Listen to Episode

Read Episode Transcript

Sex. Is there something you object to here? The poker one and net worth? No. I mean, that's fine. I don't give a **** about longevity or quantum computing. But here's the good news, David. It's not all about you. There's four people. Because you could have two people who like the topic and then you could just ask them a probing. That's fine, that's fine. Just tell me when it's over. I'll do, you know, I'll do e-mail. Let your winners. Rain Man David Saxton. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy. Queen. Hey everybody. Hey everybody, welcome to the all in podcast. I'm Jason Calacanis and with us today again. The Queen of Quinoa, David Friedberg Sands his dog in the background. Sorry for those of you who love his dog. He's on a walk. He'll be back in like 10 minutes back and he'll be in the seat and. The Rain Man himself, David Sachs Ultra, focused on Sass and marketplace startups and involved in some illegal trafficking of red pills straight up from Honduras to Cuba and then through Miami making the red pills, making their way to California, and finally daddy's back. The SPAC master himself. Besty see the dictator is finished, bank account replenished. He'll be rebellion, firing on all cylinders. It's so, so, you know, live by the SPAC, die by the smack. That's what they always say in this business. But you know what we have been absolutely inundated with? I kid you not. Hundreds of questions from you, our loyal audience. And when this thing is over, we are going on World Tour. We'll see you in Vegas. We'll see you in. At the Royal Albert Hall in London and Miami, all cities are on the agenda. Let's take our first question from you, the audience. To what extent are you guys? Wait, how's, how's everyone doing? Right into the questions. But it has. I mean, look at this guy. He got his *** kicked and he's back. I'm doing really, really great. What about the rest of you guys? You guys played poker this week. Played poker. It was a bloodbath. Well, although, you know, it's so funny because, like, we played, I played a very big game the week before. And then we step into our game, which is like, I think still quite big, but I could not rub two cards together to make a hand. And I I went off like a rocket ship. I just lost it somewhere. And just Despite that, Despite that, every time I chamath and I were heads up in hand, he just smashed, absolutely smashed me, smashed. And then I was like, you know what? I'm not going to be bullied anymore. And then I stand up to him and he's got the nuts. Each time I was down, I did take all. I did run you over. I mean, the number of just complete bluff. I ran on you the 1st and I'm just like, oh, he's totally got my number today. After Bluff, after bluff. And then I showed him the nuts five times in a row. It's beautiful. So I'm stuck a model, why? And I come back and I win a used Prius. I'm just leaving it at that. I lost the mid sized home in Phoenix, AZ. I think you lost the Bentley. OK, don't cancel us, please. Sack, sack, did you play? I wasn't there in that game, but I played in LA game a couple of nights ago and any celebrities. Yeah, me, me, sacks, and oh God, you guys don't count your podcast. No, there was one. There was one unnamed celebrity. We can't say what, but an actor? No, we can't say. But we all want. Just give us a genre. Athlete. OK, yeah, I won in in that game, but I lost. I lost in a different game this past week and it wasn't pretty. Yeah. Wait, sexy. Are you what game are you playing? Yeah, I think he may be playing, actually. I'm in. Beef that out. Would you, nick? Beep it out. But we could all laugh at him for being so precious. Ohh you. I'm sorry. Do you LP's think you're supposed to be in San Francisco investing in startups? No, no, they they they know I go wherever the deals are. Ohh, really? Miami? What? Did you get a deal? Would you get a deal on some crow cats and a Cuban sandwich 2 for one? He's there. When do you think you'll make an investment in the Miami based company? Do you think that'll happen anytime? What's happened already hasn't happened. Are you in the new free? Are you in the new? I've invested into Miami company. I've got like six. Yeah. I well, there are some companies that are moving to Miami that I'm already in. You know chamath and I are both in pipe, right? And and part at least. The CEO of the company just moved to Miami. So that's two of 424 besties in pipe. Thanks. By the way, how did you miss that jakal they they advertise? On your show and you didn't think to try to set that, the LP beep that we all share wanted everything and he couldn't fit me in and I was like, how about a slice? And he's like, is that LP me? No, there's another LP that sacks and I share who got their beaks significantly doused in that one. But I'm just going to, I'm going to get the kid to give me a 25 basis points in advisor share. So I'm, I'm getting a slice no matter what. Yeah, good luck with that. Good luck with that, good luck with that. Motion the trains off the station, dude, that that that companies billion dollars in less than two years of its existence. Good luck with that, Jason. OK, well, we call it a make and I don't know what you guys are seeing, but my God. Early stage valuations went bonkers. They had one company that raised. That that don't front run it. I have all kinds of data for you, right. So today we're gonna do some audience questions and then we're gonna do the state of DC we're running through a deck, we're running through everything that is changing right now in venture capital and early stage investing and it is changing very quickly. Here's a question from Leonard. All musics. To what extent are you guys interested in longevity? In your opinion? What technologies could help us live longer and healthier lives freedberg that's got your name on it when we start with you? On this one I would point folks to read the book lifespan by David Sinclair, who's a researcher at Harvard and he's done a lot of kind of leading work on on basically calling aging a disease and and life extension. So the book lifespan highlights I think a lot of his research and findings and paths forward for for improving longevity and basically you know comes down to what he defines as kind of an early switch that. Involved in evolutionary biology in every cell in every living Organism where the cell is either in growth mode or repair mode. And the trick is, can you get the gene to switch on that puts the cell into repair mode. And if you do that, the cell fixes itself and you and the cell lasts longer and the Organism lives longer. And so they've identified a number of genes that trigger this and a number of compounds that trigger expression of those genes. And there's a number of things you can do lifestyle wise to trigger these genes, basically to get yourself to live. OK. So fasting is a good one. And then there's a bunch of compounds that you can take that mimic fasting on a cellular level, like metformin and rapamycin. I'm on metformin, I think couple of you guys are on metformin, right? And then and then the NAD plus supplements, which you can buy on NMN substance, NMN, NMN and NAD plus. So there's two, there's two compounds and MN like Nancy, Mike, Nancy and then NR and those you can buy a product called true. Biogen on Amazon, which which has those compounds and you take about 1000 milligrams a day. And anyway all of this stuff laid out in his books and it, it supports a lot of the research that's being done. Obviously, fasting and exercise also trigger this gene expression and and enable kind of measures of longevity to kind of be showing up biologically. But I think, I think it's a, it's an emerging field and there's a lot of deep work going on and as people have highlighted that the process of aging is a biological process that theoretically we can stop and potentially reverse. And there's a lot of new work that's being done in stem cell therapy that may kind of elicit some new paths forward here. So arguably someone is alive on planet Earth today that could live past the age of 200. So it's an exciting field and and lots of kind of path forward. I'll uh, I'll tell you for what it's worth. My regimen. And God, here we go. Thirst trap photo coming in three. No. So so I I I do. The the following so I take a statin now it was 10 milligrams, now I'm at 20 milligrams. I take metformin and all of this. I take sort of in a preventative posture because my cholesterol wasn't super high, but it wasn't super low, was like sort of like in the 1617180, but now it's sort of like 120. And then metformin, I take preventatively as well. I'm not pre diabetic. And then a couple of vitamin D and some other stuff. But then here are these things that I do that I think could be valuable for some folks listening. There are these places now that exist. They're popping up. One company that you can check out is called Pre Nuvo PRENUVO. They're in Vancouver, they're in LA, they're in Redwood City, so mid, mid peninsula for those in Silicon Valley. And what you can do is you can get a head to toe MRI so you know there's no radiation. You know, you could do these things, you know, every other week if you wanted to. It takes about an hour. And what happens is they can basically look through your entire body, your musculature, your organs from that, literally from the tip of your head all the way down to your ankles. And they can spot a lot of stuff that may not otherwise be seen. And so, you know, every three or four years to get one of these. And you could see a lesion. You could see the beginnings of a tumor. Uhm, you know, I did one a few weeks ago, Touchwood. It was great. Nothing. Nothing so much. Does it cost? There's a range of prices, and I think those prices will come down. The range of prices are from like 1500 to $2500. So it's not expensive, it's not cheap. Sorry. But here's what they're able to do. They're building a corpus of all these images where they're running machine learning on it, and they're getting better and better at identifying anomalies. And so as a result of that, they're able to actually take the MRI images and they can do fewer and fewer scans to get the equivalent resolution. So two things will happen. One is the scan time will come down, right? So it was an hour and a half. Now it's sort of right under an hour. It can probably be as low as 40 minutes, which is relatively tolerable for most people. And then the cost will come down into the hundreds of dollars because you'll be able to very rapidly assess. So I do that. And then the second thing is for anybody with heart disease in their family, I really implore you. One of my friends actually is flying down from Toronto. I'm taking him to my cardiologist in LA. And there's a thing called heart flow. And what heart flow is, is a contrast CT, which basically means they inject a dye and then they put you under a CT and they they map out your heart and you can literally see the calcium build up. You can see the state of your arteries. And you know what probably people don't know is when you have a calcium score, you know most of us it's zero. But when it starts to be non zero it double s every year and by the time it gets into the thousands you're basically guaranteed to get some form of cardiac issue. And so it doesn't seem like anything if your cardiac score is 20 except it goes to 408160 and all of a sudden within 5-6 years you're really in the red zone for a heart attack or something. I've done it twice now. Every five years I do it and touchwood you know my my calcium score is still 0. But in any event, that's what I do for longevity. I kind of preventatively at the cellular level with some drugs and then just trying to catch cancer and heart disease on the front end. Otherwise E3 balanced meals and. Exercise and sleep a lot. Sacks. You obviously don't care about longevity. Any thoughts here? I mean, Sax has looked like he's 1000 years old since he was seven. No, he was. When he was in 12th grade. He looked like he was a vice president of the United States. Yeah, guys, just just just let just let me know when this conversation is over. I've been doing my e-mail. That's so great, alright? We got to end my life now. I ******* hate it. You don't you guys. Like I just lost two years right now. Sax has got an early spot both on the rocket ship to Mars, and he's got an inside VIP to Peter Thiel's Blood Boy project. And so either way he's getting off the planet or he's going to refresh his blood, or both. So he's good. All right. Action bias asks, please debate. Decentralization of monetary value, ultimate threat for insiders, power erosion. I interpret this as a as a Bitcoin question. So, yeah, I think one of the most interesting things happening in the world today is this is what's happening with Bitcoin, right? It's and and you're seeing the price go up because a bunch of institutional investors on Wall Street are all getting into it now. It's gone from retail to institutional and the narrative, basically, it's a really profound narrative. Which is it's the separation of money and state. So if you think about like one of the most important events in human history was the separation of church and state, where we no longer look to the state to determine, you know, what religion everyone was going to be. Well, what crypto is introducing is this idea that the government cannot control the money supply. I think that's he's talking about with the decentralization, is that you could have a currency that everybody in the world believes in, that no government can control. That's the separation of money and state. Now, this is just really a narrative right now. I mean, and who knows if it will actually come true. But the interesting thing is that if everybody does believe in it, it will come true. And so Bitcoin has been sort of described as the bubble that never ends because if everyone kind of buys into this bubble, it actually comes true. So I think it's very interesting. And you're seeing because Bitcoin is kind of perceived as the antidote to inflation and money printing by the government. I think you're seeing it take on new urgency now because the government just keeps printing trillions and trillions of dollars of of new money. Doesn't this threaten government? So if government doesn't have. Control over monitoring financial transactions and have control over the accounts in which the financial assets sit, which is effectively the the notion of decentralized anonymized wallets. Then how does the government secure taxation, which is requisite for their ability to fund? Well, the good the fund the state, right. And So what happens to the state? Well, so there there's an enormous amount of leakage that happens today in assets that actually get financialized, but in the Gray market. And I think the the beautiful thing is, on the one hand, you know, we've become less. Focused on like the M1 and the M2 money supply, like the physical printable, distributable money that we can see and touch and it gets replaced with virtual currencies that are tied to other things. I think what the, the, the, the the person who wrote the question is asking really is more about D Phi and what's happening sort of like on the Ethereum, you know, 2.0, ERC, 20 contracts, all that stuff, which is sort of much more next Gen I think than Bitcoin. And I think at some point we should deep dive into it. But what I would say Friedberg is all the leakage you have today. Goes away in a world of dfy because you will financialized every single asset possible. You know you'll financialized your homes. You'll finalize your cars, your watches, your jewelry, your art, your financialized. Every random thing, maybe even your career and how people will trade it. Absolutely, your career. And and The thing is by by monetizing it and finalizing it, you can borrow against it. You can trade it, you can pull forward value into the future against it. But it'll all be tracked. And so as long as the government. And says, listen, we're going to enable it all, but there needs to be an off ramp to taxation. And that's pretty simple because a physical house exists in the world. You can't hide the existence of a physical house, but it's not anonymized, right. Smooth. And so, you know, you want to track it. I mean that's the challenge is if no, I'm saying if it is anonymized, then the government can't track it. And the government, these are these are two separate things. Some assets will live anonymously and those are the assets that don't need to exist in the real world. But I think what this will create is a world where all of these. Assets that actually really exist in the real world, it'll be fine that it exists and that people get taxed on it, but it'll be much more legitimate and I think it'll be simpler. And so I think people will trade off incremental taxation for incremental monetize ability. I'll give you an example. Let's use real estate. There is no reason why every single piece of land everywhere around the world isn't written into a Ledger with knowledge of who owns it such that the person that owns it. Could trade, it could borrow against it could sell, it, could generalize it, fractionalized it. Even if you can't fractionalized in the real world because your neighbors won't let you set it up into four lots, you could do that online, online. And so today what will happen is that you know that person has a level of wealth. And what they do instead take the United States is they lobby, lobby lobby to create all this convoluted real estate tax law to make their life simpler. But if you actually unlocked the ability to focus on revenue versus. Expenses, you just wouldn't focus as much on the taxation because you'd say, well, I can make so much more money. If you judge just a, you know, sort of answer the question here from the, from the reader, from the listener. I think that you can really judge this based upon how much it's being pumped by the people who own it. And they are absolutely dogged religious about this. It's like talking to and, you know, a person who's, you know, met Jesus and now everybody has to be a Christian. And you can also look at the people who are opposing it. I don't know if you saw Yellen and then Christine Lagarde, she came out against it, Yellen's come out against it, India might ban it. And then you have obviously China's coming out, their digital ones. So I think it's going to be, there's going to be a dogfight here where governments are not going to easily give up. Their control of this. And there's many ways they can make a bunch of red tape to slow this down. And in countries that are authoritarian, they cannot write ban it. Let's take another question, by the way. There's like 3 outcomes here, right? I mean you, you could either see Bitcoin, for example, you know, being banned and that's going to be ugly and and obviously there would be significant financial loss at this point to saxis point. At some point there's there's so much asset value tied up in Bitcoin, it's it's it's too big to fail. So David bent, by who? Oh, that. That's from Chinese government. This is what they're trying to do in some of the states, right? And they're trying to make it illegal for citizens to transfer money in and out of the asset class. I think it's, I think it's a bigger threat to countries that want to impose export or currency controls and and export, export restrictions. But but frankly, if you're a country that's not afraid of currency movements because you're not trying to do something impressive to your people, I don't think you have that much to fear here. I mean, there are other ways of trying to hide assets or hide money besides Bitcoin and every transaction, every Bitcoin transaction is written. Into the Ledger. I think you have to be pretty dumb to try and commit a crime with Bitcoin because there's going to be a permanent record in the blockchain forever of that transfer. And then there's companies that that provide that do kind of sleuthing and try to, you know, unravel. You think tax evasion in the United States is going to be difficult with Bitcoin? If I accrue a bunch of value in Bitcoin, am I going to be able to evade paying taxes on those gains and convert that Bitcoin into physical assets by purchasing it from another Bitcoin wallet holder? I mean how, how realistic is tax evasion going to be and how much would because that's ultimately what the US government would mostly, well, so you would convert cash into Bitcoin and then you want to sell your Bitcoin. At some point you're going to have to sell it. I mean there would be, there would be a a realization or no, I'm saying transfer it to a seller of an asset, of another asset that that's willing to accept Bitcoin in receipt. And so to anonymize wallets. I don't know. I mean that that transaction is going to live on the blockchain forever and it's going to live in the books of whoever the seller is. What are they selling you, a car or a house? Whatever. I mean that that transit a watch. I mean, look, if it's a personal item, maybe. But if we're talking about a substantial asset like a house or a company or something, they're going to need to the other side of the transaction is going to need to report the realization event. So you're going to have two people collude to engage in tax evasion. Seems like a really stupid thing to do. Legally incorporated businesses are going to be mandated to do effectively identity verification, much like we have to do under the Patriot Act with all the financial law. Totally, yeah. Ultimately how the compromise arises, right. Yeah. I'm not I'm not that worried about I I feel like this whole like Silk Road type Bitcoin will be used illegally. Thing is like kind of a old meme about it that I think that the fears are like greatly exaggerated. But the thing that jumps out at me about all the critics of Bitcoin and I'm I'm not like a pump or whatever but I do I do own some is the thing that like all these like critics don't seem to understand is the technology. That's a common denominator, whether it's like Howard Marks or Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger, whoever they're they're all like great investors or whatever, but they're not technologists and blind spot. Yeah, it's a blind spot. And the thing they don't understand about the technology is that Bitcoin is the first digital asset to ever be created that you can't create infinite copies of, right? So think about like a song or a photo or a video or anything that's digital. You've always been able to make an infinite number of copies. Isn't that what the word digital means is that it's. Infinitely copyable. So how do you have digital money that can't just be infinitely copied? Obviously that would destroy the value, and that was the genius of Bitcoin is that every transaction is written into this Ledger, the blockchain is decentralized, and nobody over the last decade or so has figured out how to counterfeit Bitcoin, how to make a duplicate, how to double spend Bitcoin as long as that remains true. Then Bitcoin can serve as money if everyone believes in it. The day that someone figures out how to counterfeit a Bitcoin, how to double spend it, it's all worthless. But a lot of people have been trying over the last 10 years. They've never figured out how to crack it. By the way, that's a great it's a great transition to the next question. Sorry not to interrupt you, but no, it's a perfect transition. And Next up out of a deal says can one of the best. He's explain the power of quantum computing and how it can change industries like medical pharmaceuticals. Any good companies that are leaders in quantum computing? I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll take a cut at this one. So and the reason I pointed it out is because a lot of people do talk about quantum computing potentially being a path to cracking the hashing functions in Bitcoin mining and potentially overwhelming the network and effectively counterfeiting the the Bitcoin Ledger. And so technically a quantum computer is a computer that uses qubits, which is a a storage of a quantum state. Versus a storage of a binary state, which is a binary digit, which is called a bit in traditional computing, classical computing A1 and A0A1 and a zero and a quantum, or qubit. A quantum state can be a much more dynamic function, and so it's a it's a state that is a very analog and very representative of kind of a a much more kind of broader condition than just a one or a zero. It could be A1A0 or neither, right? It could have neither state as well about it as a wave function. And Umm, and so a cubit can only exist in a in a piece of matter where you can hold the fidelity of a quantum state, meaning it can't be disturbed. So right now, all quantum computing gets disturbed, it all has some error prone context to it. And so in order to use qubits to do calculations, we use what's called quantum error correction on those qubits. And so we adjust the the qubits and the output to try and resolve it. A qubit with no errors is called a logical. Qubit and the logical qubit has not been built. It would require very, very, very low error rates, and there's a bunch of and and there's a bunch of theories around when this is going to happen. When are we going to have truly logical qubits? When does the error rate get low enough that these qubits are are are truly kind of useful? Now there is an estimate that the number of logical qubits needed to crack RSA 2048, which is the big kind of encryption standard, which could kind of break the whole crypto currency model. It would require about 4011 logical qubits. Today, the largest, the largest quantum computer has about 100 qubits that are very noisy, and so it's less than one logical qubit. And so we would need somewhere between 100,000 and a million qubit computer to be able to have enough quantum supremacy to be able to tackle a project like cracking RSA 2048. And to and by some estimates and some people have tried to estimate when this would happen. And the estimate currently by some researchers is that this, there's a less than 5% chance this happens before the year 2040. So we're talking somewhere between the year 2040 and the 2060 when we get a a quantum computer that has enough logical qubits to be able to crack a problem like, you know, RSA 2048 and basically make all crypto fail. And between now and then, a lot of people are working on quantum cryptography, which is new methods of encryption that are kind of built for the quantum era and the quantum frontier. Now what's more interesting is that over the next 100. Next 10 years or so, the current super noisy, super low fidelity quantum computers can be used to simulate quantum states, which is the condition of atoms and molecules, and use that to do better modeling of physiochemical properties of material. That's where the breakthroughs will happen in the next decade. So all the hard, discrete problems that we kind of theorize about cryptography and other stuff that's decades away it this decade we are already going to start to see quantum computers have breakthroughs in how material, how atoms and molecules interact with each other, for example, finding. Proteins that can do a better job of having an enzymatic reaction in the physical world where we can now potentially pull nitrogen out of the atmosphere to make fertilizer or or drugs or or specific protein targets that can go in the human body and have specific functions. By modeling what we can't do with traditional computers today, modeling the quantum properties of those molecules and how they interact with other molecules, and then building really cool predictive models that we can then turn into products. And that's going to be chased really hard this decade. Everyone's going to be going after it. And we already have enough compute power. I don't think there's any leader in quantum computing today. These are all still science experiments. They're all breadboards, IBM, Google, Microsoft, a bunch of research labs, a bunch of startups are all kind of basically doing the same thing with different types of qubit technology. But they all have very high errors. They all have very low qubit computers. And so it's still unresolved. Who's going to come out with some company? Two companies to follow are D Wave, which was started in 99. So just to give you an idea of how long people have been working on said 22 year old company. I know. Steve Jurvetson's been backing it for now in its third decade and then ironic, is that the other one? Ioniq. I I think like quantum facts, right? Quantum computing is like fusion. Yes. It's like, it's like a technical problem that is attracted people who've had more money than common sense. And it just basically a way to burn an enormous amount of money over 20 or 30 years. And the problem with that is that you start to build in technical craft. Anything that is still in R&D phase 20 years in needs to get scrapped and rebuilt from scratch because everything has changed, including the people. Even the 20 year olds that started are now in their 40s and have kids and just have a comparative. It's a great point chamath and so and so like you got to just scrap these projects and start all over again because the the the problem is you need somebody completely naive. We look at this problem in 2021 and say, well, OK, how are we actually going to really solve like the coherence problem? I don't know. How are we going to build a Gatorade? I don't know. And you have these very formulaic ways that we knew based on what technologies were available in 99 or 2000 to start with. And I think that's probably part of why we've framed the problem as largely sort of this thing of like, OK, maybe there's like a integer factorization thing you can do and it's like, I don't know, I'm. I'm deeply skeptical. Yeah, well, the the I agree. And by the way, This is why. So can I just say one last thing? This is why alpha fold beat quantum computers to the solution of protein folding. And and the reason was they were just like, we'll just take a different run at it, completely different people, a completely different technical framework and modality. And a completely different risk profile in age as well. A company to keep an eye on in the fusion space, Commonwealth fusion systems. I just had Bob Bumgardner exactly what were you going to say? What I was going to say is that the main thing I was thinking about while you were giving that dissertation on qubits or God knows what is I is I would never invest in this. That's all I was thinking is I would never invest in this. Yes, you're exactly what? That's exactly what? Yeah, that's exactly what the Mosset definitely seven look because kings and five aces in the deck. These are science fair experiments, you know, with indefinite time frames. This is basic R&D that should be done at universities. These concepts are not ready for commercialization. Exactly what they said about AI and then now it's infected every company. So that's not true. No, because there was a company were saying this I complete years. No, Jason couldn't get funded completely disagree with you deep mind. Could not get funded in the beginning. No. Complete, completely disagree with you because OK, there there was a practical commercial revenue generating opportunity for AI and machine learning. Literally from the start of computing it, it took several iterations. There's no use case for fusion energy. I mean, of course there is no, I'm not, but it's it's still at the basic R&D stage. Basic. I will, yeah, I will. I'll partially agree with you, Jason, in the sense that I was not investing in AI 10 years ago because I thought at that stage it was still in the realm of science fiction. But we just announced 2 deals the last two days, two seat deals viable, which is basically an AI voice of the customer. It slurps in all of your customer feedback and then gives you answers. And then the other one is copywriting. One is the copywriting AI called copy dot AI, which literally writes your site. Trying to get a slice right now? Yeah, not yeah, we we we we might give you a slice. Jason, stop being so skeptical. But. Yeah, but, but here's, here's what's changed, right, is these are seed companies with just a handful of employees. They're built on GPT 3. So you had this, like basic, like R&D done. It creates this platform called GPT 3. It's like now. Yeah, yeah, you can now build companies on top of that. So I mean, look, you know what? What I invest in are the commercialization of, of, of new technology waves. Those technology waves happen because of. Super R&D. What do you think about VR and AR? Cause if there's the same conversation with VR and AR, like are these worthy investments or not? I think, I think Sacks's point is such a good one because what he's saying is, is what I think has happened over the last century, the government, the best role the government can provide is to take on that technology risk, that large capital intensive technology risk. This was the case with the Manhattan Project and we got nuclear energy out of it. It was the case with Apollo project. We have the space industry as a result now and it's what happened with the human genome. Project and now we have an incredible genomics revolution and our planet and and that that extensive early stage de risking requires an incredible amount of capital that's very low. Returning it, it doesn't return anything. It's what what Sax is saying is later is that is the the commercialization where do we have a heuristic theory, a best practice around when something goes from a research project to being commercially viable. They're signals. I mean platform, platform application seems like one that you pointed out David, if it's a platform. You can use it easily. Yeah, I think, I think, I think you can tell when the amount of capital required to get it off the ground goes to something reasonable like a few $1,000,000 as opposed to hundreds of millions of dollars. Whenever. And and Jason, you've talked about this that any company that's trying to raise hundreds of millions of dollars or you know has a billion dollar plus like evaluation before shipping a product is presumptively fraud. There's still too much R&D involved. I mean look venture capital is a mile. Milestone based investing model, you take a little bit of seed money, you create a prototype, you get some proof, then you raise a Series A, you get 10 million, you get some customers, then you raise 25 million and you scale the company and it's based on milestones. It's actually a very efficient way of investing. And when somebody wants to skip over all those milestones, they say, no, we need hundreds of millions of dollars to launch this thing. You have to ask why is this? Is this idea really ready for commercialization? What's Jim's response to that? Because you you've done deep tech investing and you've done. Virgin Galactic would fall into that or no. Yeah. So, like, how do you think about deep tech investing chamath and like where we're like there's a role for venture capital, private market, you know, dollars? Yeah, I've done, I've done a lot of deep tech investing and my whole thing was I've always looked at, at the point where something is completely derisked technically and it's about then the exploitation of a market. Otherwise, it's exactly what David said, so I'll give you an example. A company called Relativity Space is now the second most valuable private spaceflight company after SpaceX. OK, YC company. I love the Series A. What were they trying to do? They're they they're. Their stated goal at the time was we want a 3D print. The entire rocket and the entire engine. And I said, wow, OK, well, when we did the math and we tried to figure this out and have the same launch capability as SpaceX, all of it comes down to, OK, well, how do you want to derisk this? And what Tim and Jordan's first idea was, well, first we want to basically prove that we can actually get a certain printing capability done because you're talking about these extremely, you know, energy intensive, extremely technical printers and effectively writing printer drivers, right. And to be doing it at a scale where you can hand that off. To NASA and they can take that engine, literally strap it down with chains called the hold down test, fire the engine and say it works, doesn't blow up, doesn't blow up. And I said to Tim, how much does that take? And Tim was like, I could probably do that on 10 million bucks. I said you're done on $10 million. Yeah. And so it was 100 million hundred. The only person that would have written $100 million check to derisk that doesn't understand what they're trying to prove at that point in time because what he was trying to prove was that the ability to use the printer. He wasn't saying I'm trying to build a next generation rocket motor, right. So similarly with Virgin. You know, Virgin got to a point where it's like it had flown demonstrably in the air. So what did it prove? It proved the flight profile worked, it proved the engine worked. It proved all the navigational componentry work, and it proved the safety envelope work, which means that it could basically act as a glider under all kinds of boundary conditions. That's an enormous amount of technical progress. And then at that point they are, I'm willing to invest billions of dollars. And so to David's point, you have to have a new model early too. Like that's one of the things about being an entrepreneur is figuring out how you stay alive while you answer these questions. And you came up with a brilliant one, or whoever was doing Virgin Galactic, which is people will overpay. But Virgin was a 14 year process where Richard Branson to his credit, did exactly what David said. Here's $10 million. Get to milestone one, here's $25 million. Get the milestone too. He did the exact venture capital model. It's just that he did it by himself. I think what David is saying, which I agree with, is you should never short circuit that and say here's $500 million pre Series A. Yeah, just go with that. Sure. I mean, Magic Leap, you'll be working at something for 20 years with nothing to ******* show for it. As in fusion, as in quantum computer. Alright, you end up with like you end up with a magic leap or Theranos. Theranos or even Theranos was afraid. I mean it. It looks like it's a fraud, but magically it just looks like it's technically incompetent. Or it's too hard of a technical problem to solve in the amount of time and the amount of technical incompetence, well, I don't know if it's incompetence, just might be it might be a 20 year problem as opposed to A5. But why are you taking this emotionally? Technical incompetence is the opposite of technical competence. Competence means you can do it. Technical incompetence? You can't do it. You were saying that. That group of people is incompetent. I'm saying the words that the window followed by the word incompetence. Technical incompetence. OK. When you're saying it, I think you're describing the person, not the problem. It could have been too hard to lift for them, so, you know. OK, well, the last question is about access to private equity, but let's just go into this deck here now, one of the things we wanted to talk to today, Chamath had a good idea. Venture capital is changing rapidly. The last decade has seen more change in venture capital than I would argue the four decades or five decades of venture capital has existed. In other words, more change and we're going to go through some of those changes, how it affects the entrepreneur, how it affects the investor. Chamath was nice enough to put a deck together and then I guess Jason will figure out a way to post this into the YouTube or something like that. And yeah, you know what? We'll put in the show notes, a link to this Google presentation and. Nick can pull up the slides when we're talking about them, I think. I think if folks can give us feedback, this is kind of a new thing for us. We're trying to experiment, which is sort of this is like 1/2 teaching, half discussion on something we all wanted to talk about and hopefully you guys get some value from it, but tell us if it's not. So I I want to thank Carmen Collins on my team who helped put this together. But let me just go through this state of venture capital. So a couple of high level points. There's like some really important trends at play. The first is that. There really is now underneath a massive change in the players in this game. Founder demographics are changing slowly but surely. We're going to go into that in a second. Traditional VC investors are getting disrupted. We're going to go that. We're going to go into that. And then this model which I love of let me know how I can be helpful, quote UN quote, basically eroding and ceding ground to what we call solo capitalists and we'll talk about that, which is probably the most disruptive trend in venture. Second, we'll talk about the inflation in the amount of money that's going into these companies, which really means more money at higher prices and why that's good in some ways and actually bad in some other ways. This goes back to David's point of, you know, not being forced to, to generate milestones sooner. And then the third is that it's really now a founders market and I think this is really important because you know, you've seen an enormous amount of dilution and lack of control. For founders and employee teams and companies and I think that there are some really disruptive new ways that completely usurp traditional venture, non dilutive forms of financing. We'll talk about that. So let me just level set for you guys. I asked the following question. What are the demographics of the United States and here's what they are. In the United States today, 59.7% of people are white. Non Hispanic. 12 1/2% are black, 5.8 are Asian, 18.7% are Hispanic and 2.3 are multi race. If you map that to VC founders. 77% of VC founders are white. 1% are black. 17.7% are Asian, 1.8% are Hispanic, and 2 1/2 are multi race. So amongst multirace, Asian and white you either are at or over indexing your representative population and blacks and Hispanics. This is not anything new but massively underrepresented if you take it from a gender. Females have lower representation among founders but it's growing. So the US is basically 5050 male, female, female founded companies were 23% of all deal activity in 2019. That's that's pretty good. Up from 12% in 2010. Although racial diversity is still pretty lacking, which we know. And then the young tech bro stereotype is cracking, which is this is incredible. 2019 study in the times showed that the average age of a tech founder is David Sacks. What do you think it is, the average age of a tech founder? Median or average? Mean or median? Average? Well, I saw, I saw your deck. So isn't it something like, yeah, it was surprisingly 35404242. No, I'm seeing a lot. I think the, I don't know. Just to pause here for a moment. What are we still found a company you can what do we think is given we you had the longevity question earlier and then you have people? You know, generating wealth and starting companies in their 40s, fifties and 60s who then underwrite it themselves, right until they get to product market fit and then raise money. What do we think is the best zone for an entrepreneur in terms of having a great outcome? I've always thought that the look I when I how old was I? I was 30. 132 when I started social capital. I mean, this is a multibillion dollar enterprise. I feel like I'm reasonably successful at it, but I was preparing for the 1st 13 or 14 years of my professional career. I learned some good things, I learned some bad things. I learned tactics that worked, I learned strategies that didn't work. 30s or 40s or 30s, fifties in my experience for me and I think it's for personal for everybody. I was best positioned to know what to do and at least iterate in my 30s and I think in the absence of an idea. That has some network effect or something that's sort of like supernatural outside of your own control. I think the older you are generally probably the better prepared you'll be. Yeah, I agree. I mean, I did PayPal when I was still in my 20s, but I wasn't the the founder of the company. I was recruited to it at a very early stage. I didn't really start Yammer until, well, I guess I started the predecessor company, Jeannie, when I was 34, and then Yammer pivoted into Yammer when I was 35. I mean, absolutely. That's that's like a that's like a good level of preparation, you know, unless you have a spectacular idea for a startup. You should probably get some experience 1st 100% freeberg. Any thoughts there? On what's the kill zone best time to launch companies in your mind or investing companies or where founders mean look every everyone's got their own path you know. I mean Zuck and Sergey and Larry and. Bill Gates, they started right out of college without any experience. But I mean, I worked at I I had two jobs in tech before I started my first company in 2006. And so I had a lot to draw from and that really informed me. But I think everyone's different. I mean, some people, if you have the idea, if you have the idea, by all means do it in your 20s, you know, but I mean by by far the the, the greatest kind of like measure of whether and when you're kind of prepared for this is your ability to continue learning. You know, continuous learning to me is it's one of the greatest predictors of entrepreneurial success and all the guys that have lasted for decades from Bezos to Zuck to, you know, Larry and Sergey. But, you know, they were continuously evolving themselves. Because they were continuous learners. Bill Gates. Bill Gates is the penultimate example of this, right? I mean, this guy is reinvented himself 1000 times that what you said is so important. I'm going to change my answer. I think I started social capital when I was actually the most able to get out of my own way and learn continuously. Yeah, yeah, you know what? What? One thing to add to this is it's so much easier to be a founder now, today that. I mean, look, I, I remember I joined PayPal in 1999. That was my first startup. It was like, really? Hard to get into entrepreneurship in the 1990s, you know, the VC's had tremendous power and control. They would routinely replace founder CEO's. You know, everyone had to go to Sandhill Rd to get capital. It was hard to even know how to network your way to Sand Hill Rd. It was just much, much harder to be a founder. It was much harder to raise money. It was hard to know what to do. And then I think actually one of the things I really changed things was with blogging emerging in the mid 2000s, it led to a proliferation of information. We're now, you know, other founders started blogging, investors started blogging, and there became a wealth of information out there so you could learn how to do it. And then, of course, you had incubators and so on, like YC. So there became more of like a playbook for just like, how you actually get a company off the ground. When I graduate in law school, which was 1998, I I knew I wanted to get into business and entrepreneurship. I really had no idea how to do it. And if it wasn't for a phone call from Peter Thiel, I'm not sure I would have gotten into it, you know? But now, now everybody knows what to do. Can I ask you a question then? So let me, let me give you a stat and I'll ask a question. What do you think that story would be, David, for somebody that wasn't a white man? So here's the here's the data. The percentage of female VC decision makers has grown by more than two X. What that means is about firms over a billion dollars. About 1/4 of them have at least two plus female decision makers, but 61% of them have zero. And 80% of venture firms still have no black investors. How do you correlate or intersect that idea of ease of starting a company with the pattern recognition of those folks and the inability to sort of maybe map to people with black skin or women? I mean I think that what Silicon Valley and what venture capital represents is opportunity, right. And we have to extend that opportunity to as many people as possible. I mean that's really the the key here is we do need to make it as widely available as possible by the way teammate, I mean one way to slice things is the percentile percentage of diverse representation within the ranks of of venture and private equity. But there is a equivalent scaling in the number of venture firms and the amount of venture capital since you know sacks and. And you and I and all of us kind of entered the technology industry kind of early 2000. And the number of firms that exist today that are kind of micro firms and scaled firms I think presents a much larger set of opportunity. You're right. There are still standards and there are still challenges in diversity and kind of having access, but there is so much more access than there has ever been and that's really changed the landscape. I mean folks coming out of college can get $1,000,000 that was kind of unheard of back in 1999 or or the reality is like there's so many incubators. I mean it's not as if Jason or YC or any of these folks give millions of dollars, right, Jason like these checks are still really small. So the point is you can build something if you have the skills to build something. But you know, the the, the gap right now is that there's a lot of people who have ideas about what they want to do, but they have no skills. And I think what we found in a vibrant market like today, I mean this is the most vibrant I've ever seen it. There's at least three or four times as many startups to choose from at the earliest stages. And what we're seeing is the number of VC's has not grown at that level. It has grown. The number of players has grown, but not at that level. Therefore, the average quality of a deal has gone up, the average quality of a funded deal. Has gone up, but the average quality of a startup has gone down. Does that make sense? Yeah. So the ones that get funded are better than ever, but the one the average is lower because there's so many doing it. And then just the best piece of advice I have is when we talked about continuous learning is if you are not building the product in some way or selling the product in some way, then what are you doing at this startup? Like you either build it or you sell it. Like there really isn't much more there and a lot of people just have ideas and no ability to execute. You really have to be a developer, designer, UX person. Marketer something in terms of getting this product out to the world. What, what do you guys think about this other trend which I think is really important, which is the atomization of these firms. So you know we're moving from a world where people used to care about name the brand, Sequoia Excel and then now they they named the person right and they'll probably follow that person wherever they are. So what do we think about that? There's a really interesting tweet from Eric Tornberg. He said founders don't want to raise money from institutions as much anymore. They want to raise money from individuals. And then if you marry that with what's happening with AngelList and all this other stuff, isn't that the trail of bread crumbs for how, like VC? Just kind of. In some ways just kind of gets blown up the way that it's normally been done. I remember as a founder when I started my company in 2006, there was a lot of this conversation in, as as Sachs pointed out in the Blogger community, blogging community and and with like various websites that rated VC's. And there was generally a trend in the support network among CEO's adventure firms of talking a lot about make sure you pick your partner, don't pick the firm and so this I don't know if this is necessarily a new trench. It's certainly something that I remember being top of mind 15 years ago when I started my first company. And so much of it was about make sure you have the right partner because that's going to be on your board. That's who you're gonna spend time with. That's who's gonna recruit executives with you. That's going to be helpful in finding your next round of funding for you. And I feel like that's all that's always been the case. But you're right, the brand value of a firm has certainly become less useful and folks have struggled to kind of figure out, I think, a solution here. I mean, you see what Andreessen Horowitz did, they launched in 2009 and really focused on. Going to be this kind of full service provider to startups and I don't know how much that matters as much anymore, as much as making sure you've got a great partner from the firm that's helping you with your business. I don't know, it's actually you're, you're right, free break, that's a continuing trend. What I'll say is the top firms are still as attractive or more attractive to founders. The loser in this I believe is the mid tier firm or the lower tier firms that actually none of the partners there are all that great. The performance is not that great, their value add is not that great, but when you do get a Sequoia or an injury. Then when I put craft in this as well, when you get one of those All Star VC firms to join your board specifically, that is the key. When they join the board they own over 10%. You are anointed in a way that is transcendent. You will get pounded with inbound from the second tier and 3rd tier firms who want to triple your evaluation and give you 20 million bucks. It happens like clockwork. In fact there are a couple of firms like it was a DAG, the one sack that would always follow on Sequoia deals, and so there were firms that were built. That was their LP pitch, daggs LP pitch is we just, we will mark up every Sequoia deal. Exactly. And so I mean it was one page. So it's like if you can't get into Sequoia and you're willing to wait an extra round to invest in day, well, and then now I think the big trend here is those firms Andresen and Sequoia are now full stage where they have the late stage growth, they have a scout program, they have a seed program, they have a Series A program. So the full life cycle, it's not those guys also, it's just it's all these other big crossover. Guys that have come down tiger, CO2, durable, I think that's the biggest trend of the last 15 years chamath and I think it is what has enabled the proliferation of early stage startups and enabled the valuation increments in the capital that's flowed in the early stage is the is the scale down from the big guys. I just want to kind of do a quick walk down memory lane because when you guys said you wanted to talk about this, I kind of remembered I I got my series B term sheet in 2008, I guess it was and and or 2009. I had three venture firms, Andreessen was one of them that gave me a term sheet. And the interesting thing about at that time with Andreessen was they gave me a term sheet. I was trying to raise $30 million and they said we want to give you 40 million and they upped the valuation significantly and and there was a, I ultimately went with coastal ventures, but there was this trend. That Andreessen was kind of imparting and I heard about it a lot from other entrepreneurs was that they were going out and offering more money than the founder was asking for, seeking at higher valuations. And it was this trend towards saying like go grab the market. Because the interesting thing about web scale economics and you know, web scale businesses is you get so much leverage and you can get extraordinarily rapid growth. I mean the the rate of growth could be infinite and and the leverage could be infinite and so do it if you do it at the right round. I think that's. But so much of this was and and then obviously that. So that was a huge step up and I remember Andreessen Horowitz beginning 2009 kind of started to build a reputation for doing this of of kind of you know putting larger checks out and saying go scale. And then the the big crazy thing was the crossover guy started coming in and and offering bigger checks in kind of this proven stage growth stage kind of funding. And then obviously the big step up with SoftBank and SoftBank with $100 billion vision fund and and and ultimately what exactly did that disrupt Freeburg just hang on. So when all these things happened, those large chunks of capital. Became available on the valuation step ups were so significant for these later stage startups that the money flowed down and more money was raised in earlier stage venture that enabled this proliferation of capital and this proliferation of new startups and enablement of startups at the earlier stage because of all the crossover money that started to come in and the blitz scaling proposals and lots of money that was being thrown at the later stage. That to me felt like the reason all of the earlier stage stuff proliferated was because of the the amount of capital during the later stage. You're absolutely right. And now 10 years later, here's where we are. In early specs are the next step to mob because like totally I think what you did is you know we pre 2009 there was $10 billion a year in space. Then when you started this in 2009, it stepped up to 2019, stepped up to 13 billion. Last year 80 billion was raised in specs. This quarter 100 billion in specs. And specs are that you cross over investing. It's taking you know growth stage private equity style risk in the public markets with this proliferation of capital. And we're seeing the benefit in the early stage and founders and entrepreneurs are seeing the benefit because there's so much access to capital on the back end. You can take more risk on the early end and you can make more bets and and I think, you know, I think it's the next step up and we just keep seeing these step UPS. Yeah, I tend to think that the growth stage is the most troubled and challenged because at the early stage you can get a guy like sax or Jackal on your board and you can grind. And I think that that's really important to get to product market fit and that the public stage you can get somebody like me and you know we can help transact and actually help optimize and run the business for scale and value. But in the middle you have all these weird dynamics that no longer maybe not don't make as much sense. So just to give you a sense of it. The average deal size, OK. So the typical round is up 3X over the last 10 years, 3X that. That is absolutely anecdotally my experience. In late stage investors are doubling and tripling down on these mega deals so that that average round size is up 5X in the last decade. The the typical pre money on a growth stage deal in 2010 was 100 pre. This is for the top quartile and it's now or sorry for this is for the average, it's now. This is for a growth stage. Yeah, growth stage 100 pre is now 570 pre. Wow. Yeah, it's getting crazy. It's really, it's really, really getting crazy, tiger, it says here in the notes. Tiger Global has announced the deal, according to Pitchbook, every 48 hours in 2021. That's fabulous. That's ******* fantastic. What tiger I think has figured out is there they started as public market investors and worked their way down the stack, right. So they're very familiar with the public market valuations. They're seeing that these SAS companies are, you know, we, I remember 10 years ago when I was doing Yammer, we thought that the best outcome that you could have as a SaaS company was like a 1 to $2 billion exit. That's why when Microsoft offered US 1.2 billion in 2012, we took it, right? We're like we could work five more years, maybe get to $2 billion outcome. Well, now you're seeing what slack just got acquired by Salesforce for close to 30 billion. It's pretty routine to see SAS companies IPO ING it now 1020. Thirty billion and up. And so the exits are just so much bigger than anybody thought 10 years ago. And we were the optimist. By the way, there's a good tweet on this by it was Jay Malik. Basically he gave some stats. He said that if you're wondering why everyone wants to invest or be VC today, the stats from Pitchbook provided. Answer we had 43 billion in exists in 2010. We had 290 billion and exists in 2020. So we had about 7X roughly greater exits over the course of a decade. Now the average deal size is growing 3X and there's a lot more money going into venture capital. But the reason why you are having all this money go in and all these new players is because the outcomes are so much bigger. And then he said and I agree with this, wouldn't be surprised if VC hits 1 trillion by 2030. So we're seeing just the, I mean I remember 20 years ago when I first got into the business. You know, like Silicon Valley was a small little concentric circle around Stanford and now it's spread to San Francisco and the entire Bay Area and to other cities, and it just keeps getting bigger and bigger, intense. It's the digitization of every market, right? I mean, every traditional business, every traditional industry is being digitized in some way or another. And so it's no longer a tech enabler of other industries. It is the industry itself. We know that the the brand really matters in the early stage because they anoint you and they bring so much. Value in terms of working with you to solve problems, we know with spacs whoever and IPOs whoever is anointing, that really matters, right, the sponsor. But in the middle is all that cash now moved to a, a game of who will pay the most for the least rights. In other words, series B to you know, when you get involved chamath this, that just it's such a good point. You're So what you're now teeing up Jason is this next big category, which is if it's undifferentiated capital, at some point you're going to go to the logical conclusion. Which is I don't want any dilution from this. I'm happy to take dilution in the Series A when I get, you know, craft or Sequoia or benchmark. I'm happy to take dilution in the IPO because that's sort of the necessary process of, you know, diversifying the stock ownership, getting, you know, my users and my customers to be able to own the stock, etcetera, etcetera. But in the middle now you have these companies like pipe and Clear Bank where now all of a sudden you can grow Jason in your BCD rounds and you have 0 dilution. So if you're a founder you know the best formula is going to be take series ache and seed capital from an expert single you know GP brand person who knows that business category so well right. If you're starting a SaaS company you should probably get your seed from sax you know raise your A from some expert or what let me say it differently seed. I'm Jackal a from sacs and then go to pipe and clear bank and fund it all based on your recurring revenue growth and then go public via SPAC. So just to give you some data that I got from piping which you would just to give people an idea of what the CAP table would look like that you would dilute 10% in your your seed round 20% and you're a now you still have 70% of the company and you just sell your yearly contracts ahead of time to pipe and you're done. By the way, can I can I tell the story about pipes of pipe it's kind of painful. Thanks for including. David, David. David, can I can I give the stat from pipe and then you tell the story. Go ahead. Sorry. You guys are all investors in this company. No, not me and you, David. They let us. Our beaks are dry, might be chafing beaks. My beak is so wet it can we get a profile that beak, let's say no. Why is it? Is it is my Lord? Really is hold on one more time and let me compare it to this. OK. It's a beautiful let me tell let me tell the pipe peak wedding story because Harry Harry the the founders told the story. He came in to meet with me in my office at Kraft. This is pre COVID when people actually met in person our our principal who's based in LA Michael Tam new New Harry from his previous startup and brought him in. I I heard the pitch which is basically to advance the the full value of these contracts if for SAS companies and others. But it was so obvious, right, because if you're a SaaS company, you spend roughly about a year of of revenue on capped a customer acquisition costs, but the customer only wants to pay you monthly and so you have this huge negative cash flow cycle. So what if you could just take that contract and monetize it right away, get the full value of the contract advance, then you can plow it into the next, the next you know customer acquisition cost and you don't need to dilute yourself with venture capital. I said yes to Harry in like 15 minutes. I think it's the quickest I've ever given a term sheet. We invested 2,000,000 in the company and a 12 cap and. We did the deal that day. So within nine months of launch, pipe is connected 3500 customers and over a billion plus of a RR to investors willing to purchase that revenue. Clear. It's a marketplace. And so, you know, they're not buying the debt. Anybody can go on the marketplace and say, I will buy slacks revenue for $0.91 on the dollar, but something more speculative, they might pay 85. This is a brilliant thing, is that they're not. They're not providing the lending off their own balance. Supposed to clear Bank, which does and charges 6%. Done. Talking about your book, unless you guys share alone. I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go to ******* Chicago. Listen, I'm gonna ******* shares. Let's gonna go ahead and do my e-mail now. Yeah, I'm good. Let's do it. Freeburg. Hey, freeburg. Let's launch a bio company together and we'll block out these beaks. Go work on your life extension. We're working on our monetary extension right here. You need more money, you need more money. So clear Bank works with ecommerce companies. So what you do is you stitch in your connections to Shopify and Stripe, etcetera. They're able to monitor how well you do and then they'll basically help finance you again, non delusively. So clear bank companies captured 55% more growth in 2020 than the prior year. So even in the midst of COVID, these companies did really well. They have revenue based financing. They've invested a $1.6 billion to date and it turns out that you know their investor composition 8 times more women funded than traditional VC. By the way, I want to be clear, I was also a Series A investor in clearbanc. I mean, I am such a believer in this middle section of venture disappearing like when you have these growth rounds. They're undifferentiated and they shouldn't be dilutive in any way, shape or form. The founders should figure out how to grow non delusively the minute that they have some semblance of product market fit. So then the dilutive, the dilutive points are the bookends. Yeah, this was kind of the idea with like Indiegogo and some of the GO fund me types or the not go fund me. The other things where you could basically pre sell consumer products too, right, where you could get funded in a similar way and you could see the same transitioning into kind of hardware businesses and other and other consumer businesses. Right. There's a bigger, there's an even bigger trend that happened that I can talk to, which is equity crowdfunding CF, but I don't want to take you off your deck. So you want to keep going the deck or you want to stop the only, the only last thing I say is that the other big thing is, as Friedberg says is like, so let me just summarize. So it's kind of like I think where we're all going to as we see the venture capitalist changing financial stack. Yeah, it's going from organizations and these amorphous, amorphous financial orgs down to individuals. As that happens, I think what we're all kind of stating is it's incredibly valuable at the earliest stages to align yourself with a person that knows your business or your market, right? And that's worth some amount of dilution. It's almost like getting a quasi cofounder, right, so in the seed and the Series A. But I think so that's one really important point of what's happening in the market. The second thing that I think we're all saying is why are we deluding ourselves to grow in these middle rounds? If you don't have to, it's unnecessary, and there should be really clever ways of non delusively financing yourself. And as as the market becomes more and more sophisticated, there will be more companies beyond piping. Clear Bank, to be clear. But the point is that every kind of company that has product market fit should be able to finance themselves non delusively in the B all the way to the D and the E and then the third thing, which is sort of what Friedberg says is this last bookend, is then you have sort of the path to going public, and this is where the spec makes a ton of sense. Because you have a very certain cost of capital, you can now architect a cap table where the founder remains in control where they and the employees are still more than 50% and you pull in the time of the IPO. Why is that important? Typically today these companies were taking 12 plus years to go public. Now with spacks they've come back in and they're closer to 7 and eight years. The reason is back to that argument of like if you want to be a winner, take most outcome, the most important thing you need at scale is money and the way that you get. Money is by opening the kimono on your finances and showing people who have lots of money why they should give it to you and not something else. And so my going public in year 6-7 and eight, that's where you pull in the billions of dollars so you can dominate the where we're seeing is massive competition in the financing of massively competitive startup scenes. In other words, the. Entrepreneurial ecosystem has never been this vibrant. And I want to point out one thing that the SEC has done that has is going to change things dramatically. I believe when syndicates first came out, everybody said they were stupid. Nobody would ever do it. First one we ever did famously was calm.com. We put in $328,000 became worth over 100 million. We're on track this year to do 5 deals a month, 60 deals, and we'll put 50 million to work this year at the syndicate.com think about that. My fund is 44 million. That's over three years, so. Now the syndicates getting so big that we run the syndicate. Well, exactly. So I yeah, I'm going to tell my LP is the next time around. Let's have a discussion about this. But anyway, I want to point out what republic.co happened this week. Republic.co is equity crowdfunding. This means civilians can invest. There used to be a cap on an equity crowdfunding of $1,000,000 every year, and there's a lot of auditing and financial review you have to do, and you pay 6% to whoever raised the money. But it's it's. There is no sponsor involved in this, so as an investor you don't get me as a lead or chamath as your sponsor or sacks on your cap table, but. You can go on to Republic now, which has 100,000. Investors on it and Gumroad, which is doing $10 million a year, just raised 5,000,000 in one day. Sahil, who was also running a rolling fund with AngelList and he has 8656 investors, which means people are putting in under $1000 each. Amazing. And it's capped at 5,000,000 now. Then Arlen Hamilton who runs backstage capital did a very nontraditional, I'll say raise, she's not raising for her fund. She sold 10% ownership. They're in the process of selling 10% ownership in her venture capital fund, startup studio and a $50 million valuation. She's selling 10% of it. If you buy shares in that, you don't get carry, but you get 10% of her carry and management fees forever. So it would be like buying 10% of craft or whatever. The point is you the VC's get boxed out of this and this. Imagine if Airbnb or Uber decided, **** it, we're going to let our drivers buy shares through this and they said we're starting this crowdfunding. 5,000,000 and they did it every year because you can do the 5,000,000 every single year. So every year you just allow folks who are in your stakeholder pool. You e-mail them, and then they buy in. It starts. Actually, can you explain the Arland thing so she sorry, she sold. It's a little complicated if you page down to future earnings, yes. So if you go to the flow of funds and that link I sent republic.com/backstage, she took all of her different funds and said you can buy 10% for $5 million. You own 10% of essentially Sequoia capital or Y Combinator, whatever. You want to refer to her, you know, company as her holding company. Then every time she gets management fees, every time she has distributions from her. Carrie, she's gonna give 10% of that to these folks forever. I don't know if that's a great idea, but it's a new idea and I don't know if the investors in that are going to get a a massive return or they're doing it because they want to support the cost. That's incredible. My gosh, it's so weird, so disruptive. It's so disruptive. Wow. It's incredible because let's anybody really spin up a new venture firm basically because there are some startup costs of spinning up a new venture. Remember, she's been in it, she's been doing this for 10 years and really has gotten good for have to say not a lot of traction, you know, from the the classic LP. Of the world, but now, just like we saw at GameStop. Just like we see with Bitcoin. Just like we see with that FTS and Robin Hood Day traders. There are new entrants here, and I think there's going to be a world where I will be able to fire up a syndicate and say I would like to raise 10 million, but I'm limiting it to $1000 per person and 10,000 people invest, or I'm limiting it to $500.00. So instead of, you know, going away for the weekend or going to Vegas and blowing $1000, somebody could say, you know what? I'll go to Vegas and blow 500, but I put 500 in the next startup I see. And this is a democratization that could change everything and make America. So much more competitive with what we're seeing in China with Jack Ma disappearing and they're taking the winners before. Like, like what's what's crazy is like if you talk about like, systemic inequality and poverty. It's like the government loves to give poor people's casinos, sports betting, and lottery tickets, but the idea that they could invest $100 into a startup is illegal, even though startups generate 15% of your cake or so even if what you did was you generate, you invested in the market beta of startups. Let's just say that degrades. It would still probably be close to 10% and state the markets. Yeah you'd be you you'd be at the S&P returns, you know over over many many years 8%. So I mean 4% better. It's it's it would be incredible. But with by the way 25% better truth with the outside chance of hitting a home run a Grand Slam and and that's why I love this. Alright. So do we want to wrap here or anybody have any closing thoughts? Well I I just think it's like if you think of like that thing of like all the money flows changing. The other thing is, like all the people are changing and then what? Zack said before, it's much, much easier because the technologies are changing. You put these three things in a soup and it just seems like our best days are ahead of us. Think it's going to be amazing for entrepreneurship? All the answers are out there. If you want to start a company, all the other skills are freely available to you. You can learn anything online. I think the message I really want people to understand is, you know, you may you may believe that the world is filled with inequality and racism and bad actors, and you would be right. But what's also right is that every school could be learned. Capital is available now more than ever. And there is a clear path for you. If you just stop watching television and learn to be a UX designer, a sales executive and marketing or growth executive or a developer, you can change the world and change your lot in life and be really ******* rich. Don't buy into this victim mentality. It's complete, utter nonsense that crazy lefties are saying. Everybody stupid and nobody can learn. And I got a bag of red pills here and I have been pounding them. The world is a giant opportunity for all of you. Go. I just, I think it's time to announce Freeberg and I would like to announce that we've started a combination incubator and early stage venture firm. We call it Paunch draft and it's a play on the words launch and craft. But I think the punch is the punch is more just a just when we're going to launch our first syndicate. We gotta get a deal here. Somebody's gotta find. I I just I I never get the phone calls. You guys are doing deals left and right. Jason. Jason, you need to assign somebody to figure this the **** out because I think there's. There are people out there, there are, there are, there are, there are folks listening to this podcast who have great businesses. What we should commit to them is we will help you. Be the least deluded and we will try to share the beak wedding amongst all the other folks listening to this. So if you have a great company and you're thinking of raising capital, come to the one of the four of us and we will hand roll a solution for you. Yes, OK, let's just do it. It's like it doesn't just hand road to wet your beak. OK, hand roll, hand roll. We will hand roll a solution that will allow the four of us plus everybody else in this indicate to invest and then we will help you. Non delusively. Grow your business for as long as possible and then take it public. OK. I am setting up wetyourbeak.com which is currently redirecting to the all in podcast. It's going to be a type form and the type form is gonna let you. I will dilute your business but the rest of you guys can do it anyway. Go to wetyourbeak.com and fill out the form. Tell us a little bit about your business and what it will go to. All four besties in the database. We'll share it. Wet your beak is the new database. I bought the domain. Wet your beak.com from one of the fans you just said. Now, this is the 10th time you've said it. I get it. We just collectively we own it. I, I this podcast is rapidly turning into a commercial for well, I think the information now, this is this is Jake's attempt to divert and steal my deal flow. Yeah. So you're talking about we're partners. You're a *******. Ohh, we're we're partners, so we are. Alright, who did I just bring 6-7 companies to the other day? Craft ventures.com. Do not. That's the, that's the website. That's the website. Alright. Yeah. OK. Don't e-mail me. Give me a break, man. Come on, man. We've got too many deals. Are we in back at you? Alright, listen. We love all of the audience and we love our besties. Love you, bestie chamath. Love you, guys. Love you. Love you, sexy poo. When are we playing cards? Come on, let's play cards like, let's play Monday. Let's Monday. Done. Done. Sending the invitation. Alright, everybody, it's another all in podcast. If you wanna rate and subscribe or do anything like that. Sure, why not? End. Shout out, young Spielberg. Thank you for making all of our great tracks. Do a search for young why UNG Spielberg in Europe. In Spotify. By his songs. Like his songs. And he's the greatest. If you want Series A funding or seed funding, David Sacks. If you want a spack chamath and if you want to fold some proteins and. Cubits, you want to do some qubits? Get e-mail freeburg. Somebody told me that the quality of the show? He calls it the Friedberg index. If Friedberg talks a lot, it's a great episode. When Freeberg demurs and doesn't talk a lot, it's a **** episode I think we're gonna get. Murr davur it's French for sleep. It means you're wet, took a nap. You're just a French for sleep. You're just such a day more. More as in more day. A day as in sleep day more. You could say demure. Yeah, he demurred. OK, everybody, we'll see you next time. We're the only podcast. Love you guys. Let your winners. Rain Man David Sasha. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Besties? My dog's driveway. Man. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge order because they're all useless. It's like this, like sexual tension that they just need to release stuff out there. Let your feet. Where did you get mercies?