Industry veterans, degenerate gamblers & besties Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.
Sat, 19 Feb 2022 07:22
0:00 Sacks needs the ball
1:43 Trudeau invokes emergency powers to try and stop the truckers protest
13:45 Bitcoin's role in decentralizing currency away from potentially hostile governments
25:37 San Francisco Board of Education recall: what this means for the boundaries of progressivism
42:02 Assessing Tiger Global's new strategy: less late-stage private companies, more Series A and B rounds, more compressed public tech stocks
1:11:24 HIV stem cell breakthrough, Sacks gives some hot takes on Fauci
1:24:59 Sacks' vendetta corner: Sacks vs. Paul Graham
Follow the besties:
Follow the pod:
Intro Music Credit:
Intro Video Credit:
Referenced in the show:
So, sacks, are we going to talk with each other today or you know or is ISO player he turned into an ISO player? He's like the Carmelo Anthony of this. He's the Carmelo Anthony of the all in pub. Sack. You wanna pass the ball or you just wanna you wanna clank it off the room? Rayman. Clank. Maybe we should have a focus on having a dialogue with each other today. Several points in the thing as opposed to all standing up, saying our piece and then having sex. We lost a little bit of the fiber of this team here. There's three people playing as a team and then there's sex. I would love to ask you questions and I would love for you to ask me question the ball. Jakal. You're the guard. Pass the ball. I'm supposed to score. Ohh, really? Remember what Shaq used to say when he wasn't getting the ball? He gets really unhappy, he said. Pass the ball to the big dog. He'll score. I'm Shaq. You're, you know, you're not Kobe. Who is the the ****** little, like off guard. Fisher. Yeah, you're Derek Fisher. Make sure that big dog gets the ball. There won't be any problems. Bob cousy. OK. I'm Gary Payton. In this in here. OK. Let your winners ride. Man David. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy. Queen. Hey everybody, welcome to the all in podcast where 3 besties talk about a range of topics topics and one monologues about Biden Derangement syndrome. With you again this week, the Sultan of Science and the dictator Chamath Polly. Hypatia, David Friedberg and playing ISO ball somewhere in the wing is your political commentator Tucker Junior projection David Sachs. It's an act of projection. Three, which Sachs is going to lose his mind over. He's got two monologues prepared. Justin Trudeau has invoked an emergency order to freeze bank accounts linked to trucker protests in Canada. On Monday, Trudeau invoked an emergency law that requires financial institutions in Canada to examine customer records and take action against people involved with or aiding in the protest. Here's Trudeau's tweet from yesterday, if you're watching on the video streams illegal blockades and occupations. Are not peaceful protests. They're a threat to jobs and communities and they cannot continue in the House of Commons or today. I joined members of the Parliament to speak about that and about the need to invoke the Emergencies Act, the counter signal, which is a right leaning. Canadian digital publication reported that 34 different crypto wallets were also being targeted by Canadian officials. This law grants the government extraordinary powers like the right to ban public assembly in certain locations. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association said it planned to challenge the government's decision in court. Remember, Sacks wrote a piece on Financial D platforming for Barry Weiss's common sense about a year ago. The piece was about the private sector financial platforms. D platforming folks. So your thoughts sacks, you have 90 seconds on the uninterrupted clock. On the shot clock, alright? Thank you, Jake. Paul, it's true. Last summer I wrote a piece for Barry Weiss as some stack talking about how financial deep platform would be the next wave of online censorship. And here we are. It's actually happened. What I could not have predicted is that it would occur in our mild mannered neighbor to the north and that there appraisals would be directed by the government itself, not just a consortium of private actors. And what Trudeau has done is he didn't just employ. The Emergency Act against the trucker so that he could basically arrest them and break up the protest. They have now directed banks and any financial institution, even cryptocurrency wallets, to freeze the accounts not just of the truckers, but anybody who's contributed to them. Basically anyone has contributed $25 or more. That there were two crowdfunding sites that they raised money from. All those people. The thousands of of just ordinary Canadians who did nothing more than contribute to an anti government protest. They are now at risk of financial ruin because their bank accounts have been frozen. And you have to wonder what what is the ends here that justifies the means? COVID, you know, Omar Khan is on the wane. It's on its way out. At the same time that Trudeau was announcing these dictatorial measures for the the the guy who runs Ontario, the largest province, 13 seconds. Ford was out there saying that he was going to, that COVID mandates were going to be over. So why exactly are they doing this? You know, we're at the end of COVID and Zach, let me ask you a question. If there were people online making donations to the criminals who loot. And kill people in San Francisco, which you've railed against, being criminals who are breaking the law and should all be put behind bars. Do you think that it would be appropriate in that context for the government to block their donations to supporting criminal activity and a criminal ring? You know that I think we all agree, you know, should shouldn't be transpiring. Well, but you're the implication there is that truckers are using violence or or something like that and they're not. I mean, it's been, it's been largely a peaceful protest. It's been very annoying. The people whose but you know, but isn't, isn't the case being made that they are actually breaking the law by blocking streets? And that's not, you know, there's a peaceful protest where you can go and get a permit and actually go in a public zone and peacefully protest within the confines of the law. And what's allowed in that jurisdiction. Look, but what what these folks are doing is civil disobedience, which is not a peaceful protest. It is, you know, kind of breaking the law to make a point. It is peaceful because there's been no violence if you look at actual video breaking, breaking the law. Right. Well, let me, let me ask the question for Freeburg then. Sax if. A group of truckers were shutting down the Bay Bridge with three lanes of traffic and then shut down the 280 and the 101 and it impacted this. If they in fact are shutting down roads and picked up making emergency businesses and emergency just can't get through, would you want them to be towed? Would you want their cars to be towed? Listen, here's the thing. The Ambassador bridge this vital choke point of commerce between the US and Canada that was blocked and that was creating a serious problem, but it had already been cleared on Monday. By the time that Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, and then on Tuesday, he then invokes this financial Act, your opinion sacks if they if they block roads and bridges, would you? If they're in charge, yeah, if they're breaking the law in that way, it's not just one lane, it's all three lanes damage just society. I'm just trying to understand the, the, the standard here because just zooming out to last year and the year before, right, there was a protest happening with BLM, and those BLM protests resulted in damage to private property. Got to burning cars. There were protests at the Capitol that involved folks trespassing into federal land and federal buildings. And now there's protests that are, you know, blocking vital trade routes and, you know, access to emergency vehicles and all this sort of stuff to me. And also, you know, people in San Francisco breaking the law, not being put in jail. My personal opinion is anyone that's breaking the law, we should stop them from breaking the law. And anyone that wants to kind of, you know, follow a peaceful protest or or make a point should. Kind of make the point. But if the law is the law, shouldn't there be a universal standard to hold up the law? And if the case and if the cases people are giving money to aid in breaking the law, shouldn't we stop the hold on, you know, transmission? Hold on. Hold on a second. Look, I think you're conflating a bunch of really important things there. Aiding and abetting criminals is already illegal. There are Rico statutes that allow the authorities to go after people that are aiding and abetting. Through monetary support, criminal behavior. Separately, there is a whole body of law at the federal, state, local level that allows you to deal with protests. OK? The real question is why did you have to go and invoke emergency powers at the tail end of a pandemic for what is effectively nonviolent protests? Again, that's the key question, right? So just to give you some Canadian history has a Canadian citizen, what I can tell you is that we've invoked this Emergency Powers Act three times in the past. The first was for World War Two. The second, sorry, World War One, the second was for World War Two, and the third was the FLQ crisis, which was a domestic terrorist organization in Quebec that was fighting for a separate homeland. That's those are the three other times in the past that a sitting Prime Minister has invoked these broad, sweeping emergency powers. And they did it because you exhaust the natural body of law and the Constitution and the bill of, you know, the Charter of Rights that governs the normal behavior of a democratic society. What this was is not any of those things. I don't think anybody could claim that a bunch of nonviolent protests, yes, they were annoying. Yes, they basically, you know, stopped some commerce. But I don't think it was on the order of World War One, World War Two, or a domestic terrorism issue like the FLQ crisis. So why invoke this? Basically, get out of jail free card where you can behave without any checks and balances. This is the confounding. Hold on a second. Did we exhaust? The current body of normal governing law. And if we didn't, why is this example OK? And the counterfactuals are so many. Imagine Trump invoked this thing during BLM. Imagine Biden did this right now, right? You would be up in arms. I think that's well said to me. Just add me to that. The The Emergencies Act that Trudeau invoked requires something like an act of espionage against the country or Syria. The word serious violence or in the law or the threat of serious violence. Those conditions were simply not met. And then on top of that, to go after people who contribute as little as $25 to these truckers who are trying to support them because these guys are not making any money. You know, there could. They have very they're living under very harsh conditions, so you make a small check, you write a small donation to support these people to aid them. They're simple working class people who are protesting for normalcy and they get their freedom back. And now all of a sudden your bank account gets frozen. It is basically creating a it's going to have a chilling effect because it's essentially creating a cast of untouchables because no one is going to want to associate with, transact with, or donate to this group of people these designated. People now under the Emergencies Act who your bank can get frozen if you deal with them. I think it's gonna have the opposite effect. I think there's gonna blow up in Trudeau's face. This is the worst decision making by any major political leader in a long time. To go after a group of people. As Chamat said in the in the waning days of a pandemic. What is the point? Why are we picking this? Why is he picking this one guy on? Why? Makes no sense. But why is he doing it? And why? Why did the police not break? So I totally hear your point. Why did the police not break up? These protests, why did he need to invoke emergency? Because look what happened. I think that the police in some cases did, in some cases didn't. There were probably a lot of police sympathizers. There were probably a lot of sympathizers in general, as there were a lot of people who were detractors. But you think the police, you're saying there were police that were complicit. It's the nature of a protest. You have people for, you have people against. But the point is, I think what's really clear is Justin Trudeau. First basically said these people are racists and misogynists. Then he said they just hold views that are just unacceptable to me, and then, like a totalitarian dictator, invoked an emergency measures act that allows him to do what he wants. That's the fact pattern. He painted it himself into a political corner and then tried to give successfully. He gave himself absolute power for some period of time. And the real question, I think, is why should this be allowed to happen in a democratic country with democratic norms? Against people that haven't done, as far as I can tell, a shred of violent behavior? No, it hasn't been. Do you guys think? And where it's clear that the body of normal governing law hasn't been exhausted yet. Meaning the minute that these people were asked to actually empty the Ambassador bridge. They did. Guys, we're Canadians. That's what we do. Yes, we love the product, but if you just ask, you just couldn't do it. Exactly. No, you're right. Trudeau never tried talking to them. I mean, why wouldn't he just try and talk? Why? Why would he? Just trying to negotiate with them. Instead, he demonized them right off the bat as white supremacists and Nazis and even, you know, Confederates or which I don't even understand. In the context of Canada, this is yet another example of the dying death right in front of us, of the woke playbook, right? We talked about this last week. I think it's related to the San Francisco Board of Ed recall. That's now national and probably even international news. You can write off the the, the reaction to Rogan, the reaction to Dave Chappelle. It's all part and parcel of this thing where people up and down the spectrum have learned what the mechanism of action is of this cancel culture, and they don't fall for it anymore. There's a person that's able to escalate it because he's actually in a seat of power, and that's what I think people should be debating. You mean shutting down dissenting voices from a position of power just because? And he won't necessarily. He went on the record and he said, guys, these views are unacceptable to me. Well, in a democratic society, that's not how it works. Yeah, not your choice, Justin. I mean, I could have engaged them views on all kinds of topics all the time. Unacceptable is not the threshold of World War Two, World War One and the FLQ crisis. Do you guys think that there is a moment? Hear that also is a mile marker on the road towards the state versus crypto. Given the actions that we're taking against Bitcoin wallets, because that seems to be like a big trend that's going to play out over the next decade or two. There are plenty. Inevitably, crypto is the threat to the state, right? And so, you know, you're going to see skirmishes like this that kind of, you know, hey, while it's that donate are illegal. And, you know, this is one of the best points you've made if you look at what this is done through Bitcoin and you look at what it's done for other cryptocurrencies. This will do more than McDonald's accepting Bitcoin because this is the first time, like a western democratic state is seizing people's funds. Like, in an incredibly unfair, unnecessary way, which is just going to have more people say, you know what? Maybe I should keep some of my net worth out of the government's purview if they're going to see it anyway. And then now people are going to start looking into the coins that allow people to conflate having an enemy with having a different view. Those aren't the same thing. Having an enemy is a serious deal, right? Whether that's domestic or international, that's what we had to do in World War One, World War Two and the FLQ crisis. This is just somebody who has a different opinion. I don't agree. In mask mandates is what one person says I want. A mask mandate is what the other person says. The idea that you can deep platform one or the other or fire them from their job or prevent them from having access to the money that they've earned or preventing other people from donating money, that's really, it's a really low bar and I think when you normalize this kind of behavior. It's a very slippery slope. And so if somebody else were to do it, they now have like, it's again going back to the drainage or sort of philosophical discussion from last week, one of the things about, you know, these stoning rituals, right, that sacks talked about, that we talked about last week. One of the things that renewal talks about is it is always hardest for that first person. Right. The first person that throws the stone, right. That's how Jesus was able to diffuse that that incident as described in the book of John. But in a different example, the first person that throws a stone all of a sudden normalizes it for everybody else after them, and then these stonings become commonplace or became commonplace. So similarly, it's like if you're a sitting democratic person who just decides this doesn't work for you, you can't flip the script. And and basically remove everybody's democratic rights. That's a really crazy sax. You had a closing point you want to make. Well, OK, just on this point about Bitcoin, the reason why Bitcoin is necessary is because the tactics that Trudeau is using is essentially to starve these truckers out to not only basically arrest them and but these also taking away their insurance licenses. He's basically preventing them from ever working again. He's talked about that we're going to give you a criminal record, it's going to make it hard for you to get a job, and then most importantly on top of that. He's preventing anyone from helping them by contributing to them by making a donation. So he's essentially starving these guys out and that's the reason why Bitcoin is potentially helpful is it allows people using non custodial wallets to make an end run around that and donate and help these these people who are being persecuted essentially. I mean he could have just simply chosen to do what Sachs's favorite President Obama did with Occupy Wall Street, which is say great, you have something you want to voice, here's where you can do it. Just, you know, no guns, no violence. But we let how long did Occupy Wall Street last in downtown Wall Street and in Oakland and other places? Like a year or two. And you just wait them out and and that's it. I think when you encounter a sincere protest movement, the first thing you should do as leaders actually listen and try to understand what it is that they're protesting on behalf of. And Trudeau never did that. He went straight to to 11 with this and I think part of the reason why, I mean, Jacob, you asked why, why. Why is it that that, you know, there seems to be a common denominator? With this and with the Ukraine issue, that the leaders are immediately escalating these situations instead of looking for a way to deescalate it. And they're doing it with the media egging them on. And so, as as harsh as Trudeau's rhetoric has been, the media's rhetoric around this has been even worse. You have this CNN contributor Juliette Kayyem, who's also a Harvard professor, who basically tweeted that Trudeau she needed to slash their tires, empty the gas tanks, arrest the drivers, you know, making it unclear. You never get the trucks off the bridge. But then she said cancel their insurance to spend their drivers license. Prohibit any future regulatory verification. She says. Trust me, I will not run out of ways to make this hurt. You know, it's you have the media cheering this on. Egging on Trudeau. They're doing the same thing, beating the drums of war on Ukraine. What is wrong with these people? Yeah, deescalate and where's the off ramp? I need the biggest, the biggest story is this. This Bitcoin thing, because you know if you guys think about like pre 1960s like capital wasn't digitized, it was like physical, like you have to own like a stock certificate or cash or gold or a bearer bond. But today everything is digitized, right? Like there's a digital record of you know who owns what stock and who how much is in your bank account and none of that is tied to you're having a physical asset. And ultimately the law was able to reach into these digital systems and have greater. Oversight and ultimately control, you know over accounts and so on and it's had a, you know the digitization of of capital assets has had an incredible ability to drive economic growth and investment and ease of transaction, but it's also significantly increased the centralization of assets or the central influence over assets. Bitcoin seems to be the resolution to that and now you're seeing the ultimate challenge to Bitcoin and the challenge to decentralized systems like Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and so on. I don't want to speak specifically to anyone, but there there seems to be like this trend line over the last 60 years that's now being challenged because you could have your accounts frozen any moment, you know, for breaking the law or because emergency actor are induced. And I think you're right, it probably going to accelerate interest in these kind of off government chain. If true into some separate chain, anyone can do it. Anybody can do it. They're doing it in China, right? And they're, and I don't know the digital one. It's the point of it. The digital yuan is like this incredible whole point. It's like absolute centralization of every capital asset. Here's where you can think of how dangerous the digital you want is. The minute you say something that Jinping doesn't like, it's a it's a stroke of a keyboard key, and all your assets are, all your assets are locked away. It's a database entry, and you just basically reroute who belong, who it belongs to. Or it could be it. Happen in America, they say, you know what? California now wants to have a wealth tax. Anybody who's got money we're just gonna take your money out of, you guys think automatically. Do you guys think we sound like a right wing politics show at this point? No, this isn't a right wing politics thing. I mean, I think, I think that we have so jumped the shark. There are things that are happening today, every day that, you know, if you had said in isolation two or three years ago, would any of these things ever happen? We all would have just looked at each other and said it's impossible that these things could happen in. But the problem is Fast forward two years of a pandemic. I think we have led a lot of our civil liberties decay right under our nose, and we're not willing to fight for it because it's become too tribal and rights have been politicized, so the idea of having rights. You know, and then standing up for your rights all of a sudden has to be a decision between whether you're left or right. That's crazy. I don't think that liberties in the sense of government oversight have decayed as in addition to that. Liberties in the sense of of a social setting have decayed. You know, we've because of canceled culture, we've normalized the ability to silence minority or dissenting voices. And this is both in the private enterprise setting as well as in the public setting. And it's, you know. I don't know. I I don't consider myself a right wing conservative person by any stretch. But I I do consider myself a person who believes in individual freedom and liberty. That's called an American by the way. Yeah. And it's basically being an American. And I think, you know, as we move on to this recall in San Francisco, I think Sachs made a really good point. Like, what are our political leaders doing here? Are they trying to stir the pot and antagonize these situations? If you look, you know, Clinton, Obama, a lot of people previously were trying to defuse these situations. And then. Biden seems to be stirring the pot. Justin Trudeau. And then if you look at Trump with BLM, you know, and the immigration stuff, he never sat down and met with him and he arguably antagonized them. So I think this is a perfect segue into what happened. And, you know, so we should expect a little more from our political leaders. Great point from sacks. You just brought up something incredible. You know, Trump railed against these BLM folks, but at no point did he try to shut down their bank accounts and take their money away. No. And Trudeau can't. You know, this was not even near in the scale of BLM. Yeah. Who's the bigger authoritarian? Yeah. I mean, clearly, if you objectively, it's Trudeau. In this situation, the scary authoritarianism, as we talked about in previous pods, tends to come from the left. At least the right you see it coming. I just want to read. It's veiled under moral virtue signaling. That's right. So they're very sanctimonious. They claim they claim to be the defenders of the working class it while they're actually prosecuting them. Such an unforced error, like so dumb. He's going to lose right now. He's going to lose if a DA was elected and a police officer and police chief were elected to San Francisco. That said, we are going to freeze the bank accounts and, you know, demobilize the criminals that are ransacking. Our city, our our people, our stores, would you support that? No, not if it's an office in extrajudicial use of power. I mean, the law specifies what you're allowed to do. Do you think San Francisco's in an emergency situation? I mean, would you support the mayor taking on emergency authority to go and fix the problem, which she just did, by the way, in the tenderloin? Yeah, but that doesn't give her the power to go to Wells Fargo and say, to Wells Fargo, we want you to freeze all these accounts with no due process of law. That's basically what Trudeau has done. That's the overreach. That's the line you think is, like, go and see that. Have to go through a court proceeding just to free someone's bank account. Can't just free someone's bank account. The law allows you to do this now. It's called Rico. So you follow the due process of the law and you can do all those things Freeburg that that that you just mentioned. If you want to free somebody's bank account, right, you can actually do that. The government has the ability to do that. They don't need to pass this. Basically get out of jail free card to do whatever you want without any oversight. And to Jamie's point earlier, have you exhausted the regular law? They're they're not arresting piece of the regular law. They haven't even tried this. You could buy fentanyl for 5 bucks on you know, in the tenderloin anytime you want. And meanwhile the all the provinces are ending COVID mandates anyway. So this whole issue is moot. So dumb. It's this is like the stupidest behavior at the end of a pandemic that we've ever seen and shout out to George Lucas for getting it right. I mean if you look at the theme of Star Wars, it was like, oh, I just need emergency powers for a minute because of a trade federation blockade. And here we are. Crisis. A fake crisis. Yeah, that wasn't George Lucas, by the way. I mean, that goes back to the. Roman Roman, right. Like, yeah yeah. That was the formation of the empire. See if they're gonna see if they got emergency authority. I mean this is a tried and true and the poll, the poll shorts are actually right and the polls show that the most of the public in Canada is applauding. So what was the line from democracy dies to applause. Exactly. That's exactly that was Pat Mayes line in in the Star Wars films. Alright. They're aging well. The prequels three members of San Francisco's Board of Education where they were the worst just to be clear. But go up sorry, not compared to the three. Just huge dumps that. Disney took on the our childhoods with the sequels. Three members of the San Francisco Board of Education were called this week. Massively. They lost by between 72% and 79%. These were the virtue signaling maniacs who wanted to change the names of all the schools, wouldn't reopen the schools, yada yada. And this really frustrated. And they wanted to get rid of elite AP classes. All of this they they did, Jason. They did. They did. Yeah. And these three board members are out. So London breed in the middle season, Jason, just to be clear, in the middle of a pandemic. I think my understanding is that instead of figuring out how to get these kids back in class, how to figure out how they could take off their masks, they wanted to drop Abraham Lincoln and George Washington's name from schools because it was it was too regressive. They canceled the gifted program because it made other kids feel bad. And a gentleman that wanted to serve on a committee. Who I think was gay but not minority was excluded because he wasn't a minority. Enough for them. So these are the three people that 76% of San Francisco citizens or you know, residents just recalled. And if you're not following this, the tech industry had a a major part in this in terms of backing it. There was a lot of claims which all had sacks addressed in a moment that this was a Republican driven out of state movement. But if you look there are not 100,000 Republicans in San Francisco. In all likelihood this was actually a parents and a lot of cases based on the geography. Of San Francisco and the density of certain populations, a lot of Asian Americans came out in force. In some neighborhoods, 90% were voting to oust these people. Gary Tan, who is a product of the San Francisco Public education system and a great entrepreneur and venture capitalist was a leader in this movement. So congratulations to him and this all is going to culminate, I think in May or June 6 will correct me with the recall effort for Chesa boudin, this killer DA Who would prosecute anybody? Sacks, where are your thoughts on this? Three. And Full disclosure, you were a major donor to this. That was the second largest donor, and I was the largest donor under age 90. Arthur Rock was the biggest donor. What a ******. By the way, the guy is 95 years old. He donated $4000 to this recall. You know, he was. In fairness, you live in San Francisco. This is a back door issue for you. You care. Yeah. Yeah. Look, I think crime and schools are the key quality of life issues in any community, and that transcends partisan boundaries. If your kids cannot get a quality education and you cannot be safe. In your community, nothing else matters, and that matters to Democrats just as much as Republicans. And that's why, like you said, 3/4 of San Francisco voted for this recall, even though 85% of them voted for Biden. It's not. It's basically a 90% Democrat city. So, you know, all these claims that was a Republican recall turned out to be nonsense. This was something that was broadly supported. And and, you know, look, it's the same reason that young can flipped a, you know, plus 10 Democrat state in Virginia, which is. That, you know, it had a lot to do with school closures. They kept the schools closed for a year and a half. And then when they were supposed to have conversation, PTA meeting about reopening it like dramas but said they spent five hours debating whether to allow this beloved gay parent onto a voluntary school board. They didn't. They spent all their time, you know, talking about changing the names of the schools instead of how to reopen them. They also there's chronic mismanagement. I mean, the school is something like $125 million in debt despite, you know, being in a very rich. So they opened for one day. That's right, just so that they could get a state piece of the state budget pie. So these kids clamored back to school just so that they could leak technically. Say, yeah, we were open and to get, I think it was a 12 or $13 million check and then they shut the schools down again. And you probably key point, Jason, which is that the Asian American community in San Francisco has been absolutely galvanized by this issue because this school board also, you know, Lowell High School is one of the best schools in the city and it was merit based and it had great advanced math programs. And this, this board basically got rid of all of that stuff and it infuriated the Asian American community, many of whose most prominent members have basically risen out of poverty because of the education they got at low. And so this war on merit that's happening is something that is going to, you know, flip the, you know, Asian American community, I think, to when I was growing up, I grew up in a French ghetto of Ottawa. And I was supposed to go to a local high school that was just plainly trash. And I was able to go to an equivalent of Lowell. This a public magnet high school that had advanced classes and everything. A gifted program. And it really did change my life. And so I really understand what people are saying, which is like when you're in poverty. The only way out is through an education, really. You may get, you know, get accidentally lucky, but the only really predictable, sustainable pattern here is is through school. And so when you deprive folks from being able to get a decent education. And there's no real, you know, orderly logic to it. It's a really ridiculous kind of an idea. The other thing is, I think that this speaks very powerfully. As SAC said, as a non as a bipartisan issue that these Democrats have to get right because you know, you saw this also in Virginia where. Democrats basically went down this one tack and you know, the Republican candidate, Glenn Youngkin basically said, hey, listen, the schools are broken. It's completely doesn't make any sense. We oppose a lot of what's going on, the watering down and the critical race theory, etcetera, etcetera. And he put it to a vote and a lot of people crossed the aisle there as well where typically ardent Democrats basically voted for their Republican governor. I think the point is that there are just. Several issues that are just so transient, like they're just, they transcend all party lines, and this is an anchor issue that we have to get right. Friedberg, any thoughts on this? Do you think this is the start of maybe a turnaround for San Francisco because Chessboxin is way more hated and safety is an even bigger issue, I think, for a lot of people right now in San Francisco, and it dovetails with Asian hate and the number of Asian people targeted in crimes. So he's got a. I mean, if these people got up by 75% on average, he's going to be out by 95%. Is this a tipping point of San Francisco gonna make a really don't know. I mean, look, I think there's generally a broader. Trend and momentum around what we classify as localism, which I think is a little bit disparaging to the intention of social justice, and recognizing the the the, the primary points of social justice through action and behavior in civic discourse and and government behavior. And you know this like the election of several DA's around the country who take a different stance to prosecution of crime. To try and create better options for rehab and and and so on. I think it's not a movement that's going to go away overnight. I think there's certainly a hefty amount of resistance. But what we're really doing right now is I think we're learning and realizing the boundaries of this movement and of this moment, the one boundary that I think San Franciscans are. Too bad at San Francisco. Like, you know, it was in the case in tech has always been so progressive in terms of, you know, doing these things faster than than anyone else, but what we're realizing in San Francisco. With non prosecution of criminals as the DA has undertaken over the past couple of years leads to really heinous crime and rampant crime and and and and this kind of social justice movement within the education system causes a decline in the value of our education system. Those are two really important learnings that San Francisco has had over the past couple of years with this very important and momentous kind of social justice movement. But it doesn't mean that the movement is over. It doesn't mean that quote UN quote. Lookism is over. It means that that social justice intent is still there, but we're realizing where the boundaries are and how far things can and maybe should go. I posted this article, Tyler Colin, who's a, you know, pretty well known economist. He wrote this op-ed for the for Bloomberg. And what he said is that woke ISM has peaked and there's just these two passages that the builds on what Frieberg said. Quote by localism I refer to a movement that on the positive side is highly aware of racism and social injustice and is galvanized towards raising awareness. On the negative side, it can be preachy, alienating, overly concerned with symbols, and self-righteous UN quote. And I think that that probably does summarize sort of like where it starts, which is I think rooted in a very good place, but unfortunately all too often where it ends, which is that sort of moral absolutist judgment cancel culture around it. And then the second quote that he said was the following, he said, quote, woke ISM is likely to evolve into a subculture that is highly educated, highly white and fairly feminine, that is still a large mass of people, but not enough to run the country or all its major institutions. In the San Francisco School board, recall, for instance, the role of Asian Americans was especially prominent, UN quote. So I don't know, I just think that. All these things sort of, you know, people are looking for affiliation and you start with labels that bring you in and then you have to sort out. Are all these labels really true and how true are they? And I think we're in this moment now where now that we know the mechanism of action of vocalism, I just don't think it works anymore. And I think a lot of people will say, I believe in the high order of deals of racial and social justice, but I don't believe in the mechanism of action. And so the pendulum swung too far, but, but, but but the core intent of a generation of change is underway, which is social justice and climate change. I think those are the two big points of concern be done with this cohort under this well, it won't be done to this extreme. This fact. Right. And and I think that the pendulum went too fast, too far and it's and and there there are boundary effects that are causing recourse right now and we're seeing this across the country especially in New York with the election of the mayor and San Francisco the the DA recalls happening in the next couple of months. So sad. What's your prediction on the A recall, by the way? Well, that's 95% but I mean it to build on your point, they were talking about 10% of the people in the United States who are involved in this, you know, retweeting and virtual signaling and you know. Is Twitter a real place? Well, no. A city is a real place. People have to live in San Francisco. And when these ideologies result in unlivable conditions for people, well, they're going to say, you know what? There's reality here. How do we get competent people to take the positions sacks that are being vacated? Now, who should London breed put in these three positions? And. Maybe tech people need to. I mean, this is what I think has to happen. I think some number of tech people have to get off the bench and say, you know what? I'm gonna do a tour of duty as politicians in San Francisco to to take back the city. What should happen here in terms of who takes these positions? Because Republicans can't win in San Francisco. So you're going to need moderate Democrats Rights act before before sex goes. Can I just say something? Because I think I just want to say something really important. So I'm sorry to jump in, but Jackal, I I think the point you're making about the tech people implies the tech people are effective. Good at doing this, but that's not necessarily the fabric of San Francisco. I've lived in San Francisco since 2001. The number of people in San Francisco in 2001 that were in the tech industry was a minority. Since that time it became a significant size and over the last two years since the pandemic has decreased significantly. But San Francisco is a city with decades and generations of history. My wife's family is multi generational San Franciscans and I don't think that traditionally San Franciscans view tech people as the right people to solve these problems for them, that the intention of that. City is not necessarily about, let's get tech people to solve our problems. They have a different set of values perhaps. And so we we often overstate and assume that tech people are the right people and are the the problem solvers. But I don't think that that's necessarily the right problems that people want to solve. So I just, I just wanted to interview then who should take these positions? Because right people typically really far left people are motivated to take these positions. I don't see business people writ large across all political, you know, positions, but specifically San Francisco don't want to take these positions. So is this just going to be replayed? Sax the recall effort was led by two parents, autumn Lusion and Sivaraj. They're the ones who led this thing. They're the ones who rose up to basically oppose these crazy school board members, and that is who London breached to talk to. I mean, she needs to go talk to the people who are successful in organizing this recall because they understand the issues obviously, and the people are with them. So either appoint them to the board or ask them for their recommendations. And I think what you see consistently, whether it's with this SF school board. For the the the school boards that we saw in Virginia, the Younkin very effectively ran against is that they don't believe the parents matter. Terry Mcauliffe's fatal that his last gaffe was basically saying that the parents shouldn't get to decide what is taught in the schools. He basically said the quiet part out loud, but that is what still across the country, the teachers unions believe, and most of the Democratic Party the activists believe, that until they start losing elections, you're not going to see a change in that belief. Oh my God. How awesome would it be if Sakura on the school board. Oh my God. Yeah. And just to put a pin in this and the cherry on top, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 7:00 to 4:00 to send a recall reform bill. So their reaction to all of this is to do a recall of recalls and say, now you can't recall somebody in their first year and the people who are placed in these positions can't run again. So now the speculation is that three people who got voted off are going to run again. So there's a lot more to come on this and also part so they're putting. To decide that they're putting that on the ballot on June 7th, the same day that we vote on the recall of Jason Boudin, the Board of Supervisors now put in this measure that would make it far harder to recall people. One of the provisions of that is whoever London breed appoints as the successor, like you're talking about, they cannot run after that. So it is designed to for no, that makes no sense. They're basically, if they do a great job, right, exactly. It makes no sense. So you have the Board of Supervisors trying to throw a wrench into the democratic process. Meanwhile, these are people who claim to be preserving democracy, saving democracy. They are trying to throw a wrench in the underlying it, David, is they think they know better. That's what it fundamentally comes down to. They are willing to have democracy up to a point, and when that point is an unacceptable view by somebody else, they feel like they know better and they're willing to be really draconian in whatever they do to decide and shout out to Mike Bloomberg, I'll pull up the the tweet for everybody. He hasn't been very vocal or been on the stage much, but obviously he did a great job in New York on reforming schools. The San Francisco School board recall should be a wake up call to elected officials, especially Democrats. Across the nation. Parents are fed up with the status quo and that put adults, that puts adults ahead of kids and ideology ahead of results. Well said, Mike. Yeah. Well said, Mr Bloomberg. Yes, that was very good. And Bloomberg has been very good on calling out the Democrat. The Democratic Party is blind loyalty to the teachers. And they understand until they're willing to break with the teachers unions who are their biggest donor, we're not going to get any real progress on school reform. And this is the issue. My favorite political commentator, one of them is Roy Tashera, who's a Democrat. He wrote the emerging Democratic majority. He wrote a blog post talking about how the how Asian American voters are going to swing away from the Democratic Party because of issues like this, because of the decline of standards in school and safety and and and the Asian American community I think is galvanized on this chase budine issue. Because they have seen in all these cases of Asian hate where elders in their community have been violently assaulted, chaser Boudin has done nothing except release the perpetrators. Alright well listen this is seems like a good turning point. Let let's we talked about on this podcast over and over again about the compression in SAS multiples in the public market valuations as something that we're still working through in the stock market which has been choppy at best over the last couple of months. An information story came out. Just this week, major crossover funds like Tiger and D1 are slowing down their investments in late stage private companies, and I was talking to some folks who said the multiple compression is here now. They're not doing the deals at 75 or 100X revenue. This was reported in an article by the information. Tiger Global told their LP's in a webinar earlier this month that it would no longer focus on backing late stage startups preparing to go public. Instead, they will focus on two things going even earlier into series science Series B rounds. And buying shares of public tech companies that have sunk in value compared to the all time highs. Obviously we know twilo zoom block all down over 60% from their one year highs. I could get into more details here, but let's stop for a second. And chamath, what are your thoughts in the.com bubble? It took somewhere between three to five years for most stocks to bottom and they bottomed I think peak to through somewhere you know towards 80% of where they were in 2000, right. So it took three to five years to go basically minus 80%. We did that in three months, you know maybe four months. And so the markets have become a lot more efficient over time. So now that we have that reset it's pretty natural that there's going to be a very quick. We sat on the private market side and you know you have to go where the bodies are buried. And what I mean by that in this case is the overwhelming Miss valuation of late stage private companies. And so these folks don't have much of a choice. They have a lot of money that they've raised before all of this happened. They have a huge portfolio of stuff that they've marked up or have been marked up by others. And they don't want to go through the pain now of resetting. So part of the easy strategic decision there is to say, you know what, we know this is a little bit radioactive. But instead of really figuring out what the mark on these companies are, we'll go to a different sort of part of the playground and play there because we don't have to go and deal with these issues. And you know what? We can do 10, fifteen, $20 million checks into early stage businesses, pretty normal reaction strategically. But I think the reality is that at some point in the next year or two, these other companies have to get public. The hope is that the market catches back up so that you can defend the last valuation and that's the, that's the way that this stuff doesn't require a lot of pain. The problem is if you're high burn. And you were counting on yet another successive round or you're at a point in your life cycle where you need to go public in the next two years. If you go public, you will get taken to the woodshed, taken to woodshed, being your valuation might be half of what it is in your last round. So there's going to be medicine that has to be taken. Sacks, there'll be medicine. Some people gonna have to take some medicine. Sacks, what's your best advice? Being one of the great operators in the history of Silicon Valley as a CEO of PayPal? Well I mean push up there with Shari mean I think the I think everybody agree the top four people can correct me here. Tim Cook good operator. I mean, I I saw what you did to ICQ, man. You were riding that that bad boy down that wasn't delivered a billion ******* users to a company. OK, it's pretty decent. You did pretty good on Facebook, I'll say that. But if I would think most people would say sacks, Cheryl, Tim Cook, Keith Raboy. We'll put that aside for the debate in terms of operating, throwing a little dark, spicy BBQ pork here. Come on, give me, give me, put you in the top 25 chamath. Sure. OK. But I mean, it wasn't your wasn't your chosen career a little dark meat? Nice. And drop them into bring me into your dark me, bro. They're orbit. Stephen Jackal. Who are your top 4? Cheryl, my top four in this order. I'll give it an order. So basically for white people, when basically hold on, hold on. Asian and Indian CEO's run most of the tech companies. And so I'm talking about #2 CEO's, not CEO's. Just for the CEO position. To be clear, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to CEO. I would say Tim Cook when he was Steve Jobs. That's my number one operator. Last 20-30 years. For two epic Sheryl Sandberg, who did obviously amazing things for Google and then Facebook, right? Those two would be my top two. And then I tie my top two sacks as a PayPal and Zenefits. Even though it didn't work out, it was still a great run at the time. And then I put Keith Raboy Square and a couple of other companies. He did. Those are my top four. Anybody else want to come at me? Go ahead. I don't know. Have complete data set on CEO. What would you put sacks? You did I put your family to disagree. Had a disagreement. And what was it? Keith Adams. LinkedIn it. Brilliant. You are jakal lately. It's a love fest now. Yeah. OK. There we go. So there we go. They're back together, advising what's forever you and friedberger at each other's throats. So I'll just let you guys fight it out and I'll be all about the love. Yeah. Freber. Why are you attacking Jake? Cal, be quiet over there. No one's asking you in your lane, Freeburg. So, sacks, as an operator extraordinaire, what's your best advice to the company that raised 100 million? And let's say their valuation is now not a billion. 500 million, what are the steps you take? You got 14 months of runway in the bank. Do you lay people off? Do you extend it to 24? What are your thoughts? You must be dealing with this with companies in your portfolio. Well, there's a few things going on. First of all, I think Tiger built a great business in providing late stage sort of passive non dilutive capital to to companies, SaaS companies. We have a bunch of of SAS businesses that they provided later stage financing. I think those valuations are going to come down. I don't know that they're going to be such a great partner for serious. Big firms, because they are passive and you know, we see is that serious. Eight companies need a lot of help. They need a lot of advice. You need a lot of help with recruiting, governance, governance. They need, you know, when they're growing from say 20 employees to 100, they need to know what that org chart looks like and on and on and on. So I don't know that if if this report, I don't know if this reporting is actually true. But if the goal is all of a sudden for tiger to become a Series A investor that competes with craft or Sequoia or these other firms that are not very hands on, doesn't that doesn't seem like a great strategy to me. I do think that for our later stage companies they have to realize that you know if they raised and I think the other side of this. Sorry David, I just want your reaction to this. I think it's going to work, but not for the right reasons. The reason it'll work is there are way more entrepreneurs now than there are great entrepreneurs. And so of all of these entrepreneurs that exist, the idea of getting passive money where you won't get fired, where there is that. Remember, like, remember when we were growing up in Silicon Valley, the risk is always, like if you take Sequoia, benchmark, you know, social capital, like there's a high bar for that capital, which means we are helping you run this business effectively. And there's a cost where if you don't perform, you will get fired. There's always been that risk, it's true. And I guess that's the argument they could make. But the flip side is that there's a lot of these. So the CEO now why would you take a $15 million Series 8 check from Sequoia where they could fire you whereas $15 million from Tiger they may never call you. We, we, we address that by doing, look if if a founders really worried about that, we address that by giving them three board seats. You know we might have one, they might have 3. I mean my view on it is you just never fire a founder unless he does something criminal. It's just that's simple. But so look, I think there's ways of addressing the governance where you can get the help or the value out of an early stage firm without giving up the control. So, yeah, I mean, look, that's the pitch that tiger would make, but I think that's addressable. What do you think of that pitch Freiburg, I will give you the $15 million Series A. You don't have to have a board. You can just be passive and and let us know how it goes. Give us a quarterly report, we'll look at the P&L. That's all of crypto now anyways. That's true. Well I mean that's a fair point. No governance in crypto is leading to a lot of weird stuff. I can tell you, I tell people this a lot. So I had three term sheets for my series B. It was from Andreessen Horowitz, coastal adventures and Founders fund. Founders Fund is came in kind of last minute but I went with. Post law, even though it's a lower valuation because Vinod was pretty insistent like let me put someone that could be useful some you know government person because we're doing a lot of work lobbying in in in DC on your board. We won't be on your board. We won't bother you. And I took the round and then my series CI took from Founders Fund because Brian Singerman, who's obviously a good friend, you know, made the case like, look, our model at Founders Fund is we let founders run the business. We're not here to tell you how to run your business. And they were both great sits and you know, it worked out well. I didn't. I had. I have had experience with antagonistic feces on boards and, you know, generally creates a pretty negative dynamic. Now, when I'm on the worst story without the person's name, I don't think I want to go public with it, so I'm not gonna do that. But when I was on, give us an idea of what the behavior would be because there are people in the audience who want to know what is bad behavior of you see, just give us a composite. When you're an entrepreneur or CEO running an early stage business, you live that business 20 hours a day. You know the details. If you're smart, you're thorough, you're analytical, you're creative. There is no one that's going to come in the boardroom. For two hours, 1/4 and suggest things to you that you haven't thought of. There's no one that's going to come in the room and be smarter than you at your own business. And so more often than not, vinodh been exceptional at defining this problem. The problem is, VC's join a board and they think that they have to quote, add value. So they come in and they make a bunch of suggestions and recommendations and push you to do a bunch of things. And as Vinod has said correctly many times, they more often than not add negative value. They can actually destroy and damage a business because they need to feel like they're exerting some degree of influence over the. Business. And as a result, they push the business to do things that the CEO or founder otherwise wouldn't be doing. And that often ends up in a kind of weird, sticky kind of place. So I just validated the tiger pitch right there. I think that's right. And by the way, it's why Founders fund. Founders Fund is fantastic. I don't know if you guys are LP's, but their investment returns are so far beyond what I think anyone really realizes. They're incredible investors and a big part of it is they try and find the entrepreneur that doesn't want and doesn't need the help, and then they give them the capital to go and execute and they leave them the heck alone. And they were just so good at finding those folks, identifying them and then literally being passive in in in how they kind of manage and operate their business. And that's why they were so freaking good. I think the people you're talking about are a lot of rookie VCs who come in. And then yeah, they they think they're just just experienced ex operators, even people who ran businesses who say I know how to run a business. And look, No2 businesses are alike. So maybe the way they ran their business with their team and their market and their industry worked well for them. But now when they got to come in and do it with someone else's business and some other space with some. Completely different team, you know, they try and exert influence and really it's just, you know, not wanted. Let me go to sack sacks. Hold on. I want to just get one from you. Give us an idea, because you've been in the business for over 20 years. I mean, by the looks of it, maybe 40, but 20 years of just crushing it in the business. What's the worst behavior you've seen on a board you can make a composite of, like a VC being destructive on a board? Yeah. I mean, look, I think it's an IVC's will have sort of hobby horses and they'll keep pushing. The things that the founder doesn't want, that's not productive. But what I would say is, first of all, let me just say, like, I'm not somebody who likes to take board seats and I, I do it as a it's like I see it as a cost, not a benefit to me because it takes up my time. If I didn't have to ever take a board seat, that'd be great. As far as I'm concerned, that be a good thing. I'm not somebody who wants to, you know, insert myself and get on these boards, you know, offered as an incentive. No, I only. I only took four seals. Yeah. The only reason I'll ever take a board seat is because I have to do it because the founder insists that otherwise they won't go with. I've seen it with so you'll do it for one year right you'll say hey I'll do it for a year. I always time limit it now because I just can't I mean I can't make it 10 year obligation you know it's typically like one or two years and then you know we'll see. Doesn't mean I'll roll off in two years but but I but I need to have the expectation set up and and the reality is if the company can perform well for another two years they'll be at a different stage and maybe they won't you know need my help as much so chamath the two most valuable pieces of private equity. That I own. Is a company called DCG. And it's a company called Netskope and collectively it's like billion dollars worth of stock that I own. What I'm on the board of 1, I'm not on the board of the other anymore and I text with these guys maybe once every two or three months at best. So do you know, completely confirming David your point, that great founders are just no F1 individuals, you know, Barry Silbert, Sanjay Barry, next level guys? But that's very different. Then the the Series 8 playbook, because when I ran institutional money, I'm telling you there is a pressure to be involved and show some value. And I do think that there is a a level of judgment on the CEO that has happened. Now maybe that's changed historically, but I think that's the single biggest pivot that one would exploit if you were tiger or CO2 or D1 stepping into the early stage game, which is to essentially make it a feature. And it's not dissimilar to when DST and Yuri Milner entered the late. Each round you know, what was his big differentiation? I'll take common stock and I won't take a board seat and see if they board a seat to be influential. It seems so counterintuitive and so against the grain. But he acknowledged what was this thing that up until that point was true, which is common and preferred, converged in price per share. So buying common in the late stage company was the same as buying preferred. You know, that's something you should explain at your mouth for a second. People don't know this, but at an IPO. Well, I started it. So when you set up a company, you have a price per share of the common stock and then a price per share that the Series A investor has. The Series A investor is buying preferred shares. That actually looks more like debt than equity. And what I mean by that is there's typically a coupon, there's a rate of return, there's accumulated dividends. All these features give it a certain price per share. And the common has none of those features. And so it has a little protective provisions. And that gap is typically around 20 to one when you set up a company. OK. And that's what allows you to hire employees and give them very, very cheap options with embedded upside. Then what happens is you raise more and more of these series B, series C, Series D These preference stack, right? Preferred shares build up, but the value of the comment keeps rising too, and by the time you go public, the gap converges. What Yuri realized was, hey, wait a minute, I'm buying a company a year or 18 months before it goes public. The price of the common and the price of the preferred are roughly the same. And so I'm just going to, you know, do that. And I'm not going to take a board seat because it's clear this company is successful. So similarly for Tiger D1 and code 2. I would just observe the obvious and kind of put everything that we've just said on the table, which is, hey, guys, I'll give you the money. You're either end of one or not. I'm making a guess that you are, and I'm just going to get out of your way and leave you alone. I'm bundling governance and unbundling the governance and advice piece from the capital piece. But you're gonna still need that governance and advice piece. I think it could work. Yeah. I mean, I think that there's a lot of great founders, or they're they're founders who start young and experience and become great. And the smart ones listen to advice on the way, and they they seek out people who've done it before. And so, you know, yes, they may be an N1 business by the growth stage, but that doesn't mean they don't need any help whatsoever at the Series A stage. Such a good observation. And look, I think there's been, I think there's been an evolution in Silicon Valley and actually say there's been like 3 distinct phases in the venture capital world, and I remember all of them. So you go back to the the night the late 90s, OK, when, you know, you had this mentality on the part of VC's that if a company became successful, you would just automatically replace the founders, right? You go bring professional CEO. That was a disaster. OK. And and that's when founders fund Peter came in, I think founded Founders Fund in 2003. And the reason they called it Founders Fund is to indicate they were going to be profounder and they would never replace the founder and they would let you do whatever you wanted. And I think Zuckerberg tell the back story of the Sean Parker stuff and how that happened. Yeah. I mean so basically both Peter and Sean Parker had, you know, experiences they felt were very negative with Sequoia and and by the way, I have a great relationship with Sequoia Ruloff who work with us at PayPal is there and I think they've evolved. The firm, so I'm not calling them out or anything, but but both Sean Parker and Peter felt like Sequoia pushed out and replaced and so with plaques so specifically. There are a couple of different companies involved, but when Peter was CEO of of PayPal as well that. You know, he felt he felt that pressure as well. So when they then found it as two of the four founding partners of founders from back in 2003, the whole point was we are going to be profounder. You're never going to replace you will let you do whatever you want. I think that that was phase two and that became I think the dominant model. And so becoming Profounder was now table stakes. And I think the third phase has been you know what in recent Horowitz has now done with this massive like the services and the value ad, which is that we're going to basically not only be profounder, but we're going to like. And all these resources to help you. And that's the era we're in right now. I mean, from the from our perspective, like as as craft, I mean, look, it's not in our interest to get into any dispute with the founder. And if we feel like our advice isn't being taken, well, we just back off. You know, of course we're profounder like we don't want the control. We're not control investors. And you know, if it's, if it's, if it's becoming frictional, we'd rather just get out of the way. It's just not worth it. The underlying thing that you're not saying, though, it's. Because you have enough of a fund that's large enough where you can have enough bets where any of these any of these things to the upside is a total needle mover but anything that goes to 0 doesn't actually diminish the fund or empiric meaningfully. So there is no upside to getting engaged and really being non anti founder. So I think it's a, I think it's a part of a business model that. One thing I want to tell you about Parker, Parker was single handedly incredibly responsible for keeping Zuck in the seat when he was president of Facebook as Parker wrote you know this structure that really. Not marked to keep control super voting shares sacks to to to add on to your your point. I think that there's been so so it there seems to be a bifurcation around the services model or not. But the fourth thing that seems to have happened and you guys tell me if I'm wrong on this but it it plays into the tiger global story when when I was when I got that term sheet for my series B at Climate Corp, Marc Andreessen and I was trying to raise like 25 to $30 million and market reason was like we're gonna give you a term sheet for $40 million more than you were asking. More because we want you to use that extra capital to go faster, to go harder, to grab the market, because we have this big bulge in businesses that grabbing the market. And that seems to have also become a bit of a mainstay, but not just a mainstay, but now almost like the the the, the kind of standard pitch that a lot of the later stage guys are taking, which is like here's so much capital that it helps you make the market. And then the SoftBank Vision Fund kind of took that to the extreme with $100 billion raise. And Tiger Global, I think last year have publicly said they deployed about $15 billion into startups where startup may in a natural cycle kind of evolve to needing $70 million raise or $100 million raise and they're like writing. That's for 2:50 or 300. And saying this extra capital gives you the ability to move faster. And the reason is the faster a business moves, the higher the multiple they get on their revenue. So the higher the growth rate, the higher the multiple. So if you can deploy capital faster, if we could find a business where we can pump money through you to get it out the door faster, your multiple goes up. And Tiger's model was let's just get the multiples up. There's multiple expansion and growth. So we'll make money two ways when the company goes public in 18 to 24 months, obviously when the markets end up tanking and all those. Multiples compress no growth rate is going to solve that problem for you, but having more capital than maybe you were thinking or asking for also seems to have become kind of a attack. I don't know if that if you view that as kind of this 4th evolution, but that certainly wasn't the case 20 years ago when VC's were being careful about is it a $6 million round or $8 million, what's the right amount of capital. And nowadays it's much more about take more than you need. I'll say there was a 3.5 in there which is you saw a little bit of lack of governance or superpowers. On the part of like some incompetent founders or bad founders, just, you know, whether it's we work, Theranos, whatever, too much control, not enough governance, things go off the rail. But you know, based on this discussion, I really think this bifurcates when it's a first time founder versus a second time founder. And what I see because I have been doing board training for seed companies where I will just have three founders sit in on each other's first board meetings. We do one board meeting each and I train them how board meetings works and what I experienced with Sequoia on my board and other boards and first time. Founders like the tactical stuff, how to run a board meeting, legal, HR, hiring, partnerships, we go to market strategies, man it, it is all tactical all the time. And then when I've been on with second and third time founders, you know, they really are like, here's all the materials, here's what I'm thinking about, what do we think strategically? So they go from the tactical level to the strategic admission level awfully quick and they actually seem to enjoy having those four meetings a year, whereas the first time founders really need to have six to 10 a year in those in that first, you know? Like you're two of a company, that's my experience. I realized in this discussion that the market has really meaningfully changed meaning when I was actively investing even in the early 2000s or sorry in the in the, you know, 2011, 1213. There was a culture where if you underperformed you would get replaced. And I think David, what you just spoke about, which I guess is true, has really changed, which is if you're running a multi, multi billion dollar fund where every check is $20 million, the upside is billions but the downside is -, 20, there's just no point. And so you know, Sequoia used to be known as a very, very, very tough, tough, tough place for CEO's that were underperforming. Now they got a $9 billion fund. Now you have maybe 20 years ago, it doesn't matter anymore. No, not even even 10, less than 10 years ago, I think it was, I think it was known as a very tough, demanding place. I think Benchmark was known as a very tough demanding place because the money was much more finite. Right Bench benchmark still still that case. I mean, the expectation called they never, they never grew their fun size. No, Jason, you're not, you're not hearing me. I am. I I think what's happening is, listen, I had Sequoia on my board and I worked at Sequoia. So there's difference between high expectations, which I think all these folks have to have and the willingness to replace the founder. CEO and what I'm saying is every VC claims this, but there were a handful of VCs that had the courage to do this. I mean, famously Mike Morrison, John Doerr, you know, had it out with Larry. That, you know, right, right after this round, like either go public, you know, get your business model or give us our money back famously at Google. So they're not, they're willing to draw a line in the sand. I think that that has fundamentally changed at all these organizations because the fun sizes have gone up and the mathematical reality of venture capital has changed. Something else you're missing, which is you gotta remember, Moritz and door, we're not operators and now these companies are being run Rule Office, running Sequoia and he's an operator and he was there. So the changing of the Guard and Marc Andreessen and Ben. Pro it's where operators, so the operator class behaves very differently. I disagree with you. I think that it funds respectfully, just states. No, hold on. I think that fund size dictates this behavior more than any singular other feature. When you're running a $9 billion fund, you just don't sweat that changing of the CEO and David said it really well, you just say, OK, I'll cut our losses and move on. We don't lose. I think it's more about the culture change in Silicon Valley of a bunch of MBA finance people who have never run a company now moving and running companies. But. You know, let's move on to the next. Any closing thoughts on this one? Well, just, I mean, Jason, you start to make this point that if if you're a founder and you want to eventually run a great public company when you IPO, guess what, you're going to have governments and what I've seen big time, right? I mean, there's just Delaware law. There's just a lot of like expectations around being a public company. And so if you don't have a board, you know, and you're not constituting one until you go public, there's going to be a massive amount of cleanup that you have. We do. I mean that's what I've seen. And so you know you'll end up scrambling to create a board. I think that the Board so serves so many purposes early on of giving you advice, of giving you structure, of providing support help services. You can still remain in control while getting those things. And I'm just, I'm just skeptical that like if you form a company with completely passive VC, you don't even serve on a board like you're going to have to do a lot of cleanup later. I would say at a minimum, I think that. That's true too. Totally. I'm not by the way, I I'm not saying I'm I advocate this, but I'm I I just think that the reality is that if these large late stage crossover firms really step into the early stage, I think they could really build a big book of business. I do think there are a lot of founders who would love to just be given the money and just to be left alone. I'm not saying that they think they know that it's better for them. But on the margin, just to be able to be left alone now what has changed? Maybe those everybody's going to be very hands off just because all the fun sizes have exploded. So at that point then you know what is the difference between Sequoia and D1? Time will tell. I just know that. Like what? What? I see a founder doing something that I think could risk the company going off the rails. I'll say so. And then, you know, if it keeps happening and the situation gets worse, I'll say so again, I might mention the third time, I might not. At a certain point I'm just like maybe after like 2 times. Just like they don't listen to me. That's fine. It's their decision, their company, their decision. They go off the rails, their problem, you know, we'll move on to the next one. I mean, that's the reality. Sometimes founders have to learn by doing it. Like sometimes they're intent and you know what? They could be right and you could be wrong too. So it's hard as a, as a, as hard as a board member, you know, that's why I'm very judicious in giving advice as a board member now. And I'm on a bunch of boards and do we're training because when the roof was on my board and he still is, you know, he would ask great questions and he would be very thoughtful about, hey, have you thought about this or when I. Got advice from dog or Michael Moritz directly? You know, Doug would say, hey, well, can you share the two year plan with me? And I'd say, you know, we haven't built a plan. And he said, well, you know, Jason, you know, hope is not a plan. Let's make a plan and let's discuss, you know, the milestones along here. And it was amazing to have that level of thoughtfulness around revision. As a founder I love, I mean as as a founder, I love getting advice and I think you got to be really dumb not to seek it out. I mean I when I was a founder, I would even though I was sort of competing with Benioff, I would meet with him and I would like get amazing tidbits just recently. We did. It wasn't like an official board meeting because roll off isn't on our board, but he's a big investor in one of my incubations call in and we just did a meeting with him and and and the gets it in every time, not to be confused with Olin. We had trademark. It was, it was me and Axel, who's the cofounder of pollen and and roll off. And we had like an amazing meeting where we got like, I'd say amazing advice from roll off that like focused us. And it wasn't that I didn't know these things, but it's just like when you're in the weeds, sometimes you don't just like crystallize on, focus on the most important thing. And I came out of that meeting feeling like, OK, roll off, just refocused us on the most important thing and it was immensely valuable. And you've got to be like dumb. Want to seek that out no matter what stage you're at? Because I seek it out today. Yeah. And think about this, David. You're in the thick of things. He's on squares board. He's on other boards. He's got a picture of the entire playing field. It's like somebody who's the coach of 15 NBA teams and you're like the coach of 1. He's seeing things on other NBA teams that they're doing in methodologies and best practices that you're just not going to see. So I mean again. And then if you look at the great founders, TK used to come to me. And say, hey, you know, this is the thing I'm going to be doing at the next board meeting. Here's the thing. Can we jam out? And he would just ask for a jam session. He came up with that term and three or four people would get together and just jam and talk for five hours about the product. It was awesome. Alright, let's go on to David Sacks's favorite section of the show, science with the Sultan of Science himself. Paul Graham. Enough with that. That was exciting. You have to you if you are engaged in the science segment socks and PGR in a fight. Alright, let's cover it. Here's the deal. If David Sacks is engaged during the science portion of the class, we will let him have his fight as the as the teacher here tell us a little bit about stem cells and this HIV story. I was going to tell sex that the the Earth is round. OK, it's not flat. I don't care. How does that affect Solana? So sorry. The the story that I think. You wanted to. You guys wanted to cover today with the HIV story, which is incredible. I suggested this topic, so I'm interested. Explain it to us. HIV is a retrovirus. Meaning once you get infected, it doesn't go away. He doesn't care. He's he's he's better. We better come back to teaching. Pretty muted, you. He's flipping through his Politico notes to figure out what did he miss saying that he was supposed to say he just flipped over to Ben Shapiro on 2X. Listening to Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris in conversation. Go ahead. Sorry. OK, the the HIV being cured headline. You know, we can dive into it for 2 minutes, but HIV is a retrovirus. When you get infected with HIV, it stays in your body forever. It actually ends up living inside of your immune cells. That's what makes it such an interesting, challenging virus. And it destroys those immune cells. So over time you end up getting AIDS. And the way it enters the immune cells is through a specific protein. Some people have a genetic mutation. Where if the there's a change in the their DNA and that protein is different. HIV cannot enter their immune cells and they can actually, they are naturally immune to HIV. CCR five. Yeah. And so what's happened is found apparently in white northern Europeans. Yeah. Like Norwegians, I think. Yeah, exactly. And anyway, So what what's the interesting study that was done? All immune cells are made from stem cells in your bone marrow and so, you know, all the white blood cells that we have that. Right off our diseases come from our bone marrow and Umm when you get a blood cancer sometimes you end up getting so severe that you have to actually wipe out all the immune cells in your body and give your and you end up with a bone marrow transplant. So you get new bone marrow, put in your new blood cells, put in and hopefully if you can survive the therapy and survive that treatment, those that new bone marrow will produce new immune cells in your body will recover and you will be cured of your blood cancer. So what happened is people had. Kid, and when you get this, this bone marrow transplant, you end up, you know, they they give you radiation and chemo and they wipe out all your blood cells. And and then they give you this bone marrow transplant. So they selectively chose a bone marrow stem cells that came from people that have the the genetic mutation that that prevents HIV. So then when these HIV patients that got blood cancer got a bone marrow transplant with this mutation in it, they were cured of HIV. And so it's a pretty profound kind of demonstration of what we already knew, which is that this genetic mutation can. Uh can prevent HIV and there are a lot of therapies that are underway right now. To actually use gene editing to induce that mutation in peoples blood cells and in their bone marrow without needing to give them a whole transport. The the first guy that did it, the first guy that did it was German, right? Or he was in Germany I think and he unfortunately passed away. They cured his his HIV AIDS but he unfortunately had a relapse of the leukemia that killed them. But I think all three cases of people that that have been quote UN quote. You're have have been these leukemia patients, but I'll say two things, two things about the future of this kind of possibility. Number one is you don't need to get a bone marrow transplant to have this mutation induced in your cells to prevent this infection from kind of occurring in your body. You can use gene editing tools to do that. And so we are now developing gene editing therapies. We're rather than go and get a whole bone marrow transplant to cure your HIV, we can actually edit yourselves. Those edited cells will now be resistant and you will be resolved. HIV, the second thing is the way that they gave people the bone marrow transplant, the way they created those stem cells for the bone marrow transplant was from umbilical cord blood from from newborns which is very rich in stem cells. And this is a traditional way of kind of giving people stem cell based therapies as you go and source stem cells from another body or your own body which are called autologous stem cells. But like I just want to say one thing what's really interesting in the future is not going to be about pulling other people stem cells into your body and finding them from. You know, fetal blood or what have you. We now have the technology which I've talked about multiple times on the show called Yamanaka factors, where theoretically we can take your cells from your own body, turn them into stem cells, grow them in a lab and use that as the therapy that's called autologous stem cell therapy. And rather than use stem cells or trying to find them and, you know, figure them out where they are in your body and pull them out, we can actually do stem cells from your body. And that's like, you know, 15 years out is a tallages induced stem cell. Therapy, where you actually make your own stem cells and then give yourself all sorts of therapies, not just bone marrow transplants, but you can heal lots of tissue in the body using these stem cell systems. We don't really hear about HIV AIDS anymore. In that article, I think it said that there was about 37 million people around the world that have HIV AIDS. And it's incredible, actually, the amount of progress that science has made in this disease. I remember when I was growing up, it was made to to be like this incredible boogeyman. Yeah. And it really governed like a lot of social norms at the time because we were still discovering what HIV AIDS was. And, you know, how, you know, how do you think about sexual promiscuity? You know, from a moral and ethical perspective? I think it had a huge impact on my generation. Absolutely it did. It was a death sentence. They they made us paranoid. So here's what's happened. Therapies have gotten so good at suppressing, suppressing the virus if the virus is suppressed far enough, even though you are always going to be infected if it's suppressed far enough. The Who and the FDA have both said you can still have unprotected sex and not transmit HIV. And so even though there are plenty of people out there that might be having unprotected sex with HIV, the therapies have suppressed the viral load to the point that they're not transmitting it actively. And so that's been the big breakthrough in science over the last decade. And then they also had these prep pills. Right, which people could take proactive if they thought they might, you know, find themselves. But, I mean, chamath you and I lived in a generation where, I mean, does. That was it was the end of things. Yeah. Well, I mean, it was the end of days. And they're like, I, I don't know, you got Business School. The single biggest thing that I was that I was taught in sex Ed classes to be afraid of, be really scared at all costs. And then the problem that it that it created was like, you know, in countries that had a large Catholic population, you know, the Catholic Church was so, you know, evil they had, they were undecided on. They were the opposite decide. They told people in Africa to not use condoms. When AIDS was rampant, it was the biggest evil, second biggest evil the Catholic Church did in modern history. Obviously the first. We know I have a contribution to this segment. Oht. Yeah. What? He's here we go. Move on on on me. I know I took to to your point in this relationship. Look, I I remember how scared people were of aids, you know, back in the 1980s when this came up. And I remember that there was a head of the NIH who even whipped to people's fear. Hold on. Whipped up people's fear. By saying that even casual, even casual contact within the same household can spread it. And you know who that head of the NIH was? Anthony? You know who was? Yes, we know. Fauci dedicated his life to trying to solve and reduce the suffering of solve for AIDS and HIV in the 1980s. In the 1980s, he was the face of government indifference towards AIDS and he spread fear and was medically wrong about it. Go check the records. He was a screw up then and he's a screw up now. On it. He worked tirelessly, didn't work tirelessly on it. Jake Paul, I think Sachs is right in the sense that, like, what we thought we knew back then turned out to be wrong. And I think that's a really important point. You know, particularly in science. It's a process of discovery. What we thought we knew back then turned out it was all a hypothesis. It's all a thesis until it's proven or disproven. And that's the case. Read Andrew Sullivan. I mean, you know, Fauci was absolutely the enemy, Public Enemy number one of the of the gay movement. Who is it? Yeah, well, it was attorney Tony Perkins. There was actually a debate that Fauci was in on AIDS where a gay actress literally said to him, I hate you. And if you read Andrew Sullivan's blog, he will talk about how he remembers back in the 1980s that Fauci was sort of Public Enemy number one in the gay community because of his position on this during the Reagan administration. And so it is a lot of Civil disobedience act up and he responded by putting massive resources. Into this. So I think you know if if he was, that's not listen to Andrew Sullivan on this. He is Andrew Sullivan. He is not that right wing wait. Andrew Sullivan is the reason why more than any other public intellectual why we have marriage equality today. He is number one. He advocated for marriage equality and in the New Republic made the case for it before anybody else and popularized that argument. I'm a fan of his writing, so don't try and portray him as a far right wing or whatever. Portray you're, you're going to fauci's intent. I want to believe that Fauci is an evil person anyway. I think you and many other people have mysteriously forgotten who felt you really is OK you think I know the conspiracy that you think Fauci's intent is to, you know, cover up the. And he intentionally was working against solving for HIV. That's ridiculous. Do you think? I would say intentionally. Do you think Fauci had good intentions and few inferred exact. Do you think Fauci had good intentions? I don't. I don't really care about his intentions. I just want to look at his actions. It's amazing. It's amazing to me. It's amazing to me that a public official who was so wrong back then in the 1980s, nineteen 90s on the public health crisis of our time would just be given a free pass and along comes a new public health crisis last. Couple years and he's been completely wrong about that too. So why are you giving this guy a free pass? I don't get it. Hey sax, in a in a cloud of uncertainty, in a time of war? Do you think that leaders need to show strong intent and clear signals? Or do you think that they should be wishy washy because they don't know enough? I think they should be right. And if they're trying the best with what they have, with the information they have at the time that they OK, well yeah you there's some forgiveness for, for making mistakes. But when you're constantly wrong maybe it's time to get somebody else in there. That's true and but and Fauci, by the way, Fauci app with respect to code we talked about before 100% participated in a suppression of the investigation into the origins of COVID. There was an active attempt to suppress that. Come on you know that the the Foyet emails show it. It's a good science segment. I do want to give a shout out to the the researchers who actually did this with this woman in New York. It's pretty freaking incredible. What's incredible is that they did it with HIV patients who had blood cancer. And it was a really kind of like thoughtfully designed experiment. Incredibly thoughtful. Yeah. And it's been four years. So, I mean, this has been baking for a long time. By the way, as I zoom out and hear you guys talk about what HIV was like, you know, back in the day and the fear around it, I I do think that 3040 years from now, given the tools we have with induced stem cells. And cell based therapies and there are hundreds of cell based therapies coming to market over the next few years. They're all in late stage clinical trials as well as gene editing. I think hopefully and I'm optimistic that one day we will look back at cancer and aging in the same way that we're talking about HIV today and that both of those diseases can and will be resolved with the tools that we're developing through science. And you know there's, there's there's going to be bumps along the road. But man, I, you know it's so clear that there's no sacks go look, I think, I think what Freeburg just said actually is really important and inspiring. And I think it's great. And I was kind of joking around with the Fauci thing. I didn't expect it to become a tangent. So I don't need to keep going on and on about where do you see him trying? Where do you see him in editing. Try to change his position. Not gonna change anything in editing. Keep that whole segment. I'm just saying I didn't. Can you use of can I do a voice change? You have become so argumentative we wouldn't have spent 5 minutes on it. If I'm correct. You're incorrect position that families intent was onramp. Please, because I gotta fly to Europe. Go. OK, here we go. David Sacks and Paul Graham have gotten into it. It's a battle for the ages. And the stakes are so low. The stakes are so high and the animosity is so high because the stakes are so low. Here we go, David Sack before wait before this. Does Phil Hellmuth qualify this as a billionaire battle or a quasi billionaire billionaire battle? Literally. He revealed the billionaire. If you follow Phil Hellmuth account, it's being DA greatest being dug greatest on Twitter follow being DA greatest to get that fellow no Phil Helmuth outed on his Twitter. Our friend, his new billionaire bestie is his which he stole bestie from me. I used to call everybody bestie. He just Co opted it like he Co opted me calling Trump the dictator. But I'll tell the dictator's origin story later. Is Stanley from DoorDash? Stanley Tang, co-founder, chief product Officer Jordan. Great guy, really great leaders. Truffle? Exactly because he found it. OK, here we go. So if you could introduce him to Paul Graham. Good sex. Alright. Here, here, here. Here's the issue to pick. What's your beef? Here we go. Actually, I did not seek out this beast sex Vendetta section of the Listen, PG waited into my tweets. He came after me. Yeah, waiting he was. I love it. Please. Any billionaires out there who wanna, like, debate, like, come waiting into my tweets? Mark Cuban. Did it. Make it? Made a big *** of himself. I don't want to deter these guys from from waiting in, because it's great. Here's what's basically happened is I tweeted a video of all these multimillionaire celebrity hypocrites partying maskless at the Super Bowl and then meanwhile the next day, my three kids have to go to school in California wearing their mask. That is ridiculous. OK, it makes no sense. We all know that, OK? Any sane person knows that. That's why I tweeted about I don't know why, of all issues that was triggering in PG, but he had to come in and say, well, they were all partying outdoors. It's like really, it looks to me like they're in a skybox and if it has three walls and a ceiling, I call that a room. But in any event, that wasn't he was, he was misinformed. Because the rule of the Super Bowl was that if you were not eating and drinking anyone under over the age of two. Must be wearing a mask, so you know my point stands. I just want to air. So here, here. Here's where things kind of went. S is. Is so that I tweeted blink twice, you know, Paul. And and here's the thing. I wasn't totally trying to be snarky with that comment here. Here's why I said that is because explain what that means. I didn't understand that. Does that mean blink twice? Well, it means like are you are a captor. You're being held kidnapped by these concepts that you have to wear. You're being held hostage by somebody. And the reason why I said that is because is is. Look, if if if PG had just been some crazy dumb person ever would have said that. The fact is that PG is smart. He writes extremely well, publishes a lot of interesting things. He's an independent thinker, so it almost seemed to me like somebody is holding him hostage here. Because how can this really smart person be making this case anyway? It kind of went S from there. So, oh, I have no desire to continue the debate. Meanwhile, Kendall Jenner wore north face shoes to Justin Bieber's. Yeah, Can you believe Derek? She knows that he hates north face. How did he do that? Gossip, gossip, gossip. Alright, so this has been saxes vendetta corner for the week. Segment but but the segment taxes but a corner. But what I wanna say I wanna stay on the main issue here, which is, uh, please, let's do it every week. But yeah. But look, am I wrong about this mask hypocrisy that's going on? How in the world are kids picture of sex in the mess? No, put the picture of sacks in the makeup jakel. Stop. I wanna air 100% support for sax on this statement. I totally agree with you on the mask hypocrisy as well as the mask mandates in schools. I think it's ridiculous we pivoted. We've pivoted so far away from first principle thinking on this stuff. It's not I totally agree with you completely and on this point, on you wasting your time fighting with people on Twitter. My personal advice to you as a friend? It's just cut it out. But what you got to do, buddy, but totally agree it's entertainment, all right, everybody for the dictator himself, Chamath Palihapitiya. Rain Man. Yeah, David Sacks and. The Sultan of science. If you see him out and about, ask for a selfie. Sultan of Science love selfies. He does love you boys. Bye. Love you all. Next time on the all in pod. Love you bastias. Bye bye. Your winners ride Rain Man David Sack. We open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Besties? That's my dog taking out your driveway. Ohh man. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge **** because they're always useless. It's like this, like sexual tension that they just need to release stuff out there. The beat, beat. See what we need to get mercies on?