Did you just finish a good cry cuz you have this wetness right here on your eye. Sorry to get out of my cold plunge in my sauna cuz you know i hit a new record low weight one sixty nine this week. What's your temperature on i don't want to say it's embarrassing it's embarrassing i don't want to say no what is it.
I've been doing like 56, 58, but it's great. It's okay. I mean, all these lunatics, like, I don't know, they're at 45 degrees, 48 degrees. I think it's unnecessary. You get the same value. I think you're 50. No, my two-year-old does 56. It's really impressive. I consider an 80-degree pull to be a cold plunge.
I don't get it unless it's like 85. That's actually I've been to parties at Saxon's house. There's no difference between that. It's a shritz. It's a shritz. It's a shritz. It's a shritz. If it's not the temperature of mouth water, I don't get it. Let your winners ride. We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy.
Yeah, it's just, it's crazy. And then I went in my infrared sauna, so now I've been going in. You do the cold, then the warm. I think you're supposed to be warm, then cold, no. They say end on cold. And so I'm ending on. Yeah. But I just do like a cycle. You do cold, warm cold.
Cold, warm, cold, yes. Would you do like two minutes, 10 minutes, two minutes, or what do you do? Yeah, exactly. Like one or two minutes, cold plunge, four minutes, you warm up, you get back to it, and then you jump back in. Yeah, it works pretty good, you know. I have to say my energy level goes way up. Have you been tracking your blood pressure?
I have not, but I have this executive health coach that I'm using. And so that's where I got those ridiculous glasses, the blue lights and my sleep's better. I've taken some supplements. I'm eating estrogen.
No, it turns out, you know, even F-52, my testosterone is very high. So that's what is your free testosterone? I don't have the number here, but they said it's the high end of normal. So I was like, should I be shooting up testosterone? They're like, no, you're good. You're good. Just we'll send it over to freeberg. I said, all right, great.
A lot of people take testosterone in their fifties and sixties and I've had a couple of my friends in their early sixties start age is it age human growth. Yeah, is that right? Not a good idea. Seems like a really bad idea that off menu stuff. I don't think it's a good idea.
I think he had to be careful with the off-menu items. No, I think you can get a prescription for it. Is that right? Yeah. I know there's a lot of off-menu items available to affluent people with the right doctors, and I don't think it's a good idea. I mean, you guys see Bezos. He's jacked. I didn't bring up anybody specifically, but he looks great. I think that's just all weights. Is he going to be president?
I mean, if you had your choice right now between Bezos and Bob Eiger, who would you try to find Biden? I think we know who you bet. I mean, listen, I was talking to some affluent people and everybody's going back. I was talking to some affluent people. I don't want to say who, but Vivek is now people are starting to talk Vivek. I think he's hitting the right chords, man. Vivek is about to pass to Santa's. He will be, I think, if you look at the polling right now,
New Hampshire, he'll be the clear number two in about four between four and eight weeks from now. That's crazy. That's crazy. And so I think if he becomes a clear number two, the think of this, it's like then all of a sudden, all these MAGA supporters
are given Trump and then Trump with some small feature improvements that are actually pretty meaningful. And then they're like, well, do I want the 80-year-old Trump or do I want the 38-year-old Trump with the super features?
I can forgive all of his other issues when he tells me that he's going to cut the government, the federal government by 75%, fucking sold my gosh sold. So you're on, so you're on Team Vivek. I want to continue to gather a little data. There's no rush to make a declaration right now. Give me a little bit of time. Chama, are you with Vivek? Yes. And the reason is I would love
for it to be RFK and Biden in a debate and then Trump and Vivek in a debate so that I could really figure out between RFK and Vivek, who I would like to vote for. But I think it's been pretty clear that the Democrats have chosen to railroad RFK's candidacy. It's unfortunate because I don't think we're given a real fair shake in really being able to evaluate him. Even the tractors, like Freeburg, you have some pretty significant things that you dislike about RFK, which I think are fair,
They're never going to get a chance to get aired out because you're never going to get a chance to be put on a national platform where there will be really enough debate. And I think that's where America loses. So yeah, in that context, I would say that Vivek has done more in the last month to convince me that he is fiscally responsible.
and that he has some intuitions that I think RFK and Trump and a lot of people in America share, which is just about the usefulness of the blob. And, you know, that there may be needs to be a grand experiment where we deconstruct the blob and I'm for that experiment to be totally honest with you to see what happens. So that's where you at.
He's unhappy. What I would say, I think it's too early in the process to say definitively, okay, this person has to be the person. For me, I'm viewing candidates as either being acceptable or unacceptable. And the vague is acceptable to me. I think DeSantis is too. The ones who are unacceptable to me are the ones who had escalate the Ukraine war, because I think that avoiding World War III is to me the central issue of the campaign.
So for me, it's just a limits test issue. I can only support a candidate who would work to end this war, not one who had escalated. Where does our fiscal emergency sit for you in terms of priorities? So no World War three priority one is the fiscal emergency that we're facing.
priority to or is it overstated by me do you think or others know i i think it's important but the problem is this is that in order to do something about that problem you really need bipartisan support yeah because it would be suicide for one party to try and do all the heavy lifting without the support of the other and i just don't see
in the near-to-mid term that you're going to get that kind of bipartisan support, no matter who is president, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican. The only issue that for sure the American president has unilateral discretion over is our foreign policy. And so for me, making sure that the next president pursues a foreign policy that
doesn't result in the destruction of the United States. That to me is the overwhelming issue. It doesn't mean these other issues aren't important, but just the numbers are. Let me show you this poll for a second, just so we level set with the audience. Poll ending September 18, 2023 for those of you not watching on YouTube. Trump, 39% is that or 38, then the vague 13% Haley, 12% Christie, 11%, DeSantis, 10%.
That is a stunning turnaround. That's probably because it's New Hampshire to account. No, I know, but that's a very critical state. What do you think about what Dollyo said on stage about the need to have a Manhattan Project-style effort here that is bipartisan, comes to the center and tries to resolve this as that scale of an emergency? Is that realistic to frame this as
We are in a fiscal emergency. We have to get a Manhattan Project-style effort underway to try an engineer's solution. Well, let's back up. First of all, I think you asked the right question to him, which is, is our decline a matter of physics due to forces we can't control? Or is it something we still have control over? And I think that that's a really good framing. I think if you're in the bucket that we can do something about it, I mean, I believe that we can. The question is how?
And I think his view was that somehow you get all these elites together and you get them on the same page. I don't think that's how our system works. I think what happens is you have elections, people compete against each other and the voters decide who's right. And so one side has to defeat the other. And I think until we get some clarity from voters on the direction they want to go, I don't think there's going to be a resolution.
But to your point, there's no solution without bipartisanship here. So what is the path to bipartisanship when it comes to the fiscal crisis? I'm not sure. Wouldn't the obvious thing be if one party wins with that as part of their platform, then it becomes part of the winning platform and the winning formula? Are we just saying that's not even possible because it's too unpopular to tell people
that they don't give free money. I think it's political suicide for one party to engage in deep cuts, deep government cuts, deep cuts of programs, especially with popular programs. He probably cut the unpopular ones at the margins, but it's political suicide to cut anything important without having the other party on board. There's been a couple of times where we've been able to have this type of consensus.
I mean, the one that always gets mentioned is when Reagan and Tip O'Neill cut a deal and they were able to reform entitlements and make some changes to those programs and they kind of did it arm in arm. And that worked. And then the other time where it kind of happened,
not through agreement, but almost through lack of agreement was when we had the sequester. I remember when Obama was president and what happened is the Democrats and the Republicans worked out a deal where if they couldn't agree, you would get equal cuts in both military spending and social spending. The idea being that Republicans wanted the military spending, the Democrats wanted the social spending.
And that's ultimately what happened is that they couldn't agree. And so you got the sequester and we had some spending restraint for a short period of time. The problem now is that both Republicans and Democrats want more military spending. I don't hear anybody really argue for cutting military spending, except for maybe Ro Khanna that our event. But
The Democrats are completely on board with war now. And then on the social spending, I don't think either party really wants to cut social spending either or do entitlement reform. So there is no constituency out there for reigning in the biggest sectors of government spending. So I don't see how it's going to happen, no matter who the president is. Well, the forcing function will be the debt service costs, which has just crossed a trillion dollars a year just to pay the interest and it's mounting, right? 30% of our debt, I think, is coming up for
refinancing in the next 12 months, and that's going to refinance at a 5% rate, because that's where the markets are at. Just like consumers can ignore it, Friedberg, and put their fingers in their ears and say, la, la, la, la. I don't have to worry about my payments. Then the payments show up, and you've got to worry about them. Same thing's going to happen here in the US, right? The federal budget will get naturally constrained at some point here. Yeah. As the economist Herb Stein once said, if something can't go on forever,
It won't. So I think, I think you're right, Freeburg, that this one. It's not your embarrass. It's your side, I think. Yeah, if somebody can't go on forever, it won't. I think that that's where we're headed is we're going to have restraint imposed on us from the outside. It's not going to come from people. Stop buying people, stop buying treasuries.
Interest rates just have to go up to what's happening in Japan, right? I mean, their bond auctions have been very lukewarm and supposedly a lot of the money in Japan is coming west looking for opportunities to get alpha. So we have an example that we can look to. All right, let's get, we can get started here. We have so much to talk about. I think we got to give some flowers here. Last year, the Sultan of Science, the Prince of Panic attacks,
The queen of quinoa was an absolute terror when I did the all-in-summit 2022. And then this year, he was an absolute all-starring delight. What an amazing job you did on the content. People are saying the content that all-in-summit 2023 is the best conference ever had. Bill Gurley got a four-minute ovation, and that talk is on YouTube. Elon Musk
star linked in from 40,000 feet. He crushed it. Toby was fantastic. Ray Dalino, Larry Summers, Mr. Beast, went with Paltrow. The Bow Test Sisters, which we did a pretty good showing, I have to say, a great job to Saks and Friedberg, who held the line with the Bow Test Sisters in our group chess. Brian Armstrong, who am I missing here? I mean, what an incredible lineup.
Rob Henderson, Jenny Joss, Rob Henderson. I mean, extraordinary. Let me just go around the horn. Chamoc, what discussion or moment pick your choice there for you was the most intellectually engaging and important at the summit. You can mention two or three if you like. I thought number one were my outfits.
Pretty great. I mean, you did do an alpha change twice a day. So congrats on that. I liked the sport. Really good job with that. I do agree. I agree.
Did you guys get the special shoes from Laura Piano? Oh, God, the king's cashmere loafers. Yeah, those are ridiculous. I'm wearing them as we speak, actually. I wore them the other night and I can't wear them yet, Sucks. Yeah, yeah. I mean, these are the most incredible shoes. They're the most incredible like 10 pairs or something. Yeah, and we got four special for us. Yeah. Then I get back to the Beverly's Hotel, the sweet
That free bird booked me a beautiful sweet. Thank you free bird. And there is a lot of free bird shafted me on my room. What what? Yeah, I gotta put you by the garage. No, I got a room that was. Well, it's very appropriate that these rooms exist, but it's handicap accessible, which totally fine. Except the problem is the closet and everything is set for wheelchair height.
Why did he change your room, dude? And so all Mike, and then I thought, oh, he just fucked me on purpose. He just tried to get a little passive aggressive name check. So you guys got some work to do in the group therapy. Yeah. I would never do that to you guys. Don't worry. When I when I organize a summit, I'll make sure these details are perfect.
fly onto my plane. He has gluten-free Nutella crepes handmade in the morning, and I stick him in a handicap accessible room where he can't even put his bag. I can't put my clothes except without it touching the ground, so then I had to play them on the bed, and then I got to lay them on the spot talking about personal problems. Yeah. The audience right now is just triggered by the suffering that you went through at the Beverly Hills Hotel. My honest reaction was I thought the content was really inspiring. I guess it's kind of like
i knew what i was going to get up front with so many of the folks cuz i knew them, but then where i still came away where they exceeded my expectations number one, probably was graham allison. I could literally talk to him for eight hours a day i feel like, and i don't know him well so i felt like i was scratching the surface of the things that he knew, i could do an entire dinner i think where he could just walk through the cuban missile crisis and i could just sit there listening so.
And I thought he was unbelievably intellectually stimulating for me. Every time I sit down with Toby, I'm just like in awe of how smart and different Toby loot key is.
And so I always kind of like walk away thinking, this is really one of the very special entrepreneurs of our generation just in terms of his mindset underrated. I thought Larry had the line of the summit. Larry Summers, where he said, self-esteem should come from achievement and not the opposite, which is that achievement should come from self-esteem. And he was talking about,
wokism and sort of like the entire philosophy around that stuff right now, and I thought that that was really insightful. Those are probably the three moments. I thought girly's obviously presentation was superb, but again, it's kind of like saying the obvious because it was just so masterclass, but from what I expected to what I got, those were the three that I thought were the most.
inspiring and net new positive for me. Fantastic. Sacks. Did you have any moments aside from Gwyneth Paltrell saying she was your favorite bestie other than that being the clear number one for you and crushing soul crushing for us? Well, I never even heard that because of the sound issues. We had technical issues during her interview and it got really hard to hear her at various points. And I don't think you guys heard that either, right?
I heard it. I tried to ignore it. I tried to block it out. I couldn't hear it. So I didn't know that. Yeah. Well, congratulations. Do you have that? Can we get that up right here? No, we're not doing victory laps on the pod. We talked about this on the chat. No, I mean, that's awesome. Go. Go for it. I want to hear it. Yeah. My husband, but we have a little bonus to the chat show is keeping time to do not have the date except to keep letting do it. So it's okay.
Oh, my God. She said it. Love with David Sacks. No, it's that his, her husband thinks that she is. Oh, that's him. But we have a little business attention is he thinks I'm going to have with David Sacks, but he's letting do it. So it's okay. This is not good. David is incredible. Oh, the husband's jealous. And that's not a good situation. Reuse. After that, what did you like? Sacks, be honest. I want to also give credit to David Sacks who showed up.
for every talk, and Freeburg said, J-Cal, the issue. I said, well, anything I can help. He said, oh, well, actually, the issue is I asked David Sachs to show up at 8.45 for the run-through, and he won't respond to me. Can you get in touch with him? I said, let me tell you what's going to happen with David Sachs. Program's going to start at 9. He'll be here at 8.56. And if you get him on stage with two out of three talks, you did better than I did.
And free birds team, which God bless the production work team. They did an amazing job. These Wolverines are incredible. Shout out to Laura Rachel and everybody on the team. They did a fantastic job.
And sure enough, SAC shows up at 8.56, goes on stage, and he grushes it. So, great job getting him on stage. But congrats on showing up for us. Well, they wanted me, I mean, I asked when's the first speaker going on stage? Yeah. I actually think it was 10 AM, right? 10 AM. Sorry, 10 AM. 10. So I'm like, okay, in my head, I'm thinking, okay, I'll be there at 9.59. And I'm like, what time do you... Yeah, and then they're like... And you were there at 9.55, and I was like... No, they said you used to be there at 8.30 for a sound check. And I'm like,
I'm sorry to start the show. Can we start the show? I thought the conference was amazing.
Your conference exceeded my expectations to J-Cal, but I think Freeburg took it to another level, and it exceeded my already high expectations. I think starting with Ray Dalio as the first speaker was really interesting. I think we only got to go for, what, 30, 40 minutes with him. I felt like we could have gone for two hours to bring it back on the pod and drill into that topic more. Two hours with Dalio would be amazing.
Cause I think what's really interesting is the way that he's looking at the grand sweep of history, right? He's thinking about not just a 10 year business cycle or a 75 year debt cycle. He's looking at a 250 year empire cycle. I think this is really interesting that he thinks in that really big way. I agree. Graham Allison really interesting. We could have spent two hours with him. Larry Summers, these are all people I think should bring back on the pod for a long form conversation.
I agree that Bill Gurley's talk was one of those great TED style talks that I think should go viral. I think it has. I think 20 million people should watch that. Yeah. I mean, the people retweeting it are incredible. And I was at a dinner party last night and everybody was talking about it. So it's it's spread into our industry and it's starting to tip over into other industries already. The chest was really fun. I am a game day player that way. You know, I brought it and managed to win the game.
I know there were a lot of great months. I'm sure forgetting about things. I love that. I love that. The parties were incredible. Absolutely. The parties were absolutely incredible. We miss both of you guys at the Grimes DJ set. That was amazing, by the way. I think Chamopo is there for that. Aren't you there? No, I left right at 10 to fly back to the bear. Early night. Yeah. I got it. Yeah. She grimes. Thank you to Grimes for doing that for me, personal favor. The audience lost their minds. She was incredible. She's such a performer. It's incredible.
Yeah, people were losing their minds. For you, Freberg, best moments on stage.
It was just great to be with everyone and go through it. I mean, honestly, I didn't source all these speakers you guys did. And so I don't want to take credit for that. I think it was what I had hoped, you know, I went to Ted for 12 years. I started going to Ted, I think 2007. And I felt pretty disappointed over the last couple of years. And I actually spoke to the CEO of Ted and said, I'm not going to go anymore because so much of this, the talks became kind of social justice type talk nonsense.
I wouldn't, I don't want to use that term because I do think it's all very well intentioned. And I think it just became overwhelming that you would go to Ted and you would basically feel bad about yourself.
And that it kind of missed the element of the world is an amazing place. We should have a great degree of optimism with technology and where it's taking us. We should observe the greater cycle and the bigger perspective of things that are happening in the world, not kind of go into a who done it and who's to blame and us versus them kind of mentality, which I think so much of the stuff turned into at TED. And I was really hoping we could capture some of that. And so I'm really glad we got a lot of the speakers we did and had a couple
hours to be able to share, you know, those sorts of perspectives. So it was fun. I really enjoyed what you did with the conference in terms of the editorial direction was great. You leveled it up, certainly from last year as Tremont pointed out correctly.
And it had a great amount of optimism, realism. And we didn't talk about superfluous, virtue signaling, social justice, woke nonsense that really should not be at the top of the agenda in my mind. I'm not saying that these issues are not important to some people, but I think prioritizing what's important in the world is what I got out of the conference. When you have people on this level,
speaking for, you know, very long periods, not long enough, but, you know, the Larry Summers and, you know,
Ray dahlia looks like these talks. They really gave you a sense of this is what's important in the world right now. This is the priority and I came away from it so intellectually stimulated that maybe just say, hey, you know, I want to travel more. I want to read more. I want to have more conversations and I have been basking in that like afterglow. So I just want to say, you know, once again,
what an extraordinary amount of teamwork. Just as the moderator of our quartet felt everybody did a great job moving the ball around. I think everybody was on their game. Everybody, you know, I'm talking about the three of you guys.
very focused on just knowing exactly when to insert a great question. So I felt like we were playing basketball like the Warriors when they play prime basketball ball move really well. Great questions. People picking up on themes, threading themes from one talk to the other. And it just made me really excited for next year. So I just want to say a great job to each of you.
Thank you. Back at you. No, back at you. Listen, we could talk about ourselves all day, but people hate that. Let's talk about what's going on in the markets. Yeah, we only did it for 40 minutes. Perfect. Yeah, exactly. IPOs and M&A on fire. We've had a ridiculous week. Six quarters of down market has suddenly turned into a bunch of green shoots on the M&A front. Cisco announced it acquired Splunk for
$20 billion in an all cash deal if the notes are correct here. It's about 10% of Cisco's market value. Somebody did a trade where they bought a bunch of options. And so that looked a little fugacy. Congratulations to Nancy Pelosi on that trade possibly. And don't forget your favorite word. Allegedly. Allegedly. Perhaps. I don't know if she's good at trades. So if somebody's going to make money on that trade or somebody's going to jail.
So congrats to Sreli, Instacart, Klaviyo and ARM, all IPO'd in the past week. And you know, they've fallen back to Earth, just crazy stat. 21 months since the last significant venture back company went public. I'll leave out like the Middle Eastern Food Company was a Kava that went public and then the vacuum company that went public. But that's just in the past seven days. So we talked about this on the program.
We discussed, hey, we'll know when the markets are back if some of these companies are forced to walk the flying slash, get public, and fix their cap tables. And sure enough, Instacart really kind of represents that most of the late stage investors in Instacart are underwater. The early stage folks absolutely crushed it. Chama, listen, you're a market expert here. You've taken a lot of companies public.
What do you think the last week means for the greater technology industry? I don't think that this was the great reopening that we all were hoping for. I think it's important to understand the dynamics of.
bank led traditional IPOs in America, and the best way to understand them is to contrast and compare to how that same company would go public in Europe or Asia, because it'll explain what happened. And I think, unfortunately, what has happened is not good for the market. So typically what happens is when you construct an IPO, you're selling 15 to 20% of the company.
And when you do that, you go and you call hedge funds and you call these mutual funds, but what are called long only, right? Meaning they don't short. They just go along these big mutual fund companies and you try to find a handful of people to anchor the IPO. So they take a huge piece of that 15 to 20%.
In Europe and Asia, the securities law says that when you get such a big allocation, you have to hold it for six months, which means you're treated exactly the same as the employees who are typically locked up in an IPO for at least six months. What happens is these firms do all kinds of diligence,
And when they buy something, it's because they really believe in it and then they go long it for, you know, what is at least half a year. So it's a, it's a non trivial amount of time. So that's what happens in Europe and Asia. 15 to 20% of the company is sold a handful of people anchor and you're locked up for six months. Now you need to look at how American IPOs are done, which is why people have experimented with direct listings.
We've experimented with SPACs. It's because the fundamental architecture of IPOs are broken. They're set up in a dynamic where it's a heads-eye win, tails-you-lose situation for the bankers that run the IPO. Now, what happened in these three IPOs? Number one, it was less than 10% of the float. So highly, highly, highly concentrated small amount of the company was made available for sale.
Number two, there really weren't anchors. What happened was the allocation of that less than 10% was smeared across 50 or 60 different organizations. And then number three, there was no lock up, which meant that people could sell right away. And so what you saw with all of these companies was the exact same dynamic, which was it opened.
Because they were such a small amount of supply it traded up and the minute that retail which typically tends to be late to the game because they don't have access to these things right when they started buying. What was unique this time around is all of the mutual funds just dumped everything.
And the hedge funds were like, well, we don't have a real allocation. Our friend said in the group chat, he got a $5 or $10 million allocation in these IPOs. These are $20 and $30 billion hedge funds, $5 and $10 million allocations don't move the needle. So the hedge funds sold right away and got on the sidelines and said, I don't care about this. The long-onlys bought just enough to make the stock go up because of such a small supply. Then when retail stepped in, they just dumped it all.
And so unfortunately, what's happened is all three IPOs within a few days have breached their issue price. Now, they're at the same issue price, maybe slightly higher, but that is an unsuccessful dynamic. What could have been different? The banks could have forced these companies to sell up to 20%. The banks could have found a few anchor buyers. The banks could have created a lockup structure for these anchor buyers. They did none of it.
And so the result is a lot of downward pressure in a moment where the overhang of rates have come back and are forcing all of us to realize, and we'll talk about it in a second, that these rates are going to be higher for longer, which completely changes how you value these tech companies.
NetNet, very poor IPO construction by the banks, and the grand reopening was a grand closing, I think. Okay, so just to put some numbers on that, Instacart's float was 6.7% and Clavios float 7.6.
Armstone almost hit the 10%, 9.4, but certainly less than the 20% that you would expect. So then I guess the follow-up question here at SACS is, why did these companies go out and will we see the other big ones go out, the stripes and some of the other backed up inventory? What's the back channel in our industry about the viability of other IPOs? Is this going to push a lot more people out to get liquidity?
even at discounted prices, even with the headwinds that Chamop points out, or is this going to have a chilling effect? People are going to say, let me wait till 2025. I think they went out because investors and others need liquidity. There's no point holding on and waiting for a valuation that's never going to come back. You take Instacart, for example, their last private round was at $39 billion. What's the market cap now? Around $10.99. It's great that they got out. I think that is- I know it's at A today.
I said, hey, I mean, look, it's sort of a green shoot that they got out, but we're never going back to the valuation level. So we had a couple of years ago during a giant zerp created asset bubble. So I just think there's no reason to wait. And you look at SoftBank, they needed the liquidity from the arm IPO. Yeah. So I think that's why these companies are going out is we're kind of getting back to business as usual, just to broaden out the question a little bit.
What I think is interesting is that for the past year or so, we've been in a software recession. It really started in the first half of 2022. The market's cratered, especially for growth stocks.
There's a huge correction in valuations that happened in, especially the first half of 2022. But then about a year ago, it started in mid-22 and continuing through Q2 of this year, you saw a reduction in growth forecasts. Everybody started forecasting down. There wasn't a single board meeting that I was in in private companies that wasn't missing their numbers and re-forecasting down. And you saw it in the public companies as well. I think German Ball substacks showed that the average
Growth forecast for SaaS companies for next 12 months have been cut roughly in half. So for the last year, year and a half, we've been in a software recession. You could say a B2B recession. We saw companies like Meta, Google, and so on, cut thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, get much more efficient each. That meant they were buying a lot less software on a perceived basis.
So, I think we've been through call it a B2B or enterprise recession, but the thing that's held up stronger than I think people might have expected over the past year has been the consumer. Consumer spending has kept the economy afloat. So, the B2C part of the economy has been strong whereas B2B has been very weak. What I wonder about next
is whether that's going to flip. I wonder if the consumer is on their last legs here. You see that credit card debt is at an all-time high interest payments on credit card debt, all-time high mortgages. The rate now is approaching 8%. So no one can afford to sell their house, which has a 3% mortgage, and then buy a new one at 8%. So real estate transactions have cratered.
The commercial real estate industry is, you know, on its last legs. I think they're starting to throw the keys back to the bank and start forfeiting buildings because they can't refi at a attractive rate. So I just wonder if the consumer now is about to go through the type of pain and restructuring of their personal balance sheets the way that the enterprise segment of the economy over the past year.
Freberg, your thoughts on what we're seeing here in terms of the IPO window, companies getting out, and the impact that I'll have maybe on how limited partners look at venture funds. That's been frozen for 18 months, limited partners, and I'm raising a fund right now publicly under 506C, so I can talk about it.
And it's going great, but man, it's a lot of meetings. And I'd say two thirds of the meetings I'm having, people are saying we're not adding managers, we're cutting managers and we're cutting commitments to managers, but we'd love to meet just to start the relationship. So what do you think this means overall for the limited partner GPs and the startup market?
start of a turnaround or maybe just sideways for more. I guess we should just put the volume in context. If you look at the slide, this is from Ernst & Young showing the IPO activity by year, and this was through June 30th. So if you assume kind of a steady state,
You probably are going to come in at a volume that's less than 22 and perhaps even less than going back all the way to 2019 with less than 1200 IPOs during the year compared to the peak of 2400 which happened in 2021. If you go to the next slide and just look at the total dollar volume raised so that IPO proceeds thus far through June 30th of this year is just around 60 billion. Compare that to a total of about 180 billion
all of last year, $450 billion in 2021. And the IPOs we're talking about today, Instacart, Clavio, ARM, in total raised about $5.5 billion.
doesn't have a huge consequence on this dollar volume for the year. And then if you look at what's in the pipeline right now in terms of what's publicly filed as S ones, there's basically nothing right now. So I think everyone's kind of sitting around waiting to see how these transactions go before they decide to put other stuff. I think the big mistake is that we continue to treat IPOs as this big yardstick.
The real yardstick for a business is the performance of the business. And the valuation you get when you raise capital at some point in time is largely driven by market conditions, not necessarily by the performance of the business. And the value of the business over time, the market will do its job and rightly value that company. We've talked at length about how much value has accrued as a public company for Apple, for Microsoft, for Google, 99.9% of their total market value.
with realized post IPO. So the IPO transaction, I think it's a little too much weight and gets a little too much attention in terms of determining success or failure of a business and success or failure of the investors in that business. So I really hate this whole thing about, does the IPO price go up on a day? It's this really weirdly engineered thing that they try and do to drive psychology and marketing by banks to go out to the banks to try and get people to give them more capital or to give them more deals in the future.
Do you think that the IPO market would be better served if banks were forced to be locked or the allocations were forced to be six-month locked like the employees? Of course. Maybe longer. What if they were locked for seven people? What do you think? Well, where would the float come from on day one? But why do you need a float? Yeah. I mean, that's a good point. I believe the direct listing should be the way that you do this. And then you do a follow-on offering once you're shared. The problem with the direct listing
as I found as a seller, because I went through a handful of direct listings. I went through Slack and I went through Coinbase. Coinbase, right? Yeah. And in the Slack direct listing, I only sold a small portion on day one, and it turned out to be a mistake. And the reason was because the pricing of a direct listing forces you to find the absolute highest price at the open.
Now, we learned that, so then going into the Coinbase IPO, what all the venture investors did was distributed literally the day before and the day of the direct listing so that you would get delivered your stock at the highest price so that you could sell. I'm not sure that that serves anybody any better, you know what I mean? Because then you get a lot of price volatility and the price just goes straight down.
So I don't exactly know what the answer is. I suspect, though, that getting companies to float at least 15 to 20% and doing a better job of allocation so that you're right, David, removing the psychology of like it has to go up 100% on day one is success is the thing that actually catches these companies off guard. Now, we haven't even talked for a minute about whether any of us thinks
the quality of Instacart and Clavio and Arm are good businesses. And this is part of it as well. You just spent 15 or 20 minutes debating the stock price that is completely divorced from the reality of these businesses. And that's a bunch of distraction that the banks create as well that is totally unnecessary. I mean, what do you guys think about these businesses? Let me just respond to the direct listing point. I just want to also point out Spotify.
went public via direct listing. The stock actually traded up after the direct listing. It went down a little bit after, but it continued to trade up into the 2021 era. Today, it's trading at or above what it was trading at during the direct listing. Can I tell you why, though? The performance of that business fundamentally drove interest from investors.
The thing with the Spotify IPO was that it was still a very new vehicle. And so that direct listing was we were all learning as we went along. And at the end of the day, there was one bank that kind of not cornered the market, but really became an expert on it. And they use Spotify as the example. So by the time Slack and then Coinbase came along, the playbook was so tight that everybody knew how to play the game.
So I think a lot of the Spotify post IPO behavior was a bunch of people figuring out what a direct listing meant by the time that we actually DL slack and specifically when we deal with Coinbase, the bank was so sophisticated in telling us, here's what's going to happen. Here's what you should do. What do you want to do? And obviously we wanted to do the thing that maximize returns for our LPs.
So I'm not sure that the Spotify example will ever repeat in a direct listing. I think that the Slack and Coinbase particularly will be the example going forward. You'll top tick day one, and then the thing will spear down, find a bottom, and then... But why does it matter? Isn't it ultimately about finding the real market value for the company?
Yeah, price doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the price goes down or goes up that ultimately the buyers that want to pay a certain price will step in and buy and the folks that want to sell because they think the price is higher than their mark will want to sell. I agree with you. I do think that it's really about business fundamentals, but there's a lot of people that get caught up in the price as what the quality of the business is. Now, those people are maybe not the most sophisticated people in the world, but they make a lot of noise for not knowing what's going on.
And so they can be a real distraction to a CEO trying to run a business. I remember in 2008, I think I've told you guys this story. It was like November of 2008, Expedia was trading down to seven bucks and I saw Dara at some event in March. Yeah, March. And he said, Hey, our stocks at seven bucks. I can't believe it. I mean, like everyone should be buying our stock. And that was well off of the price that it had been trading at in 03, 04, 05,
And sure enough, if you had bought that stock, you would have made 15X from there to where we sit today. And even more if you sold at the top take in 2021. So that's a good chart. So look at where Expedia was in March of 2009. It was right around $7.
And I think that that was for me, like the first example where I really understood that the price where the market trades a stock shouldn't matter as much as the fundamental value of the business, if you're willing to be a long-term holder, if you're willing to say, you know what? And you're willing to do the work. And you have to do the work. Most people are not willing to do the work. They want to look at a price and then they want to imbue all of their own psychological desires into it versus what are the actual ones and zeros of a spreadsheet tell you?
Yeah, but I'm like a pure efficient market guy. I feel like the, you know, whatever shares should be people want to sell, they should be able to sell whatever people want to buy should buy the market. And if the stock gets too cheap, there's plenty of capital out there to step in and buy the stock if they think that it's too cheap and the market will find itself. So let's do the underwriting of Instacart then. Were any of you guys investors in Instacart? No, I am in a fund that's in Instacart from the seed ramp. So I will do, I think very well because of that.
Let's bleep that out. Thank you. That's that will be a that'll be a yummy. I'm for Jake out. Love it. Let's just talk about revenue. Actually, when it trickles down all the way to you as an LP, what's the real multiple? I guess, you know, if you take out the carry 25 or 30% less than what looks like to be the whole fun first. So.
Yeah, that funds been paid back many times over already. So that- Do you know what the multiple is on that fund for you? Yeah, it was 8 million invested. No, that's their investment. That's not your investment. No, I know. If you look at your investment, what multiple have you got back? My understanding is that investment's going to be 200x, 100 or 200x. Some are in that range. I will report back, but I think the seed round investors are going to be- Well, okay, so hold on. So you're saying 8 million will become 1.6 billion.
I think it's over a billion. We can actually have a chart here. Let's take a look. Let's assume it's a billion. 1.6 seems a little high. Let's say a billion.
But let's say the fund was what, five, six hundred million? So for the LP, it's like a two X. I'm just saying that, yeah, for the fund, it was a hundred X, but for the LP, it's a two X. I think that's a big difference, right? The funds are already in the block. So mitigating factor. Okay. So it's two extra turns of your investment. Meaning if it was a four X, Jason, he's saying that it'll become a six X.
Yeah, something like that. Yeah. I mean, it's a good fun. I'm not disparaging it, but I just try to set things and put things in proportion. I think at this point, that funds at 21X right now, something in that range. So it's a pretty great fund in terms of total. So it'll go to 23X, something to that effect. Yes. It's going to be pretty amazing. What else was in there?
Insta, uh, Insta, uh, Instagram and WhatsApp were also in the fund either before it or with it. So they were pretty good fun. There were two funds. Uh, I wouldn't say which firm this is, um, what 12 and 24 X I believe is the last time I checked in on.
WhatsApp was a monster. That was a really big acquisition. Well, everybody learned from WhatsApp and, you know, shout out to the Sequoia team, Wioni, I think, and they did every round. Yeah, Jim gets to them. They did every round. So it was an internal round for, I think, four rounds in a row. So they just may preemptive offers. The reason WhatsApp was a home run is because it was so capital efficient.
He didn't burn that much. They didn't raise that much. So there's very little dilution for everybody. I mean, I think that's the problem with Instacart is how many billions do they have to raise? Let's pull up this chart here. This is super telling to pull up, you know, who made money. And I think this shows you what happens in a surf environment when people do not look at entry price.
The series C under water, no, no, seriously not under water. Everybody from F on is kind of under water. And everybody from the series C is under water compared to the S&P 500, to your point, free bars. It just broke even. And then everybody who invested in 2020 and 2021 actually lost money.
General Caddles, DST, D1, T-row, Fidelity, all the late stage folks, even Sequoia was in that late stage at Series I in 2021, when it was worth 39 billion. So, but that's what it'd be. But that whole environment, not only was it bad for all the late stage investors who invested at too high a price, I would argue that it was bad for the companies and even their early stage investors because these companies got so inefficient.
I also think you have to think about this in the context of what your alternative returns are. I think that we always look at these numbers and we think we try to make judgments, but if you put yourself into the mindset of an investor,
It's actually the alternative of what you could have gotten, and it's the spread between the two that's really important. So Nick, you want to just throw up this image that I just sent you. This is an example that I saw in Axios. I thought that this visualization, by the way, I want to try to use this visualization in the future.
Because it tries to really it just paints a very wonderful let's let's sports this picture shows is essentially and this uses Instacart as an example but you could use it for any company but it just basically shows you at every point in which you could have invested money in Instacart.
What would the equivalent return have been had you just invested that same amount of money in the S&P 500? And the difference between that is what you would call the alpha, right? Because the S&P 500 is the beta, meaning it is what the market's going to do. It'll be up 10%, it'll be down 4%, whatever. And so by owning the market,
You get that. If you decide to not own the market and make an explicit decision like owning Instacart, then you get a different return stream. And if you compare the two, you know how much better or worse you would have been. So what this chart shows, for example, is the series F investor in 2018. If you had taken a dollar and put it into Instacart would have gotten 13%. But if you had put a dollar into the S&P 500, you would have gotten 68%.
In the series C in 2015, had you invested a dollar in Instacart, you would have made 153%, but the S&P would have returned 121. The difference means that the series C investor generated about 32% alpha.
Now then the decision you have to make is that 32% of incremental gain over the last seven years or eight years, was it worth it? You're not liquid. And because you have to then solve for illiquidity and other things. And this is the math that I think all of the LPs will be engaged in. They'll be doing these calculations. It just goes back to what Saxis Point said, which is
Our business, frankly, did very well in moments where we had zero interest rates. Our business now, when prevailing rates are at five or six percent, and you can own those things or you can own structured credit for 11 to 13 percent, our business, unfortunately, does not look so good. And when people do the calculations on what the true alpha of venture capital is, they're going to come back with answers like this, which is, it's not that great.
And i do think it will impact how limited partners have an appetite to give all of us or you guys folks that are that are accepting lp checks more money because the alternative universe is more liquid.
It's less volatile and it has roughly the same amount of return. I can tell you what they're saying because I'm doing about a dozen LP meetings a week and I've got 50 more on the calendar to the end of the year. So I'm going to hit 100 of these meetings. They're really saying two things. One, we want to go earlier. We don't want to go later as that chart proves.
They're suddenly fascinated with the seed and series a rounds, and they're looking for distinctly different strategies. They're looking for some sort of edge. So the first two questions are, how early are you getting in and securing a 10% position in this company? And then what's your edge? And literally the start of my pitch deck now, when I walk people through it is,
I have two podcasts. One of them gets 50 million listens a year. The other one gets over 50 million listens a year. Those 100 million listens result in 20,000 applications. I have larger deal flow than anybody with the only exception being more combinator and that resonates with folks. But if you're somebody who's got a new fund and you're like, what's your edge? I go to some demo days. That's not an edge.
You have to have a massive competitive edge and a differentian. You have to be differentiated in some very credible, believable way. And they're telling me the same thing. They're cutting two funds out of their 20, and then they're cutting their commitments to the weaker ones of the other 18. I have a question for all of you guys. You had a wonderful question, which we never touched. Guys, what do you guys think about the arm business model or the clavio business model? Let's go to Instagram. Have you guys had a chance to look at any of those companies and think about that?
Yeah, let me tip the facts and then you guys respond. The revenue is up 15% year over year, $716 million, add revenues, $206 million. That's on pace to make up 28% of their revenue. This is just the last quarter I'm talking about it right here. End of June 30th, net income, $114 million. They have $600,000 Instacart shoppers. Those are like the drivers. You can think of them like door dashes or Uber drivers, $7.7 million monthly active orders. The red flags is that they're gross transaction volume.
which is the value of all of the groceries in the, in the bags is flat, but ad revenue is growing. This means ad revenue is just a massively larger percentage of the total revenue. They think they can, you know, they're on track for 800 million in ad revenue. So this is starting to look not like a e-commerce business, but more like an advertising business, your thoughts, freeburg or socks on the actual core business. Amazon, by the way, has that dynamic too now? Have you seen the chart showing advertising on Amazon compared to the entire internet?
Yes. It's huge. And also, Uber has blown past a billion, I believe. Here's what we know. We know that advertising multiples broadly speaking have contracted.
So I think that the market in general doesn't love that revenue quality because it's too levered to interest rates in the economy. So when the economy does well, more companies advertise, when the economy doesn't do well, companies advertise less. That's number one. And number two, the ones that can systematically drive advertising more broadly, the Facebooks and the Googles of the world tend to get an increasing share.
Advertising as a revenue stream, I think, is good and complimentary. Unfortunately, the markets don't necessarily love it. And then the second thing, generally speaking, for these businesses that drive huge GTB's, gross transaction values, is I think most people, when they try to find what they're worth,
are very sensitive to the take rate. And what they typically do is they assume a falling take rate, which means what percentage of the transaction can you get? And the reason why most people do that is that history has shown that these kinds of businesses cannot defend take rate for a very long period of time. Whether it's for competitive pressure or whether it's because their suppliers actually develop more pricing power,
Take rate tends to decay. So said in, you know, in grocery land, I think it's because Walmart and Amazon will try to do it for much, much cheaper and or charge, just be more aggressive in how much they, they want to keep, which means it's less that you can maybe necessarily pass through. I don't know the Instacart business at all, but if I were starting to look at it, that's where I would focus is what are the assumptions on take rate?
And if the take rate is going up and it would be a little bit of a head scratcher, I think that you have to model the health of the business with a declining. Yeah, I can actually build on that pretty easily having spent a long time in the advertising market. If this was very profitable advertising, Chamath,
It would get a 25x multiple on earnings. Let's take that 800 million. You put it at 400 million in profits. If the other business didn't exist, so you have 400 million in profits of advertising times that by 20, you get a billion.
That's exactly their market cap. So it, perhaps what you're saying is exactly what the market is, is actually penciling out, uh, Google, which obviously has a lot of other technologies, I think a 28 X PE and Facebook is crushed at like a 35 P but these are much different scale and scale matters.
this is not one or two billion in you know little extra revenue on top of your business that's the entirety ninety ninety five percent of that i think what's working in favor of insta card is that if you compare it to probably uber and or dash or airbnb at least airbnb dash. I'm gonna guess.
that it looks pretty cheap. Now, I think of all the three businesses, Dash probably has the biggest upside quite just like, again, parms length. I don't I don't know any of these three stocks. I'm just saying business model quality Dash seems infinitely scalable. Airbnb, I think probably has long term issues with take because of this exact reason could just competitive dynamics and pressure regulatory capture. You're seeing that in New York for Airbnb.
And then the question is, what is the business outside the United States look like for Instacart? I don't know. But if I had to figure out what to pay for, that's how I would kind of try to break the problem down. Sax, any of your thoughts on the actual business here or do you want to jump over to Clavia?
Yeah, I think Clavio is the really interesting one, at least from my standpoint, because it's a software business. I think Jason Lemkin had the take here. He said that Clavio's IPO will be the ultimate yardstick for SAS in 23 and 24. Top growth, top margins, top founders, going to cruise past a billion in ARR. Whatever multiple they end up trading at, you're almost certainly worth less. I think it's trading at about 12 times forward revenue.
So just a last quarter, they did a hundred and sixty five billion. As high as sixty five million. Sorry.
Yeah, so they're at $650 million in ARR growing 56%. That's amazing. So you're over here, 51% of the year. So, you know, project that for, they're probably going to be at a billion in ARR next year, 119% in ARR, which is very good, especially considering that is from S&B's. Explain that to folks, yeah. Isn't that revenue retention? The way to think about that is if you just look at your existing customers, going into next year, what percent of that subscription base
is going to be there. And if it was 80%, it would be 20% of your customers are turning away. If it's 119%, it means you have expansion from your customer base. In other words, your customers are buying more. And there will be some who turn, but the ones who are expanding more than make up for that. And then they've been very capital efficient. Apparently, they've only burned 15 million today. That does not mean they've only raised 15 million. They've raised
several hundred million in various growth rounds, but they still got that money in the bank. So I assume they raised it as a cushion in case they missed their forecast or something like that. Yeah, it seems like a pretty strong business. But I think his point is right is that they're kind of the ceiling, you know,
So I think founders still have maybe unrealistic expectations from the days when SaaS businesses were being valued 100 times ARR. Have you had this conversation, SaaS, with folks coming in for funding who have great businesses or let's call them good to great businesses somewhere in that zone? There are 7, 8, 9 businesses, but their valuations are way off.
And do you bring up, hey, here's what your company would be worth publicly. This is what your last round is. And then trying to negotiate in between those two numbers because it does seem like founders are bringing that up proactively in some meetings with me. They're actually aware of public comps now and they're kind of admitting
Hey, I get it kind of situation. Yeah, I think thunder expectations of adjusted on this. Yeah, which is healthy. Yeah. When you're in a hot market, there's definitely a lot of sharing among founders of what's happening and where valuations are at. And I think the same thing is probably happening in the down market as well. So, yeah, I think everyone's getting more realistic. Yeah. Just to finish on Clabby, I just want to give a shout out to Toby Lukey, the best
Thing that I saw about that was that Shopify actually owns like 11% of this company, which I think like if you look at the corporations again just doing an incredible job of building an ecosystem, not only does Toby support these companies, but Shopify ends up owning a huge non-trivial portion. I think Shopify owns like 11 or 12% of Clavio. Amazing. I think with the sale of the Flexport, deliver back to Flexport, they own 13 or 14% of it.
I suspect they probably own a non-trivial share of Stripe. It's incredible. If you do some of the parts on Shopify, cash and cash equivalents are only valued at like two or three billion. So I feel like there's a ton of upside there just for free. Again, I don't own it. I haven't done the work, but I'm just saying it seems like he's great.
So I think that brings up a really interesting point, which is the only vulnerability or negative, I think, about Cloudbio's business is the fact that 70% of it is on Shopify. So that's a platform dependency. And whenever 70% of your business is on one platform, you always have to be afraid of getting the rug pulled out from under you. By the way, that was PayPal's problem. Back in the day, 20 years ago, 70% of our business was on eBay. eBay had a competitor who were constantly worried that they were going to pull the rug out from under us.
If we could have made a business deal with eBay, we would never have had to sell the company. It would have been ideal. I think Clavio was really smart, creating alignment with Shopify by letting them invest, giving them equity, doing a rev share agreement. They would be smart to continue that rev share agreement into the future to take this risk off the table because investors do not like existential risk. You could have a perfect business, but if there's some hard to quantify risk of the whole thing basically getting rug pulled, then how do you discount that?
David as an investor, you look at that and you're like, okay, I then price this company as a function of Shopify. That's a good point. I mean, 70% of the business is Shopify. The way I would look at it is I would price it as a SaaS business because Shopify is more of a transact. Well, they're a transactional slash SaaS business. Clavius is a superior SaaS business. I'd price this as a SaaS business, but I would have to create some sort of discount for the chance.
Well Shopify adds the features. How do you figure that out? That's a really complicated thing to figure out. Yeah, I agree. But I think that Clavio mitigates the risk to extent they do this like rough share agreement. It's a really savvy move for people who have insights into the market to own pieces of emerging companies and lock in that partnership. This was Emil Michael, a shout out at Uber and Travis did this
with all of the grabs dds etc and then dara just slowly sold those positions and they were incredible cash. Creative to that stock and to running that business let's talk about air table for a second this also trended on twitter with the tweet storm if you don't know what air table is kind of like what is it. It's like excel meets a database and it's more programmable so if you wanted to have a bunch of it is it.
A lot of small businesses use it, medium-sized businesses, and they use it to, let's say, instead of hiring somebody to build a database system. It's like Google Sheets on steroids. It's actually a really good product. It's a really sick product. I've seen it use like 10 different ways. Some people use it for tracking product feature requests.
and, you know, task lists. Some people use it for contact database. Some people use it for complex project management. It's super extensible, super easy to use and a great collaborative tool. Like it's like a spreadsheet for words instead of numbers.
Yeah. Yeah. But you could also do numbers. Yeah. With a lot of great features that you can do really dynamic things within the spreadsheet. Do you guys believe in this Swiss Army knife approach of building these kinds of things? Or do you believe that it's just cheaper and simpler to build best in class versions of each of those use cases free bird that you just allow certain businesses to have a very specific.
tunable version of what they need from call it a project management tool. So if you use a traditional project management tool, it may be too overbuilt or it may be too specific, whereas this tool allows you to build something unique for your platform. So that's where I've seen a lot of teams use it instead of other tools like Jira or whatever for tracking. Well, this is the point where I just wonder that you get these
small, non-scalable use cases, because then if the company is successful, don't they then just migrate to JIRA, for example? No, I do it a lot like spreadsheets. Basically, the reason people use spreadsheets for so many different things is because everyone's got their own representation of data and utilization of a spreadsheet. And I think this is just an extension of that. It's a cult. Think about it as a more feature-rich spreadsheet tool.
I actually think that Jamaz's question is an excellent one. I tweeted many years ago that the way I saw Excel was the long tail of use cases that hadn't moved into a dedicated SAS app yet. That's interesting, yeah. And that the way that if you wanted to be a SAS founder, you're trying to come up with ideas, find some really complicated Excel spreadsheet that's used across many different businesses. And just figure out if you can move that into a SAS app. So for example, think about Harda.
You know, before cart appeal, just use a spreadsheet for the cap table and every company. Totally. The cap table is totally, totally, but they just move that into specific SaaS app. So I think there's a lot of that. And so. And all the spreadsheet is it's a visual representation of a database with some relational logic that you build into the, the cells of the spreadsheet and this, this pattern of part.
breaking apart a major product was the playbook for craigslist people looked at craigslist and said oh, there's couch surfing make that airbnb oh, there's a ride sharing i'm going to l.a i have two extra seats that became like uber so people this playbook has a visual of that to where every category of craigslist became it's like five stars yeah it was one.
Well, you know free break everybody uses a different that's interesting that comes to you. That's no one that comes first Craigslist was a huge dating product before dating apps came it was casual counters or missed what was it called? Missed connections misconnections misconnections hilarious to read it was like me you the number four I think the point I think the point though the question that I was asking is exactly this which is you have these beefed up
workflow things that happen in Excel, but then eventually you go to these systems of record that are purpose-built to solve the use case. And if the use case is important enough, it just seems like that's what's happened. I don't have a view because I've never used the product, but I wonder whether part of this valuation reset doesn't reflect that dynamic. It is a dynamic. The two companies or two or three companies that represent it best is there's a product called CODA.
uh, which is part wiki part air table part database and it's programmable and notion. And now people are making templates in notion and then they're adding.
things like project management. So I asked my team to do project management for events and they tried base camp. They were looking at a sauna. And then somebody was like, you know what, I just added it to notion is good enough. It's not as good as those other two products, but it's good enough. And we don't have to. And the reason they want to do it was not because we're cheap. I don't want to spend money on another SaaS product. We don't want to have to teach everybody a new SaaS product. We don't have to want to do the logins for that. So I think it is a natural tension and people are doing both.
Some people like the best of breed, but you also seeing it. I don't know if you saw this past week's Slack added. I think during Dreamforce, the ability to give you an AI summary of everything you missed and then zoom added AI summaries of calls. So that feature.
that I guess otter and some other people were doing, that feature is now built into Zoom. You get a transcript from Zoom for free and now you get a summary of the call for free. That is work that was done by somebody on the meeting, right? Somebody was responsible for being the notetaker. Sometimes somebody was, so those are jobs that are gone. And I think it speaks to the bigger economy. I had the CEO of Kayak on this week and startups this week. It will come out next week.
It's really great. And I asked him about hiring and the size of the company said, I'm not hiring anybody in the next year or two, because all my developers are 30 or 40% better. I got junior developers that are acting like senior developers. I got senior developers who are turning into 10x developers. We're not hiring. We're just going to have increased margin. So what happened to air table?
Airtable had a massive valuation. Here's the tweet storm that somebody from CB Insights, this guy Anand, who I think I follow him. Did something happen or nothing? Well, they're most recently valued at 11.7 billion in December, their 20, 21 series app.
His thesis, not only is air table worth less than 11.7 billion, it's likely worth less than 1.4 billion in funding it has raised to free birds from bringing this point up over and over about the overfunding and cash in is less than the valuation. Most of these unicorns are worth less than their total press stack. This is a good example. I've just been through this this week. I saw there's a company I was an investor in that I saw this happen.
They're a big problem. They're doing over 100 million of ARR. It's a great product and 150 million of ARR. That's no small feat. The problem is the growth rate. I think it's only 15%. What do you do with the founder's sex? Because this was my point earlier.
is in these circumstances, it's still a good business. Investors are going to want to own these shares at some price. Someone will buy new shares at some price. But to do this transaction, given that the preference in the company, which is effectively debt, is greater than the value of the company, the founders and the employees get their ownership stakes wiped out. I think their only hope is to go public because that wipes out the prep stack and everyone basically just owns their percentage of the company.
if they don't go public and if they found it. Why would a private investor do that? Why would a preferred investor allow that to happen? Well, this is going to be the huge tension on the board is that if you're a common holder or if you're one of the early investors of the company, you want to go public. If you're a late stage investor, you don't want to give up your preference. But those late stage people's acts did not have blocker rights in many cases because the market was so hot, they just put the money in without a bill. Unless they had a ratchet into the IPO, but yeah.
Yeah, but in many cases, but that's not a universal truth. In the majority of these cases, the preferred shareholders do have significant representation on the board. They do have the ability to influence whether or not the company is going to go public, and there's likely some middle ground that every company ends up having to meet at, which is we're going to recap the company in a way that we're going to give some shares
Julius, you'd share the founders. What we saw with Doritash. Doritash, they got dragged along. Yeah, in Doritash, I think they all just got dragged out. They didn't have a choice. My understanding of some of these late rounds during peak zerp, 2021, from talking to Bill Gurley, was people did not negotiate those rights. The blocker rights weren't available. And if the majority of commons says, we're going public, you're going public.
And that's the, that's the end of the story. Here's, here's the punchline to the air table. If you look at the, uh, Ford price to sales multiple 78 acts for an $11.7 billion valuation at $150 million ARR. And you compare it to the trailing price to sales multiples in the project management space Mondays at 12 acts plus Asana 6.6 acts and smart sheets at just around eight acts. So it's a challenge.
Yeah, well, to Freeburg's point, one of the downsides of taking all this excessive capital at these ridiculous valuations is that it produces a dynamic in your boardroom where your board members are at war with each other. The late stage investors are going to be at war with the early stage investors and the founders. And who knows who comes out on top of that?
I don't know if you guys have, but I've got like so many anecdotes over the last couple of months on this exact scenario playing out. We'll take us through and amalgamation of those, you know, without talking about specific ones, but you know, you can make an amalgamation. What is the dynamic and how does it work itself out? Investor invested a multi-billion dollar valuation. The company is now worth 20% of that valuation.
And the investors have more money in the company than it is worth. And the company needs more cash. They can't go public at this rate because the markets are shut down. No one's going to buy new shares. They can't raise cash by going public. So they have to raise cash in the private markets. So then the tough question is, okay, what's the value of the company? In almost all of these cases, the CEO has been replaced.
or with some professional CEOs, there's a new option pool created, equal to 10 to 15% of the company, new options are issued, and a round is done at a significant discount and there's a huge recap and a pay to play, and all this other sort of stuff starts to play out that the original founders and the company get wiped out. Most of the management team leaves because their options are now worthless, and the investors who historically have been totally passive late stage investors have had to step in and try and take action in rebuilding a management team, which guess what? They're not necessarily good at.
It ends up becoming this really nasty unwinding of the business because everyone thinks, oh, well, I deserve to get a fair deal because I put money in and I have a preference in this company. Founders don't want to see their ownership go down from 20 percent to 2 percent. They're like, why would I keep working for 2 percent? I'm fully vested. I'm going to leave. The management team is like, wait a second. I'm getting offers left and right to go join other companies. It's a real nasty unwinding.
And I think that's the scary scenario that's likely going to play out. Not all, but a good chunk of these companies that are, there are still businesses, they have decent value to their business, but they just raise too much capital relative to the valuation of the business today. If you looked at it on a blank piece of paper, these businesses would look incredible at whatever the true valuation is today. But if you have the psychological hindsight bias of what the price was two years ago,
You just can't see that change. Get it. Totally. I can't get it. And by the way, I will say- In the structure, there's legacy structure in the cap table from- Yeah. Meaning there's this press stack. I will say that the terms are so crazy good for the recap.
that investors are clawing their way into the recap program. Well, I mean, oh my gosh, I get to make markets are healing. That's means we're in the endgame, right? No, that's part of what's happening. Part of what's happening is it's totally predatory. It's totally predatory. I've seen this when you have to go public again. I think that when there's a recap and the founder is still running the company, there's a chance of it being fair. But when they bring in a new CEO who then does a recap. Oh, yeah, they don't care.
They don't care. They don't care. They don't care exactly. And all these recaps turn into a disaster. Yeah. Well, it's recap or you're going to go out of business. So I mean, this is a force and function and everybody party too hard. I think it's time for everybody's favorite part of the show, which is to give Chamath his flowers. Here we go.
Chamath, the Fed, spoke this week, and it's time for Chamath to take his victory lap. Here he goes, everybody. Chamath, is this... Is this... This is Vangelis, yes. Vangelis doing chariots of fire. This week, the Fed said to quote Chamath. Well, does that look like Peter?
This is this is but interest rates with connections to the deep state for longer. There he is. There's some leading the pack. I sent my I sent my talking points from six months ago to my deeps up to our friend deep state. Deep state sent the note.
And deep state sent it to the Fed and the Fed just cut and pasted it into the race. We'll stay higher for longer. You run on this? We don't care. Who cares? I don't think anyone understands what it is that Jamal said that he's taking a victory lap on. Why don't you say that? That rates will stay higher for longer. And now he takes his victory lap. All right. Enough of the shenanigans.
Chamat said, rates will stay higher for longer. The Fed said, rates will stay higher for longer. At the end. Congratulations, Chamat. You got it right. Thanks. Okay. Well, let's actually talk about it. We're going to give our chariots a fire. No! Chamat, you're searing a medal! Here he is! Chamat can give yourself a medal in the group chat. This is Obama. This is when Obama, who is Obama giving the medal to? What's the real picture here? It's Obama.
Is he giving it to Biden? I think he's giving it to Biden. So I think what happened this week is actually pretty important because I think the markets were really trying to force Jerome Powell to start the cutting cycle. And now they had to move the date at which they could expect cuts out by a year.
And I think that we're only starting to see the reverberations of that. You're going to have to reprice a lot of risk assets. So if you put it all together, oil is creeping back up. So commodity prices essentially are trending up. I don't think that's going to have a big impact on inflation because of the way that
owner equivalent rents and core CPI is calculated because it's calculated on this six month lag, this dumb nonsense of just how arcane our system works. But that's going to spike down. So basically the feds like saying, we know all of this is happening. We're sitting on our hands. But the problem is that if you add another 100 basis points to your discount rate for an unprofitable SaaS company, my gosh, guys, you're taking like another
turn and a half of market cap out of the business. Like if you thought it was worth eight times, it's now worth six and a half, six times. So unfortunately that's going to hurt everything that's not the top seven tech companies.
And everything else is just going to just kind of meander along for a much longer time. So it's really good for the magnificent seven. I think it's really bad for everything else. And we're going to be in a holding pattern for a while. Crude oil.
is at, let's say, $89 a barrel. Yeah, it's getting back up there. I told, remember this conversation, I told my CEOs, guys, let's get enough cash to last through the middle of 25. Sure. Remember, I was pretty clear about that to folks. I mean, get to default a lot, but if you can't, please have enough money to the mid of 25. I think that that was wrong. I think now you got to be Q1 of 26.
and maybe even mid-26. So now I have to go back to all these CEOs and redo an entire justification for why they need to cut even more people, cut even more expense, cut more burn. I don't know where we're going to find another year of burn in most of these businesses. So I was wrong by at least a year, Jason, because of this. I think I got the words right, but I got the timing wrong. Just to further translate this. Okay, so the markets right now are definitely taking a bath.
The growth stocks are off significantly. Expect them to be off more. The reason is because the market had started to price in rate cuts next year. Now the Fed is saying that because inflation ticked up a little bit, it's not coming down as much. We have higher energy prices. We may not get those rate cuts. I think the Fed still maintains that we'll get 50 basis points of rate cuts next year, but the market was pricing in more. I think people are starting to wonder if we'll even get the 50.
So as a result of that, interest rates are going to stay higher longer, which means that risk capital be less available. So valuations are going to go down or at least they're not going to be racing back up like they used to. When I was saying mid 25 sacks, that was because the forward curves started showing cuts in early 23. You know what I mean? So I was like, okay, let's assume they're wrong by 18 months. It turns out that that initial data point in early 22, my God, we were wrong by three years.
It's not a year and a half. It's brutal. I think the next factor here is that we're running almost $2 trillion deficits in peacetime. We're not in a direct war, we're in a proxy war, but in relative peacetime and in a relatively decent economy.
what happens if either of those things change and what happens to long-term rates as all of these debt issuances have to get raised as the Fed has to keep selling more treasuries to fund our deficit and debt at these higher rates do long-term rates keep going up based on the debt financing needs of the federal government. And this is again where we made a huge mistake by politicizing this idea of
raising money beyond 30 years. We made that mistake under the Trump presidency because people reacted to Trump saying it. But it was the smartest thing we could have done to give our kids and our grandkids a reasonable economy. And Freeburg has been right all along about just like our spending is just going up and up and up. And now short-term rates are
really high, maybe we'll have enough political will to just get out of the Fed's way, and the Fed can actually look at raising in durations past 30 years. Because if you believe that we're going to start an aggressive cutting cycle at some point, and you believe we'll get back to a 2% terminal rate, you could theoretically justify 50, 60 year bonds
at much lower than the third year, but I don't see it happening. Here's a really good way to look at this. There are prediction markets. This one call she is when I use KLSH. I chances of a rate cut by May of 2024.
29% chance. And these are people actually making bets on these things. And so it has gotten pushed out. And I guess 74% chance by the fourth quarter, third fourth quarter of next year, people think they'll be already cut. So we're a year away from a rate cut. Everybody needs to just take that off the table, which means the translation for founders for GPs is performance has to go up. You got to beat
five, six, seven percent or whatever people are going to get on those other instruments, corporate debt, 10, 11, 12 percent. You got a really hard bogey to beat here. The alternative to that statement is that total capital has to go down in order for the capital remaining to have its return multiple increased, given that there's a generally
set number of companies that are gonna generally create a certain amount of value over the next couple of years. And the way to create that value is, so if that's true, well, I'm saying if there's a bunch of startups that are gonna make $100 billion of market value over the next five to seven years, you need to have less capital going into those companies in order for that capital to generate a higher return. Which on your day-to-day basis means what? Explain on a day-to-day basis. On a day-to-day basis, it means there's gonna be less companies that are gonna get funded, but more importantly, there's gonna be less LP money going into venture.
and there's going to be less capital available to fund startups in aggregate by significant amount. On a daily basis, you need to do more with less as a founder. You need to delight customers with less resources, spend less money on marketing, send less money on teams, and get to profitability. You've got to be a stronger founder. I'm seeing it across the board in the seed stage. Two, three, four founders raising $250 million instead of raising three to five. I got to be honest, Jekyll, I thought it was much easier
to kind of say the sky was falling this time last year. Sure right now. And I think that people are a little bit, again, exhausted about hearing this message constantly of like a couple more. It's like,
I think that they're exhausted. And I see a lot of founders that are exhausted and giving up. There's a lot of giving up. They're like, I can't cut anymore. And now I do think we have to go back to them and say, if we're doing our jobs right, okay, even, okay, look, our now, our strategic view was right. But the time scale of our analysis was wrong.
And I think now you got a plan to mid 26. I don't even know where to start to be honest with that. Actually, what I'm seeing is people are merging companies and M&As picking up because, hey, you got two companies doing five million each, but they're burning two million each a year, cut half the team, put one team with the other. And I think you're going to just see some of that portfolio consolidation happen. Go ahead, sex.
I think one way to put it is that we've had a regime change. Those are the words that we've been using for a while. Specifically, we've gone from a regime of capital abundance to a regime of capital scarcity.
And I think a lot of people are holding out hope that there's going to be a quick bounce back because we've cut these interest rates and capital would start flowing again in a big way. And I think that the Fed here has dumped a bucket of cold water on the markets, basically saying we're not bouncing back to capital abundance anytime soon. We're going to be in this environment of more capital scarcity. And that's what I think if this founders and VCs now have to take into account is
This shift could be permanent or it could last a while. It could last a fact in your sure. We're seeing a lot of the question I have is just what do you guys think is going to happen to the consumer? Because I actually think that even though founders in many cases could cut more and they could have acted faster, I actually think that the B2B economy has kind of taken its licks. I mean, for the last year we've been in this
software recession, companies have been sharpening their pencils. They've been cutting costs and getting more efficient. Yes, you could say maybe they haven't done enough, but the consumer has still been strong. But what is the consumer going to do now that credit card rates and interest payments are at all time highs? They're going to cancel their house.
No, here's what they're going to do. They're going to skip an iPhone cycle. Instead of going from, you know, 13 to 14 or 14 to 15, they're going to go 13 to 16, 14 to 17. They'll just skip, which I did for the first time. I don't need to skip it, but I was just like, this 13 is good enough. They're going to skip upgrading their car. You're going to keep your car for an extra two or three years. And if you were thinking about moving your house, you're going to say, you know what, I'm going to make this housework. We're going to put two of the kids in a room. I think that is, that is it. I think that's a very,
I think that's very well said. The other side of it is that some of these industries where you have these large ticket purchases that drive consumer consumption, their backs are against the wall. Look at the automakers. The deals that the unions have proposed to the automakers will cause them from, I thought I saw an analysis of Ford, where Ford would go, if you just did a proforma and went back the last couple of years, they would have gone from like,
30 billion or profits to minus 17 billion of losses. So that's a $47 billion swing in the Ford P&L. The only way they overcome that is with more expensive cars, which Jason to your point means that those cars are not going to get sold. I do think that you're going to just have a little bit of belt tightening in the consumer.
I think this is interesting. I think, you know, Trimath, you're right, that at the same time that the auto companies are facing what you'd expect to be reduced demand because no one can afford a car payment at these higher interest rates. The unions are going on strike demanding. Oh, I think this is existential and higher wages for a four day work week.
How does this work? I think that the labor deal is an existential risk to the unionized auto industry in America. And I'm not oplining on whether this deal should or should not happen. I'm just making an observation. If the deal as announced happens,
And you sensitized stellantis gm and ford's p&l to these new terms. And then you compare that against non unionized highly automated organizations like Tesla and Rivian. It's going to be very difficult for the established auto industry to survive. And then if you layer on top of it.
7, 8, 9% consumer lending rates for new cars, forget about it. And yet the Fed forecast at the same meaning they were being hawkish about rates, they also said that they were expecting unemployment next year to be 4.1% down from their previous expectation of 4.5% and they forecast that economic growth would be higher. So I just don't understand how these countervailing forces aren't going to create so much stress in the economy that something breaks.
And these idiot unions, honestly, they're timing is so dumb, whether it's the ones in Hollywood or this car strike, while they're shutting down their plans. Well, it's great for Tesla. I mean, it's giving Tesla the entire U.S. auto market. Tesla is lowering the price when I bought my Model Y long range. I think I paid 72 for it. The old price on this chart says 66. That car is now 53.
That's down 20%, a 13,000 I'll say is the Model Y long range, I think is the greatest vehicle ever made. I paid $57, I think, for my Model Y long range. Oh, no, no, I think I, sorry, I paid $57, I paid this price for the Model Y performance, the best car. And yeah, that'll be a $40,000 car in the next three years. Well, you know, and I looked at it and I, speaking of austerity measures, I was like, I have a Model X. Do I get another Model X? I think I'll just go with the Model Y.
Because the Model X is 50% more and I just prefer the Model X. I think this labor deal is going to put tremendous pressure on these established automobiles. China is now the world's largest exporter from when I understand that just happened.
They work. I looked it up 58 to 64 hours a week. Factory workers, the US factory workers want to work 32 hours a week. They want a four day work week. I mean, I don't understand the timing of these unions. I mean, they're just going to move these factories to Mexico or I think it's reasonable for the unions to ask for as much as possible on behalf of their members. That's like,
obvious and good, because meaning if you're collecting fees from those folks and you're doing a good job on their behalf, your job is to ask for as much as possible. I get that. Where I see the breakdown is that it just doesn't seem like there's enough numeracy between them and the companies that they're negotiating against to really sit down and look at what the impact of this is, because you may get a short-term labor deal that you can celebrate
But it may actually destroy that union member's pension. Yes, it may destroy the company. And this is my concern is that then that has to get built up by the US taxpayer. And once it happens in one industry, it's going to be very difficult to actually not do it in other industries. And the thing that needs to be understood is the risk that it puts on those kinds of tail outcomes. And I think that that's not well discussed. Nobody in the media is really talking about it. They make it a
a moral issue of like, what is the CEO pay versus what is the ratio? And yeah, sure. Look, that's an important issue at some level. But if you, for example, like you have US senators blathering on about how they'll wear a suit and not look like a homeless bum. If this deal happens in that and it's like, well, that's not what you should be saying. What you should be saying is my team has done a financial analysis. And here's what it shows.
They're not saying that. This is crazy. What you're saying is that the negotiation and also the political dimension of this have become completely untethered from economic realities. Yes. They are negotiating in the review mirror. They basically talked about whatever billions of dollars in profits the companies previously had during the SERP environment during the heyday. It's just timings off.
Just add it to the list of latent problems in this economy. It just feels to me like something is about to break, but who knows? I mean, if the, it's your point, Saksu, you keep bringing up like what happens with the consumer. I think they just slow their role, you know, staycation instead of your application. General Larry Summers said at the summit, he said that soft landings are like second marriages, the triumph of hope over experience.
Yes. I mean, everyone's talking about a soft landing. Everyone's banking on a soft landing, but soft landings are actually exceedingly rare. When you have very fast rate tightening cycles, it generally has a very predictable effect on the economy. There's a lag, but the effect is very predictable, which is it causes recessions.
And then I would argue we've already been in a beta beta recession. We're starting to come out of that. But I think the consumer has been hit yet. And maybe that has to do with all the stimulus they pushed through. Yeah. And that created some amount of
cushion for the consumer. But I just wonder if that cushions run out now, we're about to enter a new phase. And what all of these strikes do, if you overplay your hand, Shamoth is automation. So this happened in New York just over 10 years ago, the fast food workers wanted, you know, I think it was 15, 20 bucks an hour. Okay, seems reasonable. And they replaced every cashier. You go to McDonald's now, you're ordering on the app or you're ordering
on a kiosk in the space, and we have an investment in a company called HelloMeter, but this company does is pretty simple. They just study what's going on inside fast restaurants, and then they just increase the speed at which people are getting served, and they're crushing it. Why?
People can hire people. There's not enough immigrants in the country anymore. We have an anti-immigration thing going on here, so unemployment's too low, and the salaries are too high. It's not working. A lot of restaurants are breaking because a $30 or $40 dishwasher is the difference between a restaurant being profitable or not.
All right, listen, there's apparently some potential major breakthrough in autoimmune disease treatment with this new inverse vaccine. Let's go to our science correspondence, the Sultan of science himself for science corner. The taxes turns his camera off.
I'm here. I'm here. Geez, you wouldn't even let me get away with that. Nope. We were zoom shaming you. Do not leave. You can learn something, Saks. I just want to give you a shout out. I just have my super got chocolate. Oh, so good. I just got my super gut protein and the weight loss continues. Health.
There was a paper published in the journal Nature this week, which I thought was worth highlighting. Saks, you're gonna be quizzed afterwards on exactly what I say during this and the implications for it. We've all heard of and know folks that have autoimmune conditions and some of us may suffer from them. An autoimmune condition is when our immune system mounts an attack against a protein that exists in our body, that is natively part of our body. Our immune system kind of mistakes that protein for being a foreign antigen.
So the term antigen refers to proteins that the immune system views as invading and it needs to go in and attack. So when the immune system messes up and it sees a protein in our body as being a foreign antigen and starts attacking it, you get these autoimmune conditions. And autoimmune conditions, as you know, are very debilitating.
cost on the health system on people's lives, the top 10 autoimmune diseases like lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, even type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, irritable bowel, showgrins, Hashimoto's, thyroiditis, these are all pretty in different ways damaging diseases. So this team at University of Chicago in 2019 published a paper where they actually took an antigen
and glycosylated it. So basically attached some sugar molecules and carbohydrate molecules to it and presented it in the liver. So they put it into the blood and it showed up in the liver and they were able to cause type one diabetes to not develop in an animal model that was supposed to get type one diabetes. So they did an extension of that work and the team has gotten broader and they just published this week a much more substantive paper that highlights a pretty incredible technique that may potentially address
a long list of autoimmune conditions. So they take the antigen, the protein that is... Sorry, in the type one example, are you saying like the beta cells didn't get destroyed? Like it just stopped everything on a time. Yeah. So the immune system has a bunch of ways for self-regulating. There are T cells in our body called Treg cells, the regulatory T cells.
Their job is to go find the T cells and the antibodies that are attacking our own protein. That's their job. And when they don't do their job, the antibodies and the T cells go and attack our own body. So T reg cells, kind of when they're turned off, they're not doing their job. So it turns out that when a protein is presented in the liver, in this particular part of the liver,
The immune system recognizes that protein as being a safe protein. And there's a regulatory process that gets kicked off that causes the immune system to start to see that protein as being safe. It should not be attacked. And P reg cells start to develop and other systems start to develop that tell the whole immune system, stop attacking this protein. This is a safe protein. This is our body should not be attacked. This is like friendly fire, right? Like do not. It's like friendly fire. Do not attack this protein.
So what they did is they took several antigens, proteins and glycosylated them, meaning they put some molecules on them, put them in the blood, just with an IV hookup, they go into the liver. And once they're in the liver, the immune system sees them and is like, whoa, these are totally safe now. And they found by analyzing all the different T cells, the regulatory pathway that emerged that caused the body to stop attacking that protein. And they were able to end MS
using this induced system in animals. So basically, we have a known model for making multiple sclerosis show up in animals, and they were able to stop MS in the animals by taking this particular protein that they use for MS, and they put it in the liver. They did the same with an egg allergy, and they did the same with several other antigens. This represents a very novel
and seemingly super impactful and powerful way to think about eliminating autoimmune disease going forward is that we can take the antigen and we now know the antigen or the protein that causes almost all of these autoimmune conditions from thyroiditis to lupus to RA to MS, and we can take that protein glycosylated, put it in an IV, ends up in our liver, gets presented, and our immune system realizes I shouldn't be attacking this anymore and resolves it.
So it opens up a whole new category of therapeutic pathways for addressing all autoimmune conditions. It's a totally new modality. It's a very interesting approach. It'll be studied more deeply. Folks will take this paper and try and start to develop very specific therapeutics.
for very specific autoimmune conditions using this approach. Hopefully, over the next couple of years, we see some of these things have success, gain traction, and go to market. These autoimmune diseases are typically some combination of genetic and environmental. This is not attacking them on that basis. It's attacking them in a different modality.
So there's two ways that we address autoimmune conditions today. The first one is by presenting the antigen to the immune system before you develop autoimmunity. This is like, you know, when they give little bits of peanuts to kids and that's how you present prevent peanut allergies in most autoimmune conditions were past that point. The immune system has already developed T cells and antibodies to go and attack. So that doesn't work.
The second way is immune suppression. And that's terrible. Globally suppressing, meaning on the whole body, turning off the immune system is not healthy in a lot of ways. And that's the current, you know, kind of testing class. So this is a new approach, which is we can actually reregulate the immune system to not attack itself, to not attack our own proteins by introducing that protein with what's called glycosylation, getting it into the liver and boom, this magic starts to happen.
And we'll see what the side effects are as they start to try this on humans. We see we'll see what conditions are more effective than others. Sorry for the stupid basic question, but how is the, uh, how is it different when we put these into say like, uh, you said these were monkeys or chimpanzees. So how are their enuses different than Uranus? What? Sorry. Anyway, let's keep going here. Great science corner. I'm laughing at how contorted that.
You punch it up, you and I do these workshops. I'm just watching. We work on punching it up. We'll try to get a better Uranus show. Anyway, it's super cool. Auto-immune conditions. The world's getting better. The term of sovereignty refers to an approach to a therapeutic and this modality is a new modality. So it's a super exciting new kind of universe to be explored now on how we might be able to treat auto-immune conditions ranging from time to time. Let me try. Hold on.
Yes, that's on the science one. What part of the body do you think is going to be most impacted by these discoveries? No, the immune system. No, no, no, that's not good. OK, let me try. Let me try. Here we go. You guys are just so dumb about science. OK, here we go.
I thought the only solution to MS was a fecal transplantation through Uranus. Yeah. Okay. There's your winner. I like a fecal transplant because you kind of did a little misdirection there with the fecal transplant. And then we came back to Uranus. That would be the way to get that done. We're going to wrap here. Thanks to everybody who came. Brian Armstrong also did a great job. Elon did a great job.
Thanks to everybody who showed up for us. And if you want to watch all the talks, all the talks are being released exclusively on YouTube and X. So go to X and look at the all-in podcast Twitter handle and type all-in podcast on YouTube and you get to see all these talks available now. And Ray from the unofficial all-in podcast meetups is doing a 150th meetup for the fans in all different cities around the world. So just do a Google search for that.
for the sultan of science and the world's greatest conference producer, the dictator in the arena, making it happen. And four, when it paltrums, favorite bestie, David Sacks. And the industry is moderate. See you next time. Bye bye. We'll let your winners ride. Brain man, David Sacks. And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy. Love you.
What? You're a thief. What? We need to get mercy.