Like I I think like many people crypto, you know, kind of throwing the little monkey wrench in their model. They have to scale. They explain that. What do you mean they missed the first wave of crypto and crypto? You know, has returned to these amount of money for people and so I think that's tarnished the brand a bit with crypto people specifically, but they're working on fixing that. They have a really good team. The team is aging still pretty well. One of the hardest things in venture is you age non gracefully in this job. You know, by the time you're my age you're probably 2, you're already past your prime. And you know, I kind of compare because I went to law school with people who US senators and I had breakfast in Miami with one of the more prominent US senators and I said I'm basically getting to the tail end of my career in tech. And he said I'm in the bottom 20% of the youngest, 20% in the US Senate. And so there's a big contrast. But anyway, I think, I think they're excellent at what they do. We're boyfriend Senate. Sorry, we're boyfriend Senate. You might run for Senate. I'm not ready for Senate. No, my husband second career. Politics and reason and crypto, they're excellent. Let me ask you if I want to take the other side of the crypto missing the last crypto insanity, if this thing does all get torched, as it seems to be, and nobody shipping actual products that touch customers that actually solve problems in the world sitting out, you know, that crazy frenetic moment might actually look astute because, you know, some of these projects. I do not see them. Shipping products, I think that you're saying something that's practically true, but I think Keith is also saying something that is practically true, which is if you're a fund that has that crypto deal flow, at least my understanding of that playbook is you see the project, you make sure that you get some amount of the float of tokens. You're allowed to monetize those tokens very quickly and so as long as you're in the flow. There's money to be made. There's a lot of money to be made. And I think what Keith is saying, and this is where Sequoia may have made an excellent decision, which is that form of money making is not very reliable. And I think that there's going to be a lot of questions about that once there's a regulatory framework. Yes. And it might turn is that lawsuit, 3 points mostly. I agree with that. I think first of all, it depends what you think, your vision of what a venture fund does or what you do as a partner. So to me, I think I'm in the company building mode. And so people are not building companies. I'm not really interested in making money. Not in hedge fund mode. So tokens without successful products and iconic companies aren't interesting to me, even if they're in capital. We did think at Founders Fund though that all the alpha was in Bitcoin. So going back a decade, not me, but my partners bought a lot of Bitcoin and we made a lot of money with Bitcoin because without the alpha was there, not in the company building. A year or two ago we started to shift and I think appropriately. I think there may be some alpha now. We're in the end of 1 Business Founders Fund, meaning the right founder. It's worth us investing, the wrong founder it's not. And so there are crypto projects in crypto companies where the founder is extraordinary and we would love to be the primary investor if we can. And then there's a bunch of other companies that might be successful, but that's not our business. We are at the end of 1 find the next Elon Batham. Isn't the fundamental problem that a lot of the way these crypto projects are designed is that you don't have protective provisions, preferred chairs and the operating system that venture runs on nothing, nothing. And they're asking you to give them a donation of $100 million for a token? It has some Panamanian foundation and you don't have a board seat. I mean this seems incredibly high risk and undisciplined they are, they are high risk, but we're in the business of high risk in some ways like the protective provisions. I think we don't really care that much about them. At Founders Fund is one of the thesis that you know Peter started the fund with, which is these terms are way overrated. Then ultimately the companies that succeed are the really the Facebooks, the Palantir's, you know, the Spacex's. That's where you make your money in this business and worrying about what goes wrong company is actually words. Did you have boards that I actually believe in boards, but I believe in boards. Being a mentor or consiglieri not in governance, of course. OK, great. But you're not buying. Chuck e cheese, I never give a term sheet, I never give a term sheet that has a board provision for me. The founders requires me to join the board, got it. But I mean the the tokens are I think are part of the problem that I can't get my head around is yes, the issue with tokens is a little more structural of when you have liquidity prior to success that's not necessarily a good incentive. Like I think success liquidity should follow success with product, follow with users, follow attraction, not be in advance. And I think that's just teams when they get flush with a billion dollars in tokens or 100 million in tokens. To wind down the problem, they haven't shipped the product yet. It has misaligned, misaligned, or bad or perverse incentives all over. Talk about you, you're mentioning in the back in a moment like this the people that it's hardest for right after the entrepreneur is you said the junior partners at these organizations just described the dynamic now of having to run an organization where you're trying to tell people just go to the beach for a year. Yeah. I mean I think, look, the way you make sure the way you become successful adventurer is you give money to a founder who turns it into an iconic company. That is how you get promoted, right? Like that's that's the job. And so if you tell your colleagues like, well, don't make any investments right now. They're thinking in the back of the mind, well, how do I, how do I become successful? So it's easy for me to say, this is easier for Peter to say. This is easier for Brian to say this, but it's not so easy for people who want to make their career to say don't make any investments. Now that said, if you make a lot of bad investments, assemble Shah has a good blog post about this. Your portfolio is your career. Why don't you make 5 or 10 investments in venture? If those aren't good, you're never going to get great. I don't know. There's a single example of like a VC who became successful exactly where the first five or seven exactly didn't show some signs of brilliance. It's literally the story of the people on the stage right now is that we either got lucky or we were good or some combination of the early investments actually hitting. Oh, I'm definitely worse. Like my first five investments, three of them became public companies and stuff like the first four, definitely worse than they used to be. I mean, I hit 2 unicorns in the first four. How does it happen? It's just luck, I think. I I I do think there's some luck to it. Or maybe your network. Well, network. So for me it was easy because these were people that we worked David and I worked with at PayPal and I and I was smart enough to at least, you know, follow the people that were launching companies. Or PayPal and give them some money so I didn't have to know much about venture other than just follow my former colleagues. We have to wrap and go to lunch. We're gonna end with sacks telling us. His most illustrative and funny story about Keith Raboy Oh my God, from Stanford. You're so many good ones. Some great moments with Keith. I don't know the two of you this is you could you could feel the friendship and all the memories coming through for sax right now. All these great. I could flip it Keith and maybe some sad. I like the work of the Keith and I did at PayPal better I guess. Yeah that's fine. Whatever Stanford PayPal give us the give us the moment. What do you think of the best stories. Well one good one that I think is instructive is you know like I was kind of this opinionated person running around all the time, probably half right half wrong and David was basically running the company at the time and. I could occasionally sabotage some projects and David had a really good way of reframing and channeling my energy, which I think is applicable to most people. He's like, basically, I don't mind if you send me any of this feedback, but you have to send it to me directly and not to other people. And then you would like filter it if it's like if you were like, if it's right, I'll, I'll act on it and if not, you know, etcetera, I'll debate it with you. But it was actually constructive for the organization. So I felt liberalized, liberal, liberalized to basically give the feedback and try to, you know, edit our course and it would be channeled in use useful, but it wasn't. Attracting people. And so I think that is something like a lesson I've taken with me that I actually now use as a CEO. I heard I this is what's so crazy about this? I've heard this exact story from Reed Hoffman. Tell me that about you. I think it was either it was either a PayPal or at LinkedIn where you would probably be emails and it was just like lighting everybody and everything on fire. Really? He announced. I make it like letters from her boy. I reread the emails and I'm like, **** I can't write that well anymore. Letters from her, boy. A memoir. Let's give it up for boy. Let your winners ride Rain Man David Sachs. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Why? Why? Why? Besties are gone. That is my dog taking out your driveway. Ohh man. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge order because they're always useless. It's like this, like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow. B. What? Where did you get mercies?